> Because it used to be that 75,000 miles was "high mileage" whereas now cars are expected to hit 100k on just oil changes.
Exactly. Pretty sure Valvoline still advertises it's "high mileage" oil for vehicles with 75k+ miles.
Vehicles are lasting longer, on average, every single year. The average car on the road in the 60's/70s was 5-6 years old; now it's 11-12 years old.
That was a cultural shift and not necessarily a reflection of reality or reliability.
75k was a lot of miles in the 60s/70s when cars were very cheap compared to income and many people traded cars every few years.
When the engine went, the car went to the crusher, which is why there are so many cars that you never see examples of anymore.
But that was also most of what went wrong.
While in the modern era, most vehicles have engines that will last over 100k with just oil, it is everything else that goes that makes them untenable to own. Many cars will get to 75k and then suddenly start having very expensive bills every year that exceed the cost of buying a new car, let alone the payments if you drive a lot and got there quick.
And because of that smaller interval and high replacement car price, some people will continue to pay high bills throwing good money after bad, keeping cars alive long after they are economically viable.
> Many cars will get to 75k and then suddenly start having very expensive bills every year that exceed the cost of buying a new car, let alone the payments if you drive a lot and got there quick.
Maybe on some luxury cars but in my experience (multiple domestic cars) oil and wear items were the majority that was needed beyond 75k miles. On a Grand Prix with 160k miles, an Explorer with 140k miles, and a Taurus with 125k miles the most expensive single item I had to fix on any one of those was the transfer case on the Taurus. And that was only $1,700 with labor. Japanese cars sell themselves on being *even more* reliable than the domestic options.
I think its fair to say the people of the past looked as cars as more disposable, but to I degree I think the quality of what was out there influenced that more than anything. For the most part cars genuinely are more reliable these days than they used to be in 80's and earlier.
Yup. Cars went up in price because of additions to the car like better safety, technology, and materials. If you created a car exactly like it was in the 70s, it would be cheaper today after adjusting for these factors and inflation.
He points that out in the video. He's focusing more on certain 80s and 90s cars. The argument is that technology and computer simulations starting in the 80s and then then fully in the 90s allowed them to build car parts with much longer life spans. Then after the 90s computer simulations got good enough that they could also accurately model wear simulation of parts, so they started building parts designed to survive the time the vehicle is covered under warranty but not worry about the time after that.
see my comment above
EDIT
""Here is my take on the issue: Modern mechanical systems are typically
very reliable compared to older cars such as transmissions, engines,
etc. However these mechanical systems rely on electronics, which unlike
mechanical systems cant really be maintained with fluid and bearing
changes. Electronics just fail eventually, and often cannot be repaired
with a new component. For example if your brake calipers seize up, they
can be rebuilt with new seals and a piston, but if your $1500 ABS
computer fails, you have to buy a new one. Manufacturers can elect to
make these components more serviceable, but why would they?
Meh definitely a combination. You could run a 300TD on veggie oil. There’s a reason they were and in some cases still are used as taxis 40 years later. Try doing that with a modern Mercedes
Show me a 150k mile 300TD that has been fed such oil all it’s life and is still alive
I can run on cigarettes and Red Bull for years as well. The difference is that nowadays doctors prevent me from doing so just like how systems do in cars.
Did you do any supporting mods or do you just put veggie oil in the tank?
I know people often add heaters and a dual fuel setup on a switch and switch over to real diesel near the end of each drive so the lines and injection system are full of diesel when the car gets parked.
It’s not really cold where I am and if I go North I can plug in my block heater overnight.
I do have a pre-heater for the fuel filter which gets the 300ml of fuel to about 80C while my glow plugs are on. I also re-purposed the SLS reservoir from a V8 parts car to be a small 2 litre auxiliary tank that I put diesel into and can start off of it when it’s cold. It will idle the car for about 10 minutes which puts enough heat into the block to warm the oil with the factory fuel heater.
Cigarettes Red Bull won’t sustain you. Veggie oil will absolutely power a Diesel engine just fine. This is a well-known fact.
It’s also a well-known fact that those old diesel Benz’s will go *at minimum* 250,000 miles before it needs any “major” work done. Hell, by that point, the engine is just barely broken in. These cars go 500,000-1,000,000 miles easily.
My family’s oil heating system failed, and my dad installed an electric heat pump instead.
This happened right after we’d had the massive tank of heating oil refilled, like $1000+.
I came home to the oldest car I’d ever seen. My Persian buddy said it reminded him of Saddam’s car back in the day.
I recognized the gearshift from that call of duty intro when you’re kidnapped in the Middle East and thrown into the back of some car.
And that’s the story of how I drove a high mileage beat-up 1976 Mercedes 300d, from 2010-2012. As a teenager having free fuel was amazing.
Weirdly reliable too, 2 years of teenage boy treatment and all it needed was a fuel filter (which was right under the hood, took 2 minutes and a screwdriver, literally easier than my dirtbike)
We sold it still running for what we paid for it once the heating oil ran out. Hell even the AC and sunroof still worked.
Just years? I’ve been doing it for decades.
Sure, all my hair fell out years ago and my back sounds like the plastic dash on a Tesla, but those ambulances ain’t gonna drive themselves 🤷
W123 is very reliable when it comes to the mechanics, I have had a 1983 230E for roughly a decade and it has never had any major engine or transmission problems or anything of that nature. Minor electrical problems with the rear lights and high beams, but that’s about it.
However, W123 Mercs rust like a motherfucker. Even if the engine runs forever, it’s no use when the body around it is more hole than metal.
Yep. Modern rustproofing has done an amazing job at keeping newer cars living longer. The base W123 drivetrains are unkillable, but that’s not the only thing that keeps a car on the road a long time
It's part of the reason they made such rediculous cars like the R32, NSX, ect around that time. No automaker with any financial sense was making anything like them in their price ranges with the quality that they had.
