A good synopsis of modern engine failures

[chris719]

There has been a huge cost to the consumer for the small, incremental fuel economy increases in the past few years. They have come at the cost of intense engineering activity within the auto makers, more expensive components and materials, and increased maintenance.

I would love to see a cost benefit analysis that compares the total cost of all of these “improvements” to the personal fuel cost savings. Surely they allow the manufacturer to achieve their mandated CAFE requirements, but I struggle to believe it’s done anything beneficial to me as a consumer.

All that engineering time, effort and cost by the manufacturers could have been directed elsewhere, such as working to make a vehicle more reliable. Instead it’s being spent to eke out ever diminishing returns at ever increasing costs by increasingly sketchy measures.

The complexity for diminishing returns is a problem, but also the price / profit pressure from corporate management is what's killing these features. If they were spending a few dollars more here and there the issues would not present themselves.

 

[HouseTiger]

The complexity for diminishing returns is a problem, but also the price / profit pressure from corporate management is what's killing these features. If they were spending a few dollars more here and there the issues would not present themselves.

Like Ford refusing to spend an extra $5.00 (IIRC) on a petrol tank shield on the Pinto. (A car us old pharts remember)

 

[OX1]

Why don’t these automakers take a look at the Ford 2.7 V6 to see how they produced a high power density, direct injected, turbocharged engine that is boringly reliable?
It can be done.

This. I only have 78K, but it's tuned on 93 since almost new, making 350-360 HP (gross, and probably 430+ torque) and I beat the living snot out of it every time I drive it.

I've had it on a full day road course twice, when I was learning, figured it was the easiest thing to drive (auto/AWD).
Also probably has 25-30 or so drag strip runs.

 

[chris719]

Why don’t these automakers take a look at the Ford 2.7 V6 to see how they produced a high power density, direct injected, turbocharged engine that is boringly reliable?
It can be done.

BMW B48 and B58 are also very reliable if you don't count the cheap plastic in the cooling system failing.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

There has been a huge cost to the consumer for the small, incremental fuel economy increases in the past few years. They have come at the cost of intense engineering activity within the auto makers, more expensive components and materials, and increased maintenance.

I would love to see a cost benefit analysis that compares the total cost of all of these “improvements” to the personal fuel cost savings. Surely they allow the manufacturer to achieve their mandated CAFE requirements, but I struggle to believe it’s done anything beneficial to me as a consumer.

All that engineering time, effort and cost by the manufacturers could have been directed elsewhere, such as working to make a vehicle more reliable. Instead it’s being spent to eke out ever diminishing returns at ever increasing costs by increasingly sketchy measures.

Saving customers money on the ownership experience was never the primary goal. The goal is to reduce GHG and other emissions. Consequently any cost benefit analysis would have to include reduced costs to consumers in terms of healthcare, lost wages and/or productivity from health related absences, as well as environmental costs (ex,wildfires, increases in flooding events, etc).

It's pretty amazing what has happened especially when customers want bigger and more power every year.

 

[Arc]

Nothing is going to change unless the consumer demands it. Right now there are millions of people willing to pay a premium for a car or truck that they know has issues. Must be something in the water that's dumbing down the population.

 

[Arc]

Like Ford refusing to spend an extra $5.00 (IIRC) on a petrol tank shield on the Pinto. (A car us old pharts remember)

Remember the Mustang II pinto? 50HP

 

[D60]

Nothing is going to change unless the consumer demands it. Right now there are millions of people willing to pay a premium for a car or truck that they know has issues. Must be something in the water that's dumbing down the population.

The Car Guy just mentioned this, saying basically stop with brand loyalty. I agree. Right now GM and Toyota are not trustworthy. But some people keep buying 6.2s and 3.4Ts even knowing the problems.

Why would any manufacturer work to improve if you give them money either way?

 

[bullwinkle]

Remember the Mustang II pinto? 50HP

But you could get the Mustang II with a 302! My cousin’s late husband had one, incredibly nose heavy, probably a whopping 120 malaise-era HP (believe it was even a Cobra II, with power sucking C4 automatic!). A close friend had the first Fox body ‘83 Mustang GT 302, with the Holley carb, and the 5 speed-I only drove it once, that was enough, I would have probably killed myself in that car… Night and day compared to the Mustang II!

 

[daniel327]

Honestly safety stuff is adding complexity, too. In the same week I had to fix "Service Stabilitrak" in a GM and "Service Advancetrac" in a Ford. No, neither was just a wheel speed sensor.

Add in things like federally mandated backup cameras and manufacturers look to offset those costs by cutting corners elsewhere.

Look, ABS is fine. Airbags are fine. But I don't need traction or yaw control. I don’t need a BUC. I don't need blind spot monitoring or collision avoidance, or a windshield that requires "calibration" after replacement. The consumer thinks these things sound good, but if you can't DIY it increases the cost of ownership.

