Slashdot Mirror


Have Bad Cars Gone Extinct?

Hugh Pickens writes "AP reports that global competition is squeezing lemons out of the market and forcing automakers to improve the quality and reliability of their vehicles. With few exceptions, cars are so close on reliability that it's getting harder for companies to charge a premium. 'We don't have total clunkers like we used to,' says Dave Sargent, automotive vice president with J.D. Power. In 1998, J.D. Power and Associates found an industry average of 278 problems per 100 vehicles, but this year, the number fell to 132. In 1998, the most reliable car had 92 problems per 100 vehicles, while the least reliable had 517, a gap of 425. This year the gap closed to 284 problems. It wasn't always like this. In the 1990s, Honda and Toyota dominated in quality, especially in the key American market for small and midsize cars. Around 2006, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were heading into financial trouble and shifted research dollars from trucks to cars after years of neglect and spent more on engineering and parts to close the gap. Meanwhile Toyota's reputation was tarnished by a series of safety recalls, and Honda played conservative with new models that looked similar to the old ones. Now it's 'very hard to find products that aren't good anymore,' says Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of the Edmunds.com automotive website. 'In safety, performance and quality, the differences just don't have material impact.'"

56 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. ask a mechanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if bad cars have gone extinct. take a seat, it will be a while before he's done laughing.

    1. Re:ask a mechanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because water leaks into electronic modules, wires wear out, animals crawl into weird places, blower resistors melt, plastic bits break, murphy's law takes full effect. now your experience sounds wonderful, but from the cars i have seen it is not representative unfortunately.

    2. Re:ask a mechanic by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No car needs more than that if you are only driving them for 2 years. I don't know how far you are driving, but if you don't care about the longevity of a car, you could probably drive most new cars to 40 or 50k miles without ever getting an oil change.

    3. Re:ask a mechanic by swalve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you are missing is the idea that a car can go 2 years or 3.5 years without ANYTHING breaking is downright miraculous, compared to other machines and other times in history. Especially when the numbers start to play out that it is no longer an exception to get a good one (remembering that whole cars built on monday or friday thing), but the rule, and from many different manufacturers. For the longest time, Honda gained the reputation for quality because they were dead simple. Now, it seems, even the complicated cars go forever.

    4. Re:ask a mechanic by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some cars are bad enough to be two bad cars.

    5. Re:ask a mechanic by slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep exactly.

      When I started driving in the early 1990s, if you had, say, a 7 year old car, you'd pretty much expect to have trouble starting it on a cold/wet day. You'd allow 20 minutes extra in the morning for fiddling with the choke and spraying the engine with WD-40. That's just how cars were.

      Nowadays, if you buy something that old, even a low-status brand, it'll start every time, barring some serious fault.

    6. Re:ask a mechanic by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

      40-50k on an oil change? That's not new.

      My little brother was maintenance supervisor for a resort city Avis facility in the 80s. He got a Dodge something-or-other in for a bad headlight or something, and found that it had not had scheduled maintenance, including oil changes, for 35k. He put it on the retention list - the list that says 'sell this lemon'.

      He also got in a Toyota Corolla with over 40k on it, no oil change. He said it came in for a 'sticky door'. Had a stuffed toy in the hinge. Sold that one too.

      But he changes the oil in his cars and motorcycles more frequently than the book says. Just because.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:ask a mechanic by Megane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      animals crawl into weird places

      And some of them eat soy-based insulation off of wiring. Yes, I've had that happen before. Really, who thought we needed biodegradable wire insulation? And in automobiles, which don't exactly get buried in landfills.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re:ask a mechanic by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      going forward it's going to be once every 3.5 years for a new car

      Such a waste. Look at the cars Cuba is running. They haven't gotten much of anything since the embargo but their cars keep on ticking.

      I have a 14 year old VW Jetta TDI. It is nearing 300,000 mi and still gets 40 driven hard and 50+ if driven gently. Still has 550 psi compression across all 4 cylinders. (Read, that's a good thing). Mechanics wear out it's not always design it's just physics. I've had to replace numerous body parts on the suspension and I'm nearing my 30th oil change but it's still going and I don't see replacing it anytime in the near future.

      Let me guess, you buy new clothes every year if they need replacing or not. "Just in case".

      Or I suppose a computer analogy: "Nothing ever goes wrong with my computers. I just replace them every month". (And given the design lifespans of Car:Computer::3.5 years:1 month is about right.

    9. Re:ask a mechanic by axlr8or · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still drive a Fiero. 85 gt. It's had its share of maintenance probz but i'll tell you what. same motor, I beat the hell out of it every time I drive it. Starts even on the coldest mornings. ALL CARS are junk. If you don't believe that then the automaker of your choice has you fooled. And besides, if you are ditching a car before its even payed off you are losing. Period.

    10. Re:ask a mechanic by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Holy shit what's wrong with you!? And I thought buying a new car once every 5 years was bad...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:ask a mechanic by xystren · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is where I have a problem with the fine article (or summary at least). Sure, there may be less problems over the life of the car, which todays seems to be not anymore than about 10 years. Where back in the 50's thru the 70s you commonly heard about the 30 year car. There seems to be a different in long term quality of the vehicles.

      I had a old 1981 Honda Accord, which other than routine maintenance (oil changes, brakes, tires, clutch, spark plugs, battery, etc.) there were no breakdowns at all that prevented me from getting to a destination. I had this vehicle for 20 years, and when I did get rid of it, I saw it on the road for another 4+ years delivering pizza. I don't think any car today would be able to do that.

      And the thing was, I was up north in Saskatchewan, Canada, where -40c was a typical winter (and at times colder). Never once did I ever have problems starting due to the cold - even if the block heater wasn't plugged in. And to boot, that vehicle was great in the snow. It would go where 4x4s would get stuck. I don't know what it was, but that vehicle was great, and I was sad when I had to get rid of it (had a new baby on the way, and wanted something with 4 doors).

      So when they say most reliable, I would bet that it's not over a long life of a car... considering the life of a car today is about 10 years. The more complex cars get, the more that can go wrong with them. I'd take that 81 Honda again, in a second, over a lot of the cars today.

    12. Re:ask a mechanic by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm afraid it was way too late for them to keep me as a customer.

      I'd like to point out that brand loyalty can be just as naive as nationalism in a buying decision. Maytag was considered unsurpassed in quality for most of it's existence, but if you bought one in the ten year period of 1996-2006, you'd just as likely have a pile of junk. Toyota hasn't fallen as far as Maytag, but there's no sense in pretending that they are the pinnacle of reliability anymore (I say this as the owner of two Toyotas, so I'm not hating).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:ask a mechanic by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Subsequently, in my attempt to be humorous for you, I ended up asking a friend, "what do you think the mathematical symbol for chipmunk would be."

      It turns out it's even funnier out of context.

    14. Re:ask a mechanic by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ALL CARS are junk, says the guy with one of the biggest pieces of shit cars every manufactured.

    15. Re:ask a mechanic by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mechanic here. Honda has actually decreased in quality to the point where I no longer consider them a "shoe-in" for a high quality automobile. I currently recommend Toyota to people when they ask what to look for. I recommend Toyota because they haven't changed much of their designs/parts (under-hood) for the past thirty years, and they are fairly rock solid--save for oil seal problems on older model 4-cyl motors.

      I had the unfortunate experience of buying a Honda Oddessy some years back under the pre-tense of Honda quality, having been impressed with their cars after working on many of them and gaining a lot experience examining their various systems. That mini-van of theirs was/is a total train wreck. I don't even consider it a Honda in the sense of quality that everyone perceives. Electrical problems, engine and TCS lights coming on all the time, serious transmission issues, broken motor mounts, interior items falling apart, loud and clunky, terrible audio system....generally a cheap piece of crap. The only thing worth a note is the Acura V6. After I bought it I found myself wishing I just saved the cash and went with a used Chrysler mini van (which are total pieces of garbage by the way).

      I have found most mechanics like Dodge or Chevy. Why, because they are easier for them to work on and parts are available (and they come from an environment that is prejudiced against "foreign" cars). Much like in our field, most mechanics develop preferences not out of a scientific taste for accuracy but for a philosophic slant that has nothing to do with reality.

      My general quality list in order of preference:
      Trucks: Chevy/GMC, Ford, Toyota, Dodge
      Cars (too many to list but...): Mercedes, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Chevy ()
      SUV: Toyota, Chevy, Nissan, Ford

      Those not on the list are usually not worth considering in my book unless you don't care to waste money.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    16. Re:ask a mechanic by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why would i go to this mechanic person?

      You are getting rid of them before most long-term maintenance is even necessary. You could probably not do _anything_ to a modern car for two years and get away with it. Those cars could last 10, 15 or 20 years if properly maintained, but it requires a skilled mechanic to do the proper maintenance because after 100,000 miles or so there are major components that must be replaced.

      I just replaced a car that was almost 14 years old and I was sorely disappointed that I had to because I felt it should have lasted another 5 or 10 years. It was a 1999 Honda Odyssey, and was generally trouble-free and in good shape, but the transmission was going, which is a well-known problem for those cars from that time period, and the logical choice was to replace it rather than replace the transmission, at cost of twice or three times the value of the car, and risk having another similar failure in another year or two, because based on our research, that was a distinct possibility.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    17. Re:ask a mechanic by jdgeorge · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really? I asked 10 mechanics, and I got 14 different answers.

      Probably because two were from Harvard.

  2. News to me by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The author has obviously not driven a GM vehicle lately. Let me count the problems with my two year old Pontiac...

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    1. Re:News to me by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are correct, it is two years old and not a new car. However, if you are only basing reliability on one year or whatever you define as a new car period then you sir (and the author) are fools.

      Also, reading the article it becomes apparent that what he is actually referring to is that new models are more reliable. I don't see any mention of a brand new Chevy Malibu (the same car as my G6) being reliable. Maybe now the new designs are coming out that are built worth a damn.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:News to me by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Like they say, "If life gives you lemons, stop buying GM".

    3. Re:News to me by Pharmboy · · Score: 3

      Maybe that's part of the reason Pontiac is out of business, for all intent and purposes now. None of the GM divisions have been tops for initial quality, with Cadillac and Pontiac being particularly bad. I'm an old fart, and everyone knows that old farts don't change brands. I've drove GM products for 30 years, including my "05 2500HD work truck, but now I drive a Hyundai Sontata Limited 2.0T back and forth for work. More power, better fuel economy, better quality construction, better everything. The Malibu and Impala (it is sized between the two) don't compare and cost more. This is my 2nd Hyundai, 6 months old with 15k miles, and have no regrets.

      I put 30k-40k miles per year and the GMs from 2005 and back start falling apart under that stress when they hit 100k. The engines hold up great, the electronics and cosmetic parts start falling off like dead skin.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:News to me by SpinningCone · · Score: 5, Funny

      wouldn't "If life gives you lemons, open a GM dealership". make more sense?

    5. Re:News to me by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      None of the GM divisions have been tops for initial quality

      With the exception of the now defunct Saturn. I'm convinced they gave Saturn the axe because it made all the other divisions look bad. Love my indestructible Saturn commuter car...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:News to me by swalve · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, you bought a G6. Of course it is crap- they gave them away for free on TV.

    7. Re:News to me by bshensky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're clearly not from the Motor City. Badges have little meaning - nearly no meaning, really - as it's the *platforms* that are designed by the automakers, with the badges shared among them.

      Pontiac was put to pasture because its offerings were redundant to those from Chevy, Buick and Saturn. Even then, Saturn got the axe for the same reason. The end result was a healthier portfolio of platforms upon which various GM makes could be engineered, tuned and packaged.

      This, however, is the insight few folks realize: The automakers each have a cache of core engineers with talent and capabilities that vary wildly. The executives move their most talented engineers to the platforms that need success most, and their lesser engineers to the platforms that need it least. So, Ford F-150 and Chrysler minivan engineers are the best of their respective companies for a time, and fleet car platforms get the chaff. When the fleet car platforms suffer to the degree they need triage (Chrysler 200, Dodge Durango, Ford Focus), the best engineers are shifted here to perform some one-off miracles.

      From here, it sounds like the trim engineers assigned to the aging GMs you had were running in "maintenance" or "cost reduction" mode. Shame for them to lose you, as it's clear to me the star teams were on call for the recent launch of the Cruze and Sonic.

      Hard as it was for GM to eliminate and consolidate (trust me, I know, I lived off Pontiac's teat for the last decade), it was the right thing to do.

      The new farts know what the old farts don't: Follow the star engineers' platforms for great reliability success!

      --
      Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
    8. Re:News to me by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Informative

      I agree with the GP. I don't expect a car less than 3 years old to break down. Reliability should not even be measured at anything less than 50,000 miles. It's hard to claim that GM is on par with Toyota when it comes to quality when GM's fall apart at 75,000 miles and Toyotas are still going strong at 150,000 miles. *Initial* quality, maybe, that that's not what I would call reliability.

      As for not having a time machine, well, that's the price that domestic automakers pay for forcing crap down our throats for the past 30 years. Reliability takes time to judge. You can't build trust by saying, "All our new cars won't break down before 50,000 miles". You build trust by building a car that lasts 10 years with no problems. And yes, it takes that long to build trust.

      In my personal experience, I've had eight cars in my life time:
      1) 1980 Ford Thunderbird: This thing was falling apart when I bought it at 40,000 miles. I would have to fill it up with oil before I left the house and all of the oil would lead out within 30 miles. Wheel bearings went out. Alternator went out. Water pump went out. In replacing the water pump, a bolt that was only made for this car sheared off in the block of the engine. The bolt was, and I'm not kidding, $70 to replace as it was a dealership only item. I drilled the old bolt out myself. Oh, and it was not unusual to have parts simply fall off this car while on the road. For example, as I was leaving my neighborhood, the grill fell off. I had to stop the car and go back and pick it up. This thing would only start when it wanted to and flat out died in bad neighborhoods more than once. I sold the car for $100 before it hit 60,000 miles.
      2) 1986 Jeep "SporTruck": I had to replace the transmission three times before 75,000 miles. A clutch lever broke at one point requiring some welding. The driver side external mirror simply fell off one day for no apparent reason. The lever that worked the lights broke, causing me to have to hold it in place by putting my hand behind the dash to turn the head lights out. The parking break would release on its own, causing the truck to roll away after being parked at random times.
      3) Toyota truck (don't know the year): Bought this truck for $500 at 100,000 miles. I drove it until 250,000 miles and had to replace the water pump at one point. Sold it for $700. The guy paid $700 at the advice of a mechanic who looked at the truck and said, "it's ugly and the seats are torn, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You should easily get another 100,000 miles out of it".
      4) 2000 Isuzu Rodeo (leased new): Put 75,000 miles in 3.5 years in the area around Michigan (snow, salt, etc). No problems. This was a company car that I gave back when the job was done.
      5) 1998 Ford Explorer, Eddie Baur edition: At 70,000 miles, while trading it in for my wife's minivan, it caught on fire. We had just signed the paper work and got $2000 for it. (this thing was so rare that it didn't show up on any of the books. It was a V-8, 4WD, and every mechanic we took it to said it didn't exist)
      5) 1996 Toyota Avalon: Bought for $500 at 75,000 miles. Traded in at 150,000 miles for $1000. The cup holder broke.
      6) 2008 Scion TC: Bought new for $18000. Drove for 2 years. Put 60,000 miles on it. Traded it in for $13000 because it hurt my back to drive a standard in traffic. No problems.
      7) 2006 Toyota Tacoma: Current vehicle. Purchased used at 40,000 miles. Currently has 60,000 with no problems. Toyota financing cut my interest rate to buy the extended warranty. It costs me $0.03 a month to have a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. I have not had to use it yet.

      This is why I don't judge quality before a car is 3 years old. I'm sure you will understand why I'm reluctant to buy American again. I'll trust American cars when they last on average 150000 miles with no problems other than wiper blades, brake pads and tires.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:News to me by Xeranar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anecdotal poster is anecdotal.

      Reliability ratings are based on a huge sample size of any given vehicle. Statistically if you build enough cars some are bound to be lemons (and hence why we have lemon laws). So one person with a bad Pontiac doesn't mean all Pontiacs are bad. Also what Pontiac did you buy and why did you buy one when you knew they were shutting down that brand? Sounds like sour grapes on what you thought was going to be a knock-out deal.

      On topic though, when I was growing up in the 90's I saw stranded cars all the time, broken down on the highway and byways. Now in the last 5-6 years I see one maybe once a week. It's not statistical, just anecdotal, but as a general sampling it does seem to support that cars break less often compared to their older designed counterparts.

    10. Re:News to me by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the Cruze and the Sonic are the best Chevy can do, then they are doomed. Neither are class leaders, Consumer Reports hasn't sung their praises either. Car and Driver was shocked that the Sonic didn't completely suck http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2012-chevrolet-sonic-ltz-turbo-comparison-test-car-and-driver-page-6 but the version they said was almost as good as the competition cost a few grand more. (this is one of the better reviews)

      They also say the Cruze doesn't hold a candle to the Hyundai Elantra (honestly, Hyundai really hit a home run with the new one) Way more features for less money. http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11-chevrolet-cruze-and-12-ford-focus-vs-jetta-elantra-and-mazda-3-comparison-test-2011-chevrolet-cruze-lt-page-3

      They are better cars than Chevy has made in a while, but they have a long way to catch up with Asia, particularly at the same price point. Breaks my heart to say that, but the truth hurts sometimes. At least the new Chevrolets are a bit "less ugly" than the last decade, but they still aren't winning any beauty contests either, especially when compared to Ford and Hyundai.

      On that note, Ford has really gotten their shit together over the last 5 or 6 years and is producing a good car at a good price. When I bought my last car 6 months ago, I had narrowed it down to Ford and Hyundai. Ironically, part of what sold me on the Hyundai was that the dash layout and interior was more "classic GM" in feel to me, more comfortable. Kept bumping my head getting in and out of the Fords. Didn't hurt that the Hyundai had more power (275hp 2L turbo) and better gas mileage (34 Hwy). I'm averaging 31 in mixed but mainly highway driving. The resale value on Hyundais have also skyrocketed. I put a ton of miles on my Azera over two years, and sold it for almost as much as I had bought it for when it was 1 year old.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    11. Re:News to me by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm convinced they gave Saturn the axe because it made all the other divisions look bad.

      No, they gave it the axe for two reasons:

      1) Americans started buying ridiculously oversized SUV's. And so GM, in all its wisdom, decided to put EVERYTHING into its SUV's because hey, that trend is never going to end, right?

      2) Saturns were all made in a non-union plant, and the unions were pushing back.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:News to me by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Informative

      GM didn't kill Saturn, the UAW did.

      Saturn cars were built differently from normal GM cars. Saturn was based on the idea of cooperation between management and labour: the strict work rules UAW negotiated over decades were done away with. Workers were flexible, and would do any job that needed doing. And instead of working on a long production line, teams were assigned to individual cars to create a sense of ownership. Decisions were made jointly by management and labour representatives, and the workers were given a profit sharing scheme.

      Then the UAW leadership changed, and the new guard lobbied and fought to get rid of the cooperative environment and replace it with a standard GM production line. Not because it was ultimately better for the employees, but because it was a threat to the union: the success of Saturn undermined the union's culture of militancy and 'us-vs-them.' Profit and decision sharing was a definite no-no.

    13. Re:News to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, they gave it the axe for two reasons:

      1) Americans started buying ridiculously oversized SUV's. And so GM, in all its wisdom, decided to put EVERYTHING into its SUV's because hey, that trend is never going to end, right?

      2) Saturns were all made in a non-union plant, and the unions were pushing back.

      As someone who worked for Saturn for almost 9 years, I can tell you this is incorrect. The last union contract negotiated by the workers in Spring Hill went beyond what the UAW had in place with other manufacturers. That's the reason the unions were upset.

      The main reason Saturn was killed is due to the fact that it failed to show enough of a profit over its life. GM continually sank money into it while all the other divisions posted a higher percentage of profit over the amount of money invested (basically, it's was like we were being subsidized). And as someone who has owned 5 Saturns, quality had become a major issue starting around 2000. The L Series had major quality issues, the Vue was OK if you got the 6 cylinder engine (which was manufactured by Honda) and skipped the CVT transmission, the Ion was garbage, and the Relay was a re-badged Chevy/GMC mini van with an extra $3,000 added to the sticker price for no reason. I left just after the release of the Aura, so I can't comment beyond that point.

      That being said, I loved my SC1, my SL1's, and my SL2's. Cheap and easy to maintain, and other than the timing chain in the twin cams and the alternator, EGR valve and coil packs across all models, they had relatively few problems.

  3. Hyperbole by tanveer1979 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course lemons exist.
    Lots of them. Its just that, now reliable cars number quite a bit.
    but there still exist a set of people who think money can be saved by skimping on QC practices.

    Its more of a mindset issue.
    Other than that, if you have ever been part of a JD power survey, you would know what it actually is.
    Here is an interesting link
    http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/41820-my-experience-jd-power-quality-survey.html

    So another question is.. are the right questions being answered?

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:Hyperbole by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are, will be, and always will be quality control issues as manufacturers try to race each other to the bottom on cutting corners and therefore costs. Recall, not long ago, that brand new Chevy Sonics were leaving the factory missing brake pads. (The Chevy Sonic itself, a rebadged second-generation Aveo/Daewoo Kalos that is already notorious for having a laughably flimsy "new, revolutionary!" type of paint job, and is also a proven unreliable engine and drivetrain platform.)

      Until very recently, the Dodge Neon/PT Cruiser combo was probably the single lowest quality modern production automobile ever produced, and it is a boon to motorists everywhere that the entire platform finally aged enough that it got the ax. Now, at least, you are less likely to be behind one of these things when it decides to blow its head off into the stratosphere and grind to a shuddering halt on the road ten feet in front of you.

      Lousy cars are still out there, even brand spanking new ones. The only problem is, so many platforms are changing, being reinvented, or dropped in favor of completely new ones coming out that we don't know where they all are yet. The manufacturers, of course, all have their glossy print marketing machines going full tilt to convince you how wonderful ALL of their shiny new cars are, with their fancy new technology and brand new engine designs and computers and whatnot. Yes, gone are the days of flooding engines and sawdust in the transmission and all that 1950's bullshit, but new cars with their new technology can and will develop new types of problems that people are only just starting to discover. That's the price you pay for driving a fabulously complicated mass-produced piece of equipment every day in all types of conditions. Stuff will break. Some stuff will have unforeseen flaws, and break frequently. The only difference between now and cars of yesteryear is the parts that will produce lemons will be different (I predict lots of electronics/electrical problems, transmission issues for the zooty new million-speed automatics and CVT's, and the sudden availability of turbochargers demonstrating to American numbskulls that such things are not maintenance-free), and every time some issue pops up somebody will try to sue somebody else over it.

    2. Re:Hyperbole by maple_shaft · · Score: 4, Informative

      I predict lots of ... transmission issues for the zooty new million-speed automatics and CVT's

      Continuously variable transmissions have been around decades now, with simple designs existing reliably in many tractors and not so simple designs that have broke down and not panned out in the past.

      Nissan's unique design in the Toroidal/Roller-based CVT has been around for 20 years now and has consistently proved reliable in a number of models. You don't often hear of Nissan transmissions failing before 150k.

  4. Only Problem My Car Has... by Zamphatta · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is the price of gas.

    1. Re:Only Problem My Car Has... by thrich81 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Market doesn't work worth a damn when external costs (not paid for by the user) are not included in market price. For gasoline the big one now for the USA is what we pay in military costs to keep the oil flowing out of the Middle East -- there should be a $2 surcharge on every gallon just for that. Gasoline's other externalities are mostly environmental -- although I will say that emissions at the tailpipe (other than CO2) in the in newish cars are now so low as to not be much of a problem in most areas -- but the "free market" didn't put those clean engines in the cars, regulations did. Those regulations are there so that I, as a breathing person, don't have to pay the costs of you building your refinery upwind without including the equipment to keep your emissions out of the air in my lungs. Fix the problem of externalities and I'll be all for the free market.

  5. Reliability ratings aren't reliable anyway... by Troyusrex · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in the 90's Chrysler produced the Eagle which was the a re-branded Mitsubishi Mirage. It was literally off the same assembly line with some branded one and some the other. Consumer reports ranked the Eagle as unreliable with many defects and the Mirage as highly reliable with few defects.

    Back then the general feeling was that Asian cars were better quality but based on this I always wondered how much was reality and how much unconscious bias.

    1. Re:Reliability ratings aren't reliable anyway... by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aside from bias there's also expectations.

      I really didn't care much about my commuter car, as long as it passes smog check and gets me to work cheaply in stop and go traffic, I just don't care. The plastic dash parts rattle together when its below 10 degrees (F) out. Also the clearcoat is failing on the non-functional spoiler after only 14 years of exposure. Somehow I got a bit of scotch tape on the instrument cluster and I can see everything OK it just looks a little dirty. Maybe I should, but I Just Don't Care.

      The caddy and vette buyers believe they're getting the cream of the crop, so they scream in agony if there is a speck of dust in the car. Thats a different type of bias. I know for a fact that caddy and vette complaint rates are thru the roof. They are almost certainly "about as good" as my car, those brands just attract whiners, therefore you hear more whining.

      I suspect you're seeing something of the sort in this story. If you corrected for the demographics of the buyers the difference would probably disappear.

      The third reason why you see the "problem" is I'm sure mitsu spent more money on advertising than eagle, obviously advertising supported media is going to do their best to claim the mitsu is better. The car market is about as bad as the video game "magazine and website" market this way. The review score is a direct simple function of advertising budget, nothing more.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  6. Thankfully... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    In-car 'infotainment' and navigation systems are now becoming more common, so what we have gained in mechanical reliability we can make up in the endless sorrow of interacting with dubious software...

  7. Probably because all the cars are the same... by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 4, Informative

    .. at least underneath.

    I don't know how it is like in the US, but in Europe almost all the car manufacturers have consolidated. Cars are a commodity now. The cars from many different brands (e.g. VW, Audi, Skoda) all have the same chassis and parts. They all have the same body shape (more or less). Usually the only difference is in the body panels, the interior trim and the badge at the front.

    As such you can pretty much buy any of the above cars, and you'll find that they all have similar reliability. For many people cars are just a method of getting from A-B, so overall the above is good news for them. They can pick based on things like warranty, extras included, financing options, etc.... while the cars are more or less the same.

    For example, once upon a time in the west, Skoda's were considered lemons, now they are basically rebadged VW's with reliability to match. Now they are known as VW reliable cars, without the price tag and some extras that the VW's may have.

    Not my thing personally, I prefer my cars unique, so I buy old cars built before the consolidation, but for the majority of people, it is a benefit.

  8. The Biggest Loss by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is the fact that most new cars are very difficult for the owner to repair themselves, given that many are highly integrated with computer systems. Shade-tree mechanics are going to disappear.
    That and the fact that every new car seems to be built on the principle that repair costs are no obstacle, so if a car gets hit, its highly damaged, extremely expensive to repair, and much more likely to be a write off - meaning you need to buy a replacement.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:The Biggest Loss by Spad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That and the fact that every new car seems to be built on the principle that repair costs are no obstacle...

      Compared to people repair/replacement costs, yes. Modern cars deform so "badly" in accidents by design in order to absorb as much of the impact energy as possible so that energy isn't absorbed by your bones and squishy bits.

      Personally I would rather have to make a car insurance claim than a life insurance one.

    2. Re:The Biggest Loss by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      is the fact that most new cars are very difficult for the owner to repair themselves, given that many are highly integrated with computer systems. Shade-tree mechanics are going to disappear.

      Tired meme. I've been hearing continuously and forcefully since I started helping my dad change the oil on his car... in the 80s... Let it die.

      The funniest part is people going on and on about how expensive ODB-II scanner are... first of all yes in 1998 they were thousands of dollars, but I bought one half a decade or so ago, pretty full featured too, for something like 3 tanks of gas (and I drive a small car, for a SUV its probably more like one tank). Seriously, they cost less than an old fashioned PDA, figure less than a hundred bucks and you're good.

      Secondly autozone will loan you one in exchange for a drivers license with the assumption that whatever you need to replace, you'll buy from them upon return, so if you can push-pull-drag the thing to the lot if it barely runs at all, or have one friend in the whole world who will give you a lift, its free.

      Thirdly most failure modes don't require a scanner unless you're an idiot. Battery is dead, no lights no start no voltage, I'm not stupid enough to scan it, I put in a new battery. Same for coolant leaks, oil leaks, cracked hoses, suspension/tire/brake probs, blah blah blah. You do need a scanner for some more obscure emissions problems. If you are stupid and/or don't know how to google, sometimes the only way to test a sensor is a scanner.. a scanner is the Fastest way, thats how I figured out my 12 year old O2 sensor had gone out. If the rusty 5 year old muffler rattles when you floor it, only a idiot hooks up a scanner instead of replacing the rusted out muffler. Brakes make horrific scraping sound? I don't think a scanner helps you figure out the brake pads are toast (and after that scraping, the disks too)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:The Biggest Loss by digitalsolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, this is crap. If you choose not to learn how to work on a modern car, that's your own issue.

      I'm not a mechanic by trade (though, admittedly I grew up with a family who races professionally) but I will take a modern car to work on over something 10+ years old any day. In fact, one of my "toy" cars is a 1988 Mazda. It's had an entire drivetrain from a 2001 GM product swapped into it, and that has in turn had even more modern electronic controls put into it.

      My 2007 Infiniti is just as easy to work on as my 1987 Renault GTA was, and it's a damn sight easier to keep running well. Obviously electric/hybrid cars require a different skill set from ICE cars, but that's simply a matter of learning what to do.

      BTW, many of the freelance mechanics I know are much more skilled than the average monkey at a dealership, the dealership simply has more books and specialized tools. Those are all available to the shade tree guys too, just call your Mac/Snap-On dealer.

      I'm confused by this fear of technology on... Slashdot. Really guys? Come on.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
  9. Re:Is this a rule? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go to any taxi rank in Germany (where almost all taxis are Mercedes). You won't have any trouble at all finding one with over 500,000 km on the clock.

    --
    No sig today...
  10. You young people don't remember the horrors by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of being stranded on the side of I95 in the dead of summer with steam pouring out of the hood of a behemoth Ford.

    1. Re:You young people don't remember the horrors by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...with no cellphone.

    2. Re:You young people don't remember the horrors by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and no OnStar or GPS. All we had was an Aerosmith 8-track and a doobie, and that's no way to fix a car.

  11. Re:Wait, what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA appears to emphasize the shrinking delta between the best and the worst(as well as the gradual decline of the average number of problems per 100 vehicles). 92 issues per 100 cars certainly isn't something you'd want out of your satellites; but for fairly modest definitions of 'problem' isn't too terribly surprising for complex mechanical devices, relatively cheap, in the hands of unskilled users.

    The big news is not that the absolute reliability of the best-in-class has changed that much, though it has improved a touch; but that the average quality of the junk has increased quite sharply, narrowing the reliability gap considerably.

  12. Don't Confuse Initial Quality with Reliability by mixed_signal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a big difference between "initial quality" reports and long term (5, 10, 15 year) reliability, though there is probably some correlation due to overall manufacturing control at the factory. Initial quality tells you if something was built correctly, for the most part. Long term reliability has more to do with the design and specifications of the car and its components. You can have a cheap car (or camera, or toy, etc.) that works fine out of the box and breaks in a short time due to cheap materials. Or you could have one built of high quality materials with fine tolerances that lasts effectively forever.

  13. No. The opposite is true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work in the car industry. That means I am a hell of a lot more qualified than most
    of you people to make an informed comment on the current state of the art in new
    cars.

    Cars now are junk, even very expensive cars. The "product cheapening department"
    has found new ways to lower the production costs for cars, and this will come back
    to haunt anyone who owns a car for more than a couple of years. Since only the wealthy or
    the stupid buy new cars every couple of years, this means a lot of people are going to get
    screwed by how the new cars are being built.

    Such things as plastic intake manifolds, wiring which is as small as possible in gauge in order to
    save copper, and even thinner body sheet metal all mean the cars you can buy today are more
    of a disposable item than cars built a decade or more previously. Argue against this if you like,
    but you will be wrong.

    1. Re:No. The opposite is true. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a mechanic who deals with these things often.

      All those are old news. "Thin" sheet metal only matters if it rusts, and rust devoured old school sheet metal easily enough.

      I've worked with plastic manifolds. So what? If well-designed, they do fine. You can't honk down on the hardware like on a cast iron intake, so don't do that.

      Small wires and connectors are a bit fiddly, but again no big deal. Different connector tools aren't expensive.

      I've been involved with rebuilding a lot of salvage vehicles from two or more organ donors, and don't find it intimidating. These are often "gut rehabs" where a burn job gets a complete dash and wiring and interior swap, and they are done with relatively basic equipment.

      Vehicles now often last for very high mileage if well-maintained. Some design choices suck, which (Vega engines, Pinto bodies) has been the case since cars existed.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. Re:Is this a rule? by Pentium100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My 1982 Mercedes W123 has almost 500000km* and not only that, for the last 12 or so years, it has been modified to run on LPG (because it is cheaper) and I stil use LPG when I want to go somewhere more than a few km away (I can only switch the fuel source to "LPG" if the engine has warmed up**).

    * probably already reached it, but the odometer has been replaced and the mechanic did not bother setting it to the same number as the old one.
    ** The process is like this (completely manual system):
    1. If the engine is cold, switch on gasoline, start the engine.
    2. When it has almost reached ~40C, turn off gasoline, drive (or wait) until the gasoline that is still in the carburetor is used up - I can usually go up to 1km on that.
    3. Switch on LPG.

    The body had some rust, but i had the car patched up. Also, it seems that I will need to replace all the door seals and the back window seal (I already replaced the front window seal) as 30 year old rubber is not known for its ability to keep water out.

  15. Re:Toyota is slipping... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try a Subaru. Great quality, and great in the snow, and they make nice wagons if you need the room. If you get a turbo model, they're also a blast to drive.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  16. Re:Is this a rule? by cgfsd · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always loved the saying: "In America, Mercedes are luxury vehicles, in Europe, they are taxis."