Five Euro Car Myths?

[supton]

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by supton

Hmm, I'm starting to think I'm derailing this thread, looking for TCO and hard numbers when the thread is more about addressing myths. I'm looking at some very specific parameters that few car shoppers would be; my own car shopping should probably be off on its own thread. Apologies.

I still do not get how you get exact parameters? That Highlander with [problematic water pump would turn out expensive, but it is actually very reliable overall. Failed solenoids on VVT-I on 2GR-FE will cost more than anything on BMW N55 engine for example. On BMW N55 you know you will have to change valve cover for sure at 100k, on 2GR-FE solenoids might or might not fail so if they do not, great, if they do? oh boy. Then choice of tires. I have RT43 tire, as a spare in BMW. I personally believe in buying best possible tires on wheels. So I will spend more money regardless of vehicle I own. I am not sure TCO is exact science.

I do not follow you. First you say the water pump is expensive, but the vehicle is reliable, but then if the VVT solenoid goes, it's crazy expensive. So how is Highlander any good? By your metric it is very bad. Your money to spend. My money to spend. I have specific requirements--to minimize TCO and to hopefully minimize downtime & hassle. What is hard to understand about that? IIRC in other threads you made it sound like you oversaw a fleet (or more than one), then surely you know about the bottom line. It may not be an exact science but it certainly can be tabulated in the review mirror (looking at past data) and then tentatively used to predict the future (at least if the model does not change drastically). Last time I was able to justify a new car I took into account maintenance (timing belts et al) and expected failures (few grand at 250k, had to figure the turbo would go eventually, based on anecdotal forum trends). Vehicle did as planned. I see no reason why I can't reasonably do the same on future purchases--look at prior data to determine what I should expect in the future. That data, my expectations--those are the parameters.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by Ws6

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by supton

Hmm, I'm starting to think I'm derailing this thread, looking for TCO and hard numbers when the thread is more about addressing myths. I'm looking at some very specific parameters that few car shoppers would be; my own car shopping should probably be off on its own thread. Apologies.

I still do not get how you get exact parameters? That Highlander with [problematic water pump would turn out expensive, but it is actually very reliable overall. Failed solenoids on VVT-I on 2GR-FE will cost more than anything on BMW N55 engine for example. On BMW N55 you know you will have to change valve cover for sure at 100k, on 2GR-FE solenoids might or might not fail so if they do not, great, if they do? oh boy. Then choice of tires. I have RT43 tire, as a spare in BMW. I personally believe in buying best possible tires on wheels. So I will spend more money regardless of vehicle I own. I am not sure TCO is exact science.

Personal experience is that TCO is model-based, across a large sample size. Individual experiences run the gamut. My take is that I look at the maintenance costs vs. return in fun factor, and then buy a big warranty and don't worry about it. Since I drive a fair bit (30-40K miles/year), I also factor in fuel cost and availability (if you have a 91+ octane only vehicle, it's not going to work so well in some places on some trips). TCO is just kindof a one size fits none, IMO, but it does "speak to the brand" and "overall expectation", IMO.

I have driven through deserts of Utah, Montana, mountains, New England etc. and yet to see that premium is not available. I managed to fuel up premium near Death Valley, Montana, South and North Dakota in gas stations where mechanical counter still counts gallons. I am really not sure that is a factor. I would say probably issue will be with sulfur levels in some areas.

I've been plenty of 87 only places. YMMV.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by supton

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by supton

Hmm, I'm starting to think I'm derailing this thread, looking for TCO and hard numbers when the thread is more about addressing myths. I'm looking at some very specific parameters that few car shoppers would be; my own car shopping should probably be off on its own thread. Apologies.

I still do not get how you get exact parameters? That Highlander with [problematic water pump would turn out expensive, but it is actually very reliable overall. Failed solenoids on VVT-I on 2GR-FE will cost more than anything on BMW N55 engine for example. On BMW N55 you know you will have to change valve cover for sure at 100k, on 2GR-FE solenoids might or might not fail so if they do not, great, if they do? oh boy. Then choice of tires. I have RT43 tire, as a spare in BMW. I personally believe in buying best possible tires on wheels. So I will spend more money regardless of vehicle I own. I am not sure TCO is exact science.

I do not follow you. First you say the water pump is expensive, but the vehicle is reliable, but then if the VVT solenoid goes, it's crazy expensive. So how is Highlander any good? By your metric it is very bad. Your money to spend. My money to spend. I have specific requirements--to minimize TCO and to hopefully minimize downtime & hassle. What is hard to understand about that? IIRC in other threads you made it sound like you oversaw a fleet (or more than one), then surely you know about the bottom line. It may not be an exact science but it certainly can be tabulated in the review mirror (looking at past data) and then tentatively used to predict the future (at least if the model does not change drastically). Last time I was able to justify a new car I took into account maintenance (timing belts et al) and expected failures (few grand at 250k, had to figure the turbo would go eventually, based on anecdotal forum trends). Vehicle did as planned. I see no reason why I can't reasonably do the same on future purchases--look at prior data to determine what I should expect in the future. That data, my expectations--those are the parameters.

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $. Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by blingo

Interesting to see Porsche's mythos in the US that lifted. Lexus certainly would be in problems with Porsche's weaknesses. Porsche didn't have to wrap an off roader, not even its SUV around its engines to have them suffering. Brand busting: https://www.autobild.de/artikel/porsche-panamera-gebrauchtwagen-test-13137587.html Granted, VAGPorsche's DSG may be worse than PDK while Alfa's Giulia and Stelvio actually compare favorably contrary to lots of old mythology. But reviewing myths here became making and piling up claims hardly suitable for the city.