I recently took a new Camry for a test drive. The entire time I was driving it the sale's associate was trying to convince me that all of the vehicle's features were worthwhile. For example, the electric parking brake engages and disengages itself automatically when you shift from park to drive and back to park again. When I told him this isn't a feature that I find useful he had no response. There was also many other "features" that I don't want and won't pay for, such as the suite of "driver's aids", steering wheel mounted controls for the sound system, 360 degree cameras, etc, etc, etc. I ultimately decided that I'm going to drive my current vehicle for another 500,000,000 miles.

 

[melk]

I’ve got a Honda K24 and Ford 2v. Just need to pickup a GM 3800 and I should be good for another 20 years of driving

 

[4wd]

Like Ford refusing to spend an extra $5.00 (IIRC) on a petrol tank shield on the Pinto. (A car us old pharts remember)

Yes, lifetime mentions of the Pinto and the Vega are what I go to every time I’m thinking of a 2027 high end vehicle …

 

[D60]

I recently took a new Camry for a test drive. The entire time I was driving it the sale's associate was trying to convince me that all of the vehicle's features were worthwhile. For example, the electric parking brake engages and disengages itself automatically when you shift from park to drive and back to park again. When I told him this isn't a feature that I find useful he had no response. There was also many other "features" that I don't want and won't pay for, such as the suite of "driver's aids", steering wheel mounted controls for the sound system, 360 degree cameras, etc, etc, etc. I ultimately decided that I'm going to drive my current vehicle for another 500,000,000 miles.

The electric parking brakes are no joke and I don't like them (to engage automatically) . If they fail to release you are NOT moving that vehicle but to skid the tires. Also makes it a pain for a guy to just shove a vehicle around without electrical power, like repositioning between lift towers during a repair when the battery was disconnected

 

[Number_35]

But you could get the Mustang II with a 302! My cousin’s late husband had one, incredibly nose heavy, probably a whopping 120 malaise-era HP (believe it was even a Cobra II, with power sucking C4 automatic!). A close friend had the first Fox body ‘83 Mustang GT 302, with the Holley carb, and the 5 speed-I only drove it once, that was enough, I would have probably killed myself in that car… Night and day compared to the Mustang II!

Agreed, a friend had a '76 Pintostang with the 302/AT, and later an '82 Mustang with the 302 and MT.

No comparison.

The '82 racked up a 14.88 in the quarter mile at the dragstrip, which was very respectable back in the day. The '76 wouldn't have been close.

 

[kschachn]

Saving customers money on the ownership experience was never the primary goal. The goal is to reduce GHG and other emissions. Consequently any cost benefit analysis would have to include reduced costs to consumers in terms of healthcare, lost wages and/or productivity from health related absences, as well as environmental costs (ex,wildfires, increases in flooding events, etc).

It's pretty amazing what has happened especially when customers want bigger and more power every year.

Sure. Good luck on that.

 

[burbguy82]

 

[burbguy82]

There has been a huge cost to the consumer for the small, incremental fuel economy increases in the past few years. They have come at the cost of intense engineering activity within the auto makers, more expensive components and materials, and increased maintenance.

I would love to see a cost benefit analysis that compares the total cost of all of these “improvements” to the personal fuel cost savings. Surely they allow the manufacturer to achieve their mandated CAFE requirements, but I struggle to believe it’s done anything beneficial to me as a consumer.

All that engineering time, effort and cost by the manufacturers could have been directed elsewhere, such as working to make a vehicle more reliable. Instead it’s being spent to eke out ever diminishing returns at ever increasing costs by increasingly sketchy measures.

100%

I reckon the reason why a study that showed a cost to all aspects has not been published would be..........the conclusion would not be suitable for their cause.

Compartmentalization, in this case is a problem.

 

[Whimsey]

Remember the Mustang II pinto? 50HP

Don't exaggerate, it was 88HP, my EX had a 1974 Mustang II. But at least it had the manual transmission to move all that horsepower .

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

100%

I reckon the reason why a study that showed a cost to all aspects has not been published would be..........the conclusion would not be suitable for their cause.

Compartmentalization, in this case is a problem.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/decre...drop-in-deaths-attributable-to-air-pollution/

I had to dig deep down in the Dark Web to find this.

 

[barryh]

The electric parking brakes are no joke and I don't like them (to engage automatically) . If they fail to release you are NOT moving that vehicle but to skid the tires. Also makes it a pain for a guy to just shove a vehicle around without electrical power, like repositioning between lift towers during a repair when the battery was disconnected

I don't like the parking brake on when the car is in my garage particularly if put away wet and being left for a few days. The parking brake is engaged automatically at engine shut off but if I hold my foot on the brake pedal and depress the parking brake button before I remove the key it will disengage again - together with the obligatory warning on the instrument display.