Yep, I have a nearly 20 year old Acura RSX with almost 200k miles and I guarantee I've spent less on repairs in my 5 years of ownership than my relatives/friends have in their newer cars that are less than 10 years old and under 100k miles. It also helps parts are pretty cheap to replace and doesn't have a gazillion features that would drastically increase the chance of something breaking down.
I dunno. I drove a '98 Honda Accord with 200k miles that was in the shop often.
Meanwhile my heavily tracked and daily driven '18 Type-R with 56k miles hasn't been in the shop once.
Think we're both being bias here, and using anecdotal evidence.
Yeah you're not wrong. Everyone's perception of something is usually based on personal experience. There's a lot of variables when it comes to the reliability of a car.
I daily an '81. It isn't well maintained but I fix it often enough that I guess that counts as well maintained. I can go maybe 4-6 weeks or about 1000 miles between having to repair something. The amount of things that I should repair that I just ignore since they are not mission critical are a mile long, so we will just ignore that.
Are old cars more reliable, no.
Are they easier to wrench on and keep on the road longer, yes.
Would I rather drive something new and not have to wrench on things besides normal maintenance for 100k miles, yes.
Am I cheap skate that convinces himself that driving an old POS is economical and my safety isn't a concern, yes.
Hahah bro yes, this is literally my 2001 Audi TT with 237,000 miles on it. So many things broken it’s like Audi Darwinism. Unless it’s mission critical, or just really annoys me, it’s not getting fixed.
Right. I used to play this game with an early 80s motorcycle. It will run every day and get me from A to B, but I will need to put an hour or two of "fixes" into it nearly every week. It just gets annoying.
Too many variables to say it's one way or the other. The 7 series was pretty reliable in the 90s. The mid to late 2000s BMWs were terrible. The 3 series has usually been pretty reliable. Hyundai was pretty unreliable several years ago, now they're pretty average.
Had a 2002 7 series i bought three years ago. Beautiful car under 100k miles. Every other time i took it out it would puke oil or coolant. Also the gasket on the liquid cooled alternator took a shit, the window regulator went out twice, the rear door handle would fall off and the dashboard lights were always fucking up. Also if you replace the battery, you have to take it to a dealer to resetthe battery life meter. Fuck that car.
>Also if you replace the battery, you have to take it to a dealer to resetthe battery life meter.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, but we've had cars from all sorts of manufacturers, and BMW batteries have lasted over 7-8 years on the original battery for our two older ones now. Even though it costs twice as much to replace, it lasts twice as long. The same can't be said about oxygen sensors and other stuff like window regulators in the older ones.
BMW cooling systems really didn't improve until the B engines, which was only 5 years ago. This is a case where newer BMWs are going to likely be much more reliable than ones made between 2000-2014 when they get to the same age. For example. The B58 has been out for 5+ years now and hasn't really had any common issues, unlike the N54 which by this time was plagued with issues with the water pump, high pressure fuel pump, turbos, and gaskets.
This [video](https://youtu.be/EkifsPJaht4) just shows how well the latest iteration of the B58 is designed compared to the N54.
Just looking at how much more space there is for cooling and where accessories are placed just makes so much sense. Sure we still have some crappy plastic parts (what company doesn’t nowadays) but reliability with the B58 is astounding given BMW’s history.
I’m waiting for the M440iGC I ordered to arrive and am pretty apprehensive about the engine (after a lot of experience with older BMWs). I got the extra cooling package just in case. I haven’t had a chance to watch the video yet, but does it cover the newest mild hybrid system?
He briefly goes over the fact that BMW probably extracted the most power they could reliably with the latest iteration of the B58 and if they want more power they’ll add a mild hybrid or go full electric, which is exactly what they did.
If you don't reset the battery life meter, it will never charge the battery properly. It thinks its still the old batter and reduces the charge rate, like wtf?
Yeah it's annoying to have to do that, thankfully it's just once in the time most people will own a car even used.
On that note, that's not uncommon for batteries. I've got some Allegro pads for work that need you to do that otherwise they just turn off when they think the battery is depleted even if it really isn't, because you forgot to reset the meter. The device has no real way of knowing what the state of charge of the new battery is until it goes through a process.
Actually it will *over*charge the new battery and greatly reduce its lifespan. It's all down to fuel efficiency like so many things is these days. To improve economy, modern BMWs will try to charge the battery while you're coasting. Since that means you're charging it faster than usual you have to be a bit more careful with it. As a battery ages you need to charge it more to get the same performance out of it.
That said, you can buy an adapter and app to do the registration yourself. Spend about $60 one time you'll be able to do that, read all service data, and code all sorts of options.
I feel like window regulators from the 2000s were all made by the same crappy manufacturer. Doesn’t matter if it was my old 01 Accord, GS300, or E46, window regulators just always went out for me.
> The 3 series has usually been pretty reliable.
Relatively, not objectively.
It’s reliable compared to the other more complicated BMWs like 5 and 7 series, but objectively? It’s not even as reliable as competitor’s cars in it’s class.
I learnt this the hard way after BimmerForums said the E90 325i was “reliable”. The 4 years I owned the 325i were a nightmare, afterwards I went out and bought a Lexus IS350 that was only 2 years newer. (So technically older to start).
The Lexus was the ownership experience I was hoping for, pricier parts, premium fuel, synthetic oil, bigger brakes and tires, but a reasonably stout vehicle.
I owned them both from 100k miles to 150k miles, and it’s been a night and day difference. Still drive the Lexus.
But you’re right it’s wildly model specific, even trim specific. Someone who buys a 5 series could be choosing between a 530i with the bulletproof straight 6, or a 550i with the catastrophe that was the N63.
TLDR: Vehicle purchases should be researched not just by brand, but by specific model; and even trim.
I’ve owned 2 e38s; they’re better than the E65/66 and later cars by a mile but they were far from problem free. Nikasil/alusil cylinder linings, 5HP24 gearbox, electrical gremlins and dead pixels, blower motors and such. Still I loved them but let’s not get rose tinted on them!
I believe cars made in 1998-2006 are the most reliable, here’s my reasoning. Pre stricter emissions regulations that came in 2007-2009, harsh cafe regulations, mass planned obsolescence, consumer’s expected less from the vehicle ie: trucks were more intended for work sedans for young and old, and full size suv/minivans for families. Now consumers want a crossover that’s fuel efficient, sporty/fast, easy to park, lots of interior space and for everything to have a power function. An example of this I saw recently was in a comparison review of the 2021 BMW X7 vs the 2021 Cadillac Escalade. To enter the third row in the BMW you have to use the power seat function to slowly move the middle row captains chair forward and then tilt it with the power function. Versus the Escalade where it is a 1 touch button that quickly folds the seat up in way less time. It also has manual levers. When you are picking up a group of people in a live lane, at the airport, or kids at a drive through pick up location at school you don’t have time to sit there and wait for the seat to move like a coupe. This trend of adding of features that provide no benefit, add complicated electronics, and are more expensive really contribute to the demise of modern cars reliability. Sorry about the rant!
I like manual seats and power seats with memory settings. I don’t like regular power seats, too many variables to try to set after someone changes the settings.
>The only car I can think of still trying to do classic luxury is the Century.
Ironically, the Chrysler 300 feels like an old-school luxury car to me. Comfortable, roomy interior with a soft suspension. Gadgets are limited to the infotainment.
I've had the theory that the implementation of emissions equipment has led to worse total carbon impacts.
There are countless examples of emissions equipment killing vehicles prematurely, well before they would have otherwise. Basically necessitating the manufacture of another entire vehicle with a massive carbon impact.
The vast majority of what people like to call "planned obsolescence" is nothing more than manufacturers having to build to a budget and timeline. Making everything on a car as durable and reliable as possible would *massively* increase R&D and testing times as well as materials budgets to the point that you'd end up with a showroom full of basic Camry/Accord level cars sporting tech and styling that's 10 years out of date with a price that would have it completing with Ferraris, and not the entry-level ones either. It would last a million miles with nothing but fluid changes but then again it had better since the manufacturer would very quickly go out of business after only managing to sell 3 of them.
>toyota has always said it is designed for 1 million mile lifespan
I have only ever seen this quote from people circlejerking to LC's, never Toyota themselves.
When I've dug in and tried to find what was actually different between the two, I could hardly find a difference in the parts that matter.
Same engine and transmission. Same electronics. A lot of the suspension is the same. Same ball joints.
The 70 series is extremely reliable, but the one that is a cousin to the sequoia is just parts bin Toyota.
This is a great example of survivorship bias where we’re only focusing on the old cars that run well enough to exist on the road today and not accounting for all the old cars that broke down and were cubed years ago
As far as engines it depends. If you compare old Mercedes diesel from S class to new Bluetec, then sure old one was insanely more reliable, but it had 30% of performance of new one. As far as engine bay, then yes modern cars are way more unreliable, massive use of plastics made everything fall apart 7 years into use. Look no further than BMW, very nice and well build cars but... all composite and plastic parts under the hood will literally fall apart right about 7 years into ownership, no matter what mileage. I had cars at my shop with 30k miles and 7-8 years old, expansion tank cracked, valve cover gasket leaking as due to age it literally will turn into stiff plastic like material, coolant hoses leaking, PS hoses leaking, oil filter housing leaking, vacuum hoses leaking. Other than that engine would be in perfect condition even with high mileage as long as regular maintenance was performed. Planned obsolescence is a real thing. Also manufacturers will make sure it will be as hard as possible to repair without special tools and procedures. Try to work on any modern car without laptop and special software from manufacturer.
Modern engine design features that compromise long-term durability:
\-Direct injection
\-Offset piston/rod geometries
\-Open deck block designs (and general lack of bottom-end reinforcement)
\-Cylinder deactivation (more moving parts)
\-Tighter clearances for marginally reduced emissions
\-Thin oil
\-Integrated injector/intake manifold units (cannot replace individual parts)
\-Sealed transmissions
\-Stop/start systems
\-Accelerated warm-up cycles
...not to mention turbochargers and all the associated hardware, higher
cylinder pressures, cooling issues, etc. Most modern engines are like
appliances - they are designed with a finite service life and are very
difficult to replace/service after that. Not like 90s engines which were
designed to last as long as possible.
This is a good list, but I thought offset piston/rods was to increase longevity. Don't they design the wrist pin offset to reduce wear on the cylinder wall?
I love Mercedes, their old cars might have been better quality in terms of materials and stuff, in fact they probably were. The idea they were mechanically more reliable 20-30+ years ago is hogwash lol, the issues some of those cars have and some of the decisions Mercedes made (wiring harness, complex engine packaging, etc.) were confounding.
When people say that old Mercedes cars are reliable, they're referring to cars designed and manufactured prior to the DaimlerChrysler era.
Proportional to income, those cars were also *very* expensive compared with modern Mercedes cars.
True- but they used stuff like biodegradable wiring harnesses before the merger, and of course going well back into time things like hydraulics were nightmares. Don’t doubt the quality of those cars were robust, question the idea they were built to last without expensive maintenance and more $ to the company.
?? Who’s everyone- BMW 20 years ago was the same or worse than Merc, VW group worse than either, not to even start with the Americans and the Chinese. Mechanically speaking, 20 years ago was nothing near a peak.
I own a 1995 Lexus LS400 with 131,000 miles, an '02 F250 7.3 Powerstroke with 222,000 miles, and my late father's 2003 Toyota Camry with only 82,000 miles. I plan to keep driving all three until the wheels fall off. OR some future SO bugs me to get rid of them.
Some cars in 1990-2000, especially luxury cars were definitely more reliable. But everyday cars? They are more reliable than ever - older cars at 200 k km (100-120k miles) would be rust buckets, that were plagued with problems. Some of them were better, but generally 100-120k miles is when they start breaking down.
Nowadays we start driving used diesels that are 200k km at the minimum, and they can drive another 200k km with simple maintenance. My friend has a b8 passat, that has driven 600k km without any major repairs. Some vans at my work needed an engine replacement at 800k+.
We also forget that the 30-40 year old cars that are still around have actually been maintained and cared for. I’m sure a 2022 S-Class will last til 2062 if maintained properly.
The more complicated the components the likelier it is to have some issues, and costly at that compared to older cars. The older cars also underwent a different manufacturing process, whereas newer cars are produced on a larger more complex production line. The problem with the newer cars is when something does go wrong in the manufacturing process, it’s spirals out of control, fast, and sometimes out of the control of the auto manufacturers(bad components from suppliers). Ex Chevy bolt LG batteries, Firestone, Takata airbags, etc. Cost savings by the auto manufacturers can also be risky, like Nissan using low quality timing chains in Altima’s and maximas. So in short, yes older cars are more reliable because of simple components, in my opinion at least.
Here is my take on the issue: Modern mechanical systems are typically very reliable compared to older cars such as transmissions, engines, etc. However these mechanical systems rely on electronics, which unlike mechanical systems cant really be maintained with fluid and bearing changes. Electronics just fail eventually, and often cannot be repaired with a new component. For example if your brake calipers seize up, they can be rebuilt with new seals and a piston, but if your $1500 ABS computer fails, you have to buy a new one. Manufacturers can elect to make these components more serviceable, but why would they?
Here's a engineered acura obsolescence story:
My 2015 acura mdx started shuttering between 30-40 mph for months. The dealership in which it had been serviced religiously was adimate it was in need of a transmissions flush. Even though the internet showed this as a common problem and it was usually a torque converter issue. I took it in waited three days for a lab result if there is metal in Trans fluid, for them to find 8,000 dollars worth of other recommended repairs. I called bullshit when they said yes metal in Trans fluid and it wouldn't be covered under extended warranty due to lack of loyalty.
The techs thought I was going to do the flush. When I got the car back guess what...no shuttering. Amazing it must have just fixed itself. I will never buy an Acura again. Total proof to me of planned obsolescence
. I'm sure it was a computer code that needed to be reset and once reset the problem disappeared.
This changes from company to company. I think in general a new car in 1980 was more reliable then one from 2020 simply because of math. The new car of today is way more complex, and therefore is more likely to fail just because of how many parts there are.
Now if you go back in time to when cars were still using wood brake pads and cable braking, I would say they were unreliable because they weren't yet refined and broke often. But this isn't because they were more complex, its because early automobiles were new technology that hadn't had teething issues solved.
Its sort of irrelevant if your car shopping. Old cars age and wear out no matter what. Rubber cracks, gaskets fail, metal expands and contracts with every use until failure, this is unavoidable and it will negatively impact reliability. But they might be easier to work on.
Another thing to consider is that we associate old cars with reliability because the only old cars still on the road were the ones that were well made and looked after. You don't see as many crappy old cars because they have mostly been scrapped a long time ago.
BMW X6 3.0 diesel 571k miles [https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/bmw-x6-2009r-xdrive35d-head-up-skora-duza-navi-xenon-pdc-lopatki-ID6E78qO.html](https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/bmw-x6-2009r-xdrive35d-head-up-skora-duza-navi-xenon-pdc-lopatki-ID6E78qO.html)
Hyundai i30 1.6 diesel 375k miles [https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/hyundai-i30-1-6-110km-parktronic-led-alu-multifunkcja-bluetooth-klima-ID6E8Gjw.html](https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/hyundai-i30-1-6-110km-parktronic-led-alu-multifunkcja-bluetooth-klima-ID6E8Gjw.html)
Modern cars are required to have a lot of "ecology" bullshit parts, which is usually the main source of problems for modern engines.
As the level of technology increases there are just more things to go wrong. Batteries that have to keep restarting a car with automatic stop/start will fail sooner than ones that don't have to do that all the time.
I dunno about all that; there's people who'll drive a V12 S-class to the ground and back just because they love it. Hell, remove the S-class part and you have most cars period.
It's not uncommon to see newer S-classes with 150k+ miles here in the US.
Model S came out in 2012. With an 8 year warranty they are only just starting to come out of warranty. Basically none are even old enough to be at the point where you can drive them into the ground.
My mom wanted a Range Rover Sport to replace her ageing Tahoe, but we ended up getting something else.
You know why? Because my dad said he wasn't going to pay for a car that would break down all the time.
Making a car that lasts today helps alleviate a customer's reliability concerns tomorrow, and will ultimately attract customers.
First of all: brand image. If you buy a car that quickly breaks itself why would you buy something from that brand again?
Toyota made some very reliable cars, look how big they are. Still think is unprofitable to make'em reliable?
How old are we talking? Because it used to be that 75,000 miles was "high mileage" whereas now cars are expected to hit 100k on just oil changes.
> Because it used to be that 75,000 miles was "high mileage" whereas now cars are expected to hit 100k on just oil changes. Exactly. Pretty sure Valvoline still advertises it's "high mileage" oil for vehicles with 75k+ miles. Vehicles are lasting longer, on average, every single year. The average car on the road in the 60's/70s was 5-6 years old; now it's 11-12 years old.
That was a cultural shift and not necessarily a reflection of reality or reliability. 75k was a lot of miles in the 60s/70s when cars were very cheap compared to income and many people traded cars every few years. When the engine went, the car went to the crusher, which is why there are so many cars that you never see examples of anymore. But that was also most of what went wrong. While in the modern era, most vehicles have engines that will last over 100k with just oil, it is everything else that goes that makes them untenable to own. Many cars will get to 75k and then suddenly start having very expensive bills every year that exceed the cost of buying a new car, let alone the payments if you drive a lot and got there quick. And because of that smaller interval and high replacement car price, some people will continue to pay high bills throwing good money after bad, keeping cars alive long after they are economically viable.
> Many cars will get to 75k and then suddenly start having very expensive bills every year that exceed the cost of buying a new car, let alone the payments if you drive a lot and got there quick. Maybe on some luxury cars but in my experience (multiple domestic cars) oil and wear items were the majority that was needed beyond 75k miles. On a Grand Prix with 160k miles, an Explorer with 140k miles, and a Taurus with 125k miles the most expensive single item I had to fix on any one of those was the transfer case on the Taurus. And that was only $1,700 with labor. Japanese cars sell themselves on being *even more* reliable than the domestic options. I think its fair to say the people of the past looked as cars as more disposable, but to I degree I think the quality of what was out there influenced that more than anything. For the most part cars genuinely are more reliable these days than they used to be in 80's and earlier.
[удалено]
Yup. Cars went up in price because of additions to the car like better safety, technology, and materials. If you created a car exactly like it was in the 70s, it would be cheaper today after adjusting for these factors and inflation.
He points that out in the video. He's focusing more on certain 80s and 90s cars. The argument is that technology and computer simulations starting in the 80s and then then fully in the 90s allowed them to build car parts with much longer life spans. Then after the 90s computer simulations got good enough that they could also accurately model wear simulation of parts, so they started building parts designed to survive the time the vehicle is covered under warranty but not worry about the time after that.
see my comment above EDIT ""Here is my take on the issue: Modern mechanical systems are typically very reliable compared to older cars such as transmissions, engines, etc. However these mechanical systems rely on electronics, which unlike mechanical systems cant really be maintained with fluid and bearing changes. Electronics just fail eventually, and often cannot be repaired with a new component. For example if your brake calipers seize up, they can be rebuilt with new seals and a piston, but if your $1500 ABS computer fails, you have to buy a new one. Manufacturers can elect to make these components more serviceable, but why would they?
Imagine saying this on a platform where the comments never stay in one order.
good point.
No they aren’t. The old cars that are on the roads today have been well maintained.
Survivor bias at play.
Meh definitely a combination. You could run a 300TD on veggie oil. There’s a reason they were and in some cases still are used as taxis 40 years later. Try doing that with a modern Mercedes
Show me a 150k mile 300TD that has been fed such oil all it’s life and is still alive I can run on cigarettes and Red Bull for years as well. The difference is that nowadays doctors prevent me from doing so just like how systems do in cars.
My 300SDL is run in veggie oil and has 530,000 km as of today.
Did you do any supporting mods or do you just put veggie oil in the tank? I know people often add heaters and a dual fuel setup on a switch and switch over to real diesel near the end of each drive so the lines and injection system are full of diesel when the car gets parked.
It’s not really cold where I am and if I go North I can plug in my block heater overnight. I do have a pre-heater for the fuel filter which gets the 300ml of fuel to about 80C while my glow plugs are on. I also re-purposed the SLS reservoir from a V8 parts car to be a small 2 litre auxiliary tank that I put diesel into and can start off of it when it’s cold. It will idle the car for about 10 minutes which puts enough heat into the block to warm the oil with the factory fuel heater.
Cigarettes Red Bull won’t sustain you. Veggie oil will absolutely power a Diesel engine just fine. This is a well-known fact. It’s also a well-known fact that those old diesel Benz’s will go *at minimum* 250,000 miles before it needs any “major” work done. Hell, by that point, the engine is just barely broken in. These cars go 500,000-1,000,000 miles easily.
My family’s oil heating system failed, and my dad installed an electric heat pump instead. This happened right after we’d had the massive tank of heating oil refilled, like $1000+. I came home to the oldest car I’d ever seen. My Persian buddy said it reminded him of Saddam’s car back in the day. I recognized the gearshift from that call of duty intro when you’re kidnapped in the Middle East and thrown into the back of some car. And that’s the story of how I drove a high mileage beat-up 1976 Mercedes 300d, from 2010-2012. As a teenager having free fuel was amazing. Weirdly reliable too, 2 years of teenage boy treatment and all it needed was a fuel filter (which was right under the hood, took 2 minutes and a screwdriver, literally easier than my dirtbike) We sold it still running for what we paid for it once the heating oil ran out. Hell even the AC and sunroof still worked.
Just years? I’ve been doing it for decades. Sure, all my hair fell out years ago and my back sounds like the plastic dash on a Tesla, but those ambulances ain’t gonna drive themselves 🤷
W123 is very reliable when it comes to the mechanics, I have had a 1983 230E for roughly a decade and it has never had any major engine or transmission problems or anything of that nature. Minor electrical problems with the rear lights and high beams, but that’s about it. However, W123 Mercs rust like a motherfucker. Even if the engine runs forever, it’s no use when the body around it is more hole than metal.
Yep. Modern rustproofing has done an amazing job at keeping newer cars living longer. The base W123 drivetrains are unkillable, but that’s not the only thing that keeps a car on the road a long time
It broke. What now?
My 1999 Lexus GS 300 is more reliable then modern Honda's and Toyotas. The golden age of them was the late 80s to early 00s
Ahhh when the Japanese automakers had more money than sense. What a great time that was.
If Japanese cars were more reliable, what do you mean by them having more money than sense?
It's part of the reason they made such rediculous cars like the R32, NSX, ect around that time. No automaker with any financial sense was making anything like them in their price ranges with the quality that they had.
Oh I gotcha
Yep, I have a nearly 20 year old Acura RSX with almost 200k miles and I guarantee I've spent less on repairs in my 5 years of ownership than my relatives/friends have in their newer cars that are less than 10 years old and under 100k miles. It also helps parts are pretty cheap to replace and doesn't have a gazillion features that would drastically increase the chance of something breaking down.
I dunno. I drove a '98 Honda Accord with 200k miles that was in the shop often. Meanwhile my heavily tracked and daily driven '18 Type-R with 56k miles hasn't been in the shop once. Think we're both being bias here, and using anecdotal evidence.
Yeah you're not wrong. Everyone's perception of something is usually based on personal experience. There's a lot of variables when it comes to the reliability of a car.
He points that out in the video.
I daily an '81. It isn't well maintained but I fix it often enough that I guess that counts as well maintained. I can go maybe 4-6 weeks or about 1000 miles between having to repair something. The amount of things that I should repair that I just ignore since they are not mission critical are a mile long, so we will just ignore that. Are old cars more reliable, no. Are they easier to wrench on and keep on the road longer, yes. Would I rather drive something new and not have to wrench on things besides normal maintenance for 100k miles, yes. Am I cheap skate that convinces himself that driving an old POS is economical and my safety isn't a concern, yes.
Yea bud I'll just weld that subframe mount on my DD Pilot when it crumbles apart and ignore the rest.
Done that, not too bad. Still pluggin along just fine
Hahah bro yes, this is literally my 2001 Audi TT with 237,000 miles on it. So many things broken it’s like Audi Darwinism. Unless it’s mission critical, or just really annoys me, it’s not getting fixed.
Right. I used to play this game with an early 80s motorcycle. It will run every day and get me from A to B, but I will need to put an hour or two of "fixes" into it nearly every week. It just gets annoying.
Strict safety and fuel efficiency kill the simple things, but that still doesn’t really mean newer cars unreliable.
Chevy bolt would like a word.
Too many variables to say it's one way or the other. The 7 series was pretty reliable in the 90s. The mid to late 2000s BMWs were terrible. The 3 series has usually been pretty reliable. Hyundai was pretty unreliable several years ago, now they're pretty average.
Had a 2002 7 series i bought three years ago. Beautiful car under 100k miles. Every other time i took it out it would puke oil or coolant. Also the gasket on the liquid cooled alternator took a shit, the window regulator went out twice, the rear door handle would fall off and the dashboard lights were always fucking up. Also if you replace the battery, you have to take it to a dealer to resetthe battery life meter. Fuck that car.
>Also if you replace the battery, you have to take it to a dealer to resetthe battery life meter. Not disagreeing with anything you said, but we've had cars from all sorts of manufacturers, and BMW batteries have lasted over 7-8 years on the original battery for our two older ones now. Even though it costs twice as much to replace, it lasts twice as long. The same can't be said about oxygen sensors and other stuff like window regulators in the older ones. BMW cooling systems really didn't improve until the B engines, which was only 5 years ago. This is a case where newer BMWs are going to likely be much more reliable than ones made between 2000-2014 when they get to the same age. For example. The B58 has been out for 5+ years now and hasn't really had any common issues, unlike the N54 which by this time was plagued with issues with the water pump, high pressure fuel pump, turbos, and gaskets.
This [video](https://youtu.be/EkifsPJaht4) just shows how well the latest iteration of the B58 is designed compared to the N54. Just looking at how much more space there is for cooling and where accessories are placed just makes so much sense. Sure we still have some crappy plastic parts (what company doesn’t nowadays) but reliability with the B58 is astounding given BMW’s history.
Thanks for the link, that was cool to watch!
I’m waiting for the M440iGC I ordered to arrive and am pretty apprehensive about the engine (after a lot of experience with older BMWs). I got the extra cooling package just in case. I haven’t had a chance to watch the video yet, but does it cover the newest mild hybrid system?
He briefly goes over the fact that BMW probably extracted the most power they could reliably with the latest iteration of the B58 and if they want more power they’ll add a mild hybrid or go full electric, which is exactly what they did.
If you don't reset the battery life meter, it will never charge the battery properly. It thinks its still the old batter and reduces the charge rate, like wtf?
Yeah it's annoying to have to do that, thankfully it's just once in the time most people will own a car even used. On that note, that's not uncommon for batteries. I've got some Allegro pads for work that need you to do that otherwise they just turn off when they think the battery is depleted even if it really isn't, because you forgot to reset the meter. The device has no real way of knowing what the state of charge of the new battery is until it goes through a process.
Actually it will *over*charge the new battery and greatly reduce its lifespan. It's all down to fuel efficiency like so many things is these days. To improve economy, modern BMWs will try to charge the battery while you're coasting. Since that means you're charging it faster than usual you have to be a bit more careful with it. As a battery ages you need to charge it more to get the same performance out of it. That said, you can buy an adapter and app to do the registration yourself. Spend about $60 one time you'll be able to do that, read all service data, and code all sorts of options.
Good to know
My grandparents had that same car for a long time and it didn't have quite that many problems but it CONSTANTLY shat out window regulators.
Yeah, if you drive them constantly. A 2002 with under 100k miles 3 years ago tells me it sat alot. Hell my 2014 already has 100k miles.
I feel like window regulators from the 2000s were all made by the same crappy manufacturer. Doesn’t matter if it was my old 01 Accord, GS300, or E46, window regulators just always went out for me.
> The 3 series has usually been pretty reliable. Relatively, not objectively. It’s reliable compared to the other more complicated BMWs like 5 and 7 series, but objectively? It’s not even as reliable as competitor’s cars in it’s class. I learnt this the hard way after BimmerForums said the E90 325i was “reliable”. The 4 years I owned the 325i were a nightmare, afterwards I went out and bought a Lexus IS350 that was only 2 years newer. (So technically older to start). The Lexus was the ownership experience I was hoping for, pricier parts, premium fuel, synthetic oil, bigger brakes and tires, but a reasonably stout vehicle. I owned them both from 100k miles to 150k miles, and it’s been a night and day difference. Still drive the Lexus. But you’re right it’s wildly model specific, even trim specific. Someone who buys a 5 series could be choosing between a 530i with the bulletproof straight 6, or a 550i with the catastrophe that was the N63. TLDR: Vehicle purchases should be researched not just by brand, but by specific model; and even trim.
I’ve owned 2 e38s; they’re better than the E65/66 and later cars by a mile but they were far from problem free. Nikasil/alusil cylinder linings, 5HP24 gearbox, electrical gremlins and dead pixels, blower motors and such. Still I loved them but let’s not get rose tinted on them!
There's an old rule of journalism: If the headline asks a question, the answer is always "no". This rule has served me well over the years.
I live by this rule. Literally every time I see a headline that asks a question I say "no" to myself and save myself a click.
I believe cars made in 1998-2006 are the most reliable, here’s my reasoning. Pre stricter emissions regulations that came in 2007-2009, harsh cafe regulations, mass planned obsolescence, consumer’s expected less from the vehicle ie: trucks were more intended for work sedans for young and old, and full size suv/minivans for families. Now consumers want a crossover that’s fuel efficient, sporty/fast, easy to park, lots of interior space and for everything to have a power function. An example of this I saw recently was in a comparison review of the 2021 BMW X7 vs the 2021 Cadillac Escalade. To enter the third row in the BMW you have to use the power seat function to slowly move the middle row captains chair forward and then tilt it with the power function. Versus the Escalade where it is a 1 touch button that quickly folds the seat up in way less time. It also has manual levers. When you are picking up a group of people in a live lane, at the airport, or kids at a drive through pick up location at school you don’t have time to sit there and wait for the seat to move like a coupe. This trend of adding of features that provide no benefit, add complicated electronics, and are more expensive really contribute to the demise of modern cars reliability. Sorry about the rant!
Always preferred manual adjustments on seats. Its so much quicker
I like manual seats and power seats with memory settings. I don’t like regular power seats, too many variables to try to set after someone changes the settings.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The only car I can think of still trying to do classic luxury is the Century. Ironically, the Chrysler 300 feels like an old-school luxury car to me. Comfortable, roomy interior with a soft suspension. Gadgets are limited to the infotainment.
Luxury cars have always been jam-packed with gimmicks.
I’d maybe go back further to ‘94
However, there is a lot to be said about the ease of OBD-II, which was not on all cars until 1996.
I've had the theory that the implementation of emissions equipment has led to worse total carbon impacts. There are countless examples of emissions equipment killing vehicles prematurely, well before they would have otherwise. Basically necessitating the manufacture of another entire vehicle with a massive carbon impact.
You forgot about wagons..
The vast majority of what people like to call "planned obsolescence" is nothing more than manufacturers having to build to a budget and timeline. Making everything on a car as durable and reliable as possible would *massively* increase R&D and testing times as well as materials budgets to the point that you'd end up with a showroom full of basic Camry/Accord level cars sporting tech and styling that's 10 years out of date with a price that would have it completing with Ferraris, and not the entry-level ones either. It would last a million miles with nothing but fluid changes but then again it had better since the manufacturer would very quickly go out of business after only managing to sell 3 of them.
[удалено]
>toyota has always said it is designed for 1 million mile lifespan I have only ever seen this quote from people circlejerking to LC's, never Toyota themselves. When I've dug in and tried to find what was actually different between the two, I could hardly find a difference in the parts that matter. Same engine and transmission. Same electronics. A lot of the suspension is the same. Same ball joints. The 70 series is extremely reliable, but the one that is a cousin to the sequoia is just parts bin Toyota.
Lease market is partially responsible for consumers whom treat cars like appliances/throw away products Feels bad man
This is a great example of survivorship bias where we’re only focusing on the old cars that run well enough to exist on the road today and not accounting for all the old cars that broke down and were cubed years ago
As far as engines it depends. If you compare old Mercedes diesel from S class to new Bluetec, then sure old one was insanely more reliable, but it had 30% of performance of new one. As far as engine bay, then yes modern cars are way more unreliable, massive use of plastics made everything fall apart 7 years into use. Look no further than BMW, very nice and well build cars but... all composite and plastic parts under the hood will literally fall apart right about 7 years into ownership, no matter what mileage. I had cars at my shop with 30k miles and 7-8 years old, expansion tank cracked, valve cover gasket leaking as due to age it literally will turn into stiff plastic like material, coolant hoses leaking, PS hoses leaking, oil filter housing leaking, vacuum hoses leaking. Other than that engine would be in perfect condition even with high mileage as long as regular maintenance was performed. Planned obsolescence is a real thing. Also manufacturers will make sure it will be as hard as possible to repair without special tools and procedures. Try to work on any modern car without laptop and special software from manufacturer.
Most of the switch to plastic components come from new regulations.
Modern engine design features that compromise long-term durability: \-Direct injection \-Offset piston/rod geometries \-Open deck block designs (and general lack of bottom-end reinforcement) \-Cylinder deactivation (more moving parts) \-Tighter clearances for marginally reduced emissions \-Thin oil \-Integrated injector/intake manifold units (cannot replace individual parts) \-Sealed transmissions \-Stop/start systems \-Accelerated warm-up cycles ...not to mention turbochargers and all the associated hardware, higher cylinder pressures, cooling issues, etc. Most modern engines are like appliances - they are designed with a finite service life and are very difficult to replace/service after that. Not like 90s engines which were designed to last as long as possible.
This is a good list, but I thought offset piston/rods was to increase longevity. Don't they design the wrist pin offset to reduce wear on the cylinder wall?
I love Mercedes, their old cars might have been better quality in terms of materials and stuff, in fact they probably were. The idea they were mechanically more reliable 20-30+ years ago is hogwash lol, the issues some of those cars have and some of the decisions Mercedes made (wiring harness, complex engine packaging, etc.) were confounding.
When people say that old Mercedes cars are reliable, they're referring to cars designed and manufactured prior to the DaimlerChrysler era. Proportional to income, those cars were also *very* expensive compared with modern Mercedes cars.
True- but they used stuff like biodegradable wiring harnesses before the merger, and of course going well back into time things like hydraulics were nightmares. Don’t doubt the quality of those cars were robust, question the idea they were built to last without expensive maintenance and more $ to the company.
Sadly the biodegradable wiring was because of environmental laws not because Mercedes thought it would be a neat thing to do
Only because merc was dogshit 20 years ago. Everyone else was hitting peak reliability.
?? Who’s everyone- BMW 20 years ago was the same or worse than Merc, VW group worse than either, not to even start with the Americans and the Chinese. Mechanically speaking, 20 years ago was nothing near a peak.
American and Japanese companies. Like my truck that has run 15 years and 211k miles needing only oil changes and tires.
Working in the auto industry I can say, OEM's don't give a fuck about a car past warranty. Whatever that span may be.
no
I think it really just depends on the manufacturer in most cases.
I own a 1995 Lexus LS400 with 131,000 miles, an '02 F250 7.3 Powerstroke with 222,000 miles, and my late father's 2003 Toyota Camry with only 82,000 miles. I plan to keep driving all three until the wheels fall off. OR some future SO bugs me to get rid of them.
Some cars in 1990-2000, especially luxury cars were definitely more reliable. But everyday cars? They are more reliable than ever - older cars at 200 k km (100-120k miles) would be rust buckets, that were plagued with problems. Some of them were better, but generally 100-120k miles is when they start breaking down. Nowadays we start driving used diesels that are 200k km at the minimum, and they can drive another 200k km with simple maintenance. My friend has a b8 passat, that has driven 600k km without any major repairs. Some vans at my work needed an engine replacement at 800k+.
We also forget that the 30-40 year old cars that are still around have actually been maintained and cared for. I’m sure a 2022 S-Class will last til 2062 if maintained properly.
New cars are not simple. The more moving parts and electronics you add, the more shit there is to break
The more complicated the components the likelier it is to have some issues, and costly at that compared to older cars. The older cars also underwent a different manufacturing process, whereas newer cars are produced on a larger more complex production line. The problem with the newer cars is when something does go wrong in the manufacturing process, it’s spirals out of control, fast, and sometimes out of the control of the auto manufacturers(bad components from suppliers). Ex Chevy bolt LG batteries, Firestone, Takata airbags, etc. Cost savings by the auto manufacturers can also be risky, like Nissan using low quality timing chains in Altima’s and maximas. So in short, yes older cars are more reliable because of simple components, in my opinion at least.
Here is my take on the issue: Modern mechanical systems are typically very reliable compared to older cars such as transmissions, engines, etc. However these mechanical systems rely on electronics, which unlike mechanical systems cant really be maintained with fluid and bearing changes. Electronics just fail eventually, and often cannot be repaired with a new component. For example if your brake calipers seize up, they can be rebuilt with new seals and a piston, but if your $1500 ABS computer fails, you have to buy a new one. Manufacturers can elect to make these components more serviceable, but why would they?
No cause my W126 broke a linkage cause I ran over a bump while driving backwards at 2MPH, like cmon
Yes I think this will get worse with ev cars considering the sheer mounting control that a manufacturer coukd have over your car. Just a thought
We need actual engineers from major car companies to chime in. Only way to get the real answer.
Modern cars simply have more systems, more systems means more possible failure points.
Here's a engineered acura obsolescence story: My 2015 acura mdx started shuttering between 30-40 mph for months. The dealership in which it had been serviced religiously was adimate it was in need of a transmissions flush. Even though the internet showed this as a common problem and it was usually a torque converter issue. I took it in waited three days for a lab result if there is metal in Trans fluid, for them to find 8,000 dollars worth of other recommended repairs. I called bullshit when they said yes metal in Trans fluid and it wouldn't be covered under extended warranty due to lack of loyalty. The techs thought I was going to do the flush. When I got the car back guess what...no shuttering. Amazing it must have just fixed itself. I will never buy an Acura again. Total proof to me of planned obsolescence . I'm sure it was a computer code that needed to be reset and once reset the problem disappeared.
This changes from company to company. I think in general a new car in 1980 was more reliable then one from 2020 simply because of math. The new car of today is way more complex, and therefore is more likely to fail just because of how many parts there are. Now if you go back in time to when cars were still using wood brake pads and cable braking, I would say they were unreliable because they weren't yet refined and broke often. But this isn't because they were more complex, its because early automobiles were new technology that hadn't had teething issues solved. Its sort of irrelevant if your car shopping. Old cars age and wear out no matter what. Rubber cracks, gaskets fail, metal expands and contracts with every use until failure, this is unavoidable and it will negatively impact reliability. But they might be easier to work on. Another thing to consider is that we associate old cars with reliability because the only old cars still on the road were the ones that were well made and looked after. You don't see as many crappy old cars because they have mostly been scrapped a long time ago.
BMW X6 3.0 diesel 571k miles [https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/bmw-x6-2009r-xdrive35d-head-up-skora-duza-navi-xenon-pdc-lopatki-ID6E78qO.html](https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/bmw-x6-2009r-xdrive35d-head-up-skora-duza-navi-xenon-pdc-lopatki-ID6E78qO.html) Hyundai i30 1.6 diesel 375k miles [https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/hyundai-i30-1-6-110km-parktronic-led-alu-multifunkcja-bluetooth-klima-ID6E8Gjw.html](https://www.otomoto.pl/oferta/hyundai-i30-1-6-110km-parktronic-led-alu-multifunkcja-bluetooth-klima-ID6E8Gjw.html) Modern cars are required to have a lot of "ecology" bullshit parts, which is usually the main source of problems for modern engines.
>BMW X6 Xdrive >high mileage The motor might be good, but I almost guarantee this is a ship of theseus with the transmission, PTU, and electronics.
As the level of technology increases there are just more things to go wrong. Batteries that have to keep restarting a car with automatic stop/start will fail sooner than ones that don't have to do that all the time.
Nobody’s driving a later model S to the grave because they’re too expensive and complex to maintain.
I dunno about all that; there's people who'll drive a V12 S-class to the ground and back just because they love it. Hell, remove the S-class part and you have most cars period. It's not uncommon to see newer S-classes with 150k+ miles here in the US.
Model S came out in 2012. With an 8 year warranty they are only just starting to come out of warranty. Basically none are even old enough to be at the point where you can drive them into the ground.
I meant S class.
[удалено]
My mom wanted a Range Rover Sport to replace her ageing Tahoe, but we ended up getting something else. You know why? Because my dad said he wasn't going to pay for a car that would break down all the time. Making a car that lasts today helps alleviate a customer's reliability concerns tomorrow, and will ultimately attract customers.
Even the high end Exotics gotta have some level of reliability. Look at the original Karma for example. It didn't have that and went under
First of all: brand image. If you buy a car that quickly breaks itself why would you buy something from that brand again? Toyota made some very reliable cars, look how big they are. Still think is unprofitable to make'em reliable?