DSG is Borg-Warner. PDK is ZF. There is big difference between two units. PDK can actually sustain 800nm+ torque, DSG cannot.

 

[blingo]

It's meant to sustain - as the engines, even the v8, Alusil..., are meant to deliver :-) PDK have their faults. Reliability and durability generally can't be found in just a torque or power rating. Mercedes' W5A580 also had been rated for Mercedes' V12 and shouldn't have faded that early that often as it did behind the supercharged Jaguar V8 (twice on mine). (ZF transmissions in the non-supercharged XJ8 weren't that great either.) But speaking of them: ZF by the way is currently ceasing all development of traditional transmissions. There's your background again of Toyota collaborating more and more in the overcome fields. One of the reasons why Mazda's Skyactiv-SiX is more or less expected to appear with Lexus and Toyota.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by edyvw

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $.

Sure, but you can still run numbers and try to be educated. Nothing worse than someone (here or in real life) realizing that their new purchase has some routine high cost item that they didn't know about.

Quote

Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

Ah, I see. You were ok with perhaps a higher vehicle TCO in order to drive down employee turnover costs, thus leading to a better bottom line. Makes sense. I'm an employee of one, pretty hard for me to fire myself. Although somedays I sure wish I could... [I try to view myself as being in business, that way I try to look at my decisions impartially. How will it affect my bottom line? in an attempt to avoid poor decision making.]

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by supton

Originally Posted by edyvw

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $.

Sure, but you can still run numbers and try to be educated. Nothing worse than someone (here or in real life) realizing that their new purchase has some routine high cost item that they didn't know about.

Quote

Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

Ah, I see. You were ok with perhaps a higher vehicle TCO in order to drive down employee turnover costs, thus leading to a better bottom line. Makes sense. I'm an employee of one, pretty hard for me to fire myself. Although somedays I sure wish I could... [I try to view myself as being in business, that way I try to look at my decisions impartially. How will it affect my bottom line? in an attempt to avoid poor decision making.]

My point about that is that I run on all vehicles Michelin, Continental or Bridgestone tires. I run winter tires as a. they are required by the law, b. I do not want someone to get killed. Winter tires: Continental or Good Year (we do not get those GY in the US). I am never going to try to save every penny as it does not make sense or it will cost me somewhere else, maybe where money really does not matter. That is how operate my vehicles too. I have six sets of tires for three vehicles. Set for summer, set for winter, for each vehicle. Could not care less about expense, as you really cannot put price on that.

 

[supton]

Ok, so you don't operate for TCO, so you are unable to comment about it. Fair enough. We operate with different goals and are unable to give advice to each other as a result. FWIW I do run snows on a couple of my vehicles, and as the owner of a pickup, not all my vehicles have tight TCO targets to hit.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by supton

Originally Posted by edyvw

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $.

Sure, but you can still run numbers and try to be educated. Nothing worse than someone (here or in real life) realizing that their new purchase has some routine high cost item that they didn't know about.

Quote

Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

Ah, I see. You were ok with perhaps a higher vehicle TCO in order to drive down employee turnover costs, thus leading to a better bottom line. Makes sense. I'm an employee of one, pretty hard for me to fire myself. Although somedays I sure wish I could... [I try to view myself as being in business, that way I try to look at my decisions impartially. How will it affect my bottom line? in an attempt to avoid poor decision making.]

I'm still waiting to find out what field is being talked about where employees matter? Looking for career change, lol!

 

[Silk]

Nothing 21's Century for me. Mid '90's their engineering was still rock solid, particularly Mercedes and Volvo, but then they went cheap for electronics, switches, wiring etc, and the plastic went to hard and brittle, and everywhere. You can't touch a Euro car without some bit of plastic breaking. The Japanese lag behind Euro technology, but they have caught up now - plastic to break everywhere now.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Silk

Nothing 21's Century for me. Mid '90's their engineering was still rock solid, particularly Mercedes and Volvo, but then they went cheap for electronics, switches, wiring etc, and the plastic went to hard and brittle, and everywhere. You can't touch a Euro car without some bit of plastic breaking. The Japanese lag behind Euro technology, but they have caught up now - plastic to break everywhere now.

I've legit never experienced this, except to say that modern headliners dont sag anymore.

 

[UG_Passat]

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by supton

Originally Posted by edyvw

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $.

Sure, but you can still run numbers and try to be educated. Nothing worse than someone (here or in real life) realizing that their new purchase has some routine high cost item that they didn't know about.

Quote

Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

Ah, I see. You were ok with perhaps a higher vehicle TCO in order to drive down employee turnover costs, thus leading to a better bottom line. Makes sense. I'm an employee of one, pretty hard for me to fire myself. Although somedays I sure wish I could... [I try to view myself as being in business, that way I try to look at my decisions impartially. How will it affect my bottom line? in an attempt to avoid poor decision making.]

My point about that is that I run on all vehicles Michelin, Continental or Bridgestone tires. I run winter tires as a. they are required by the law, b. I do not want someone to get killed. Winter tires: Continental or Good Year (we do not get those GY in the US). I am never going to try to save every penny as it does not make sense or it will cost me somewhere else, maybe where money really does not matter. That is how operate my vehicles too. I have six sets of tires for three vehicles. Set for summer, set for winter, for each vehicle. Could not care less about expense, as you really cannot put price on that.

Technically winter tires are not required by law in CO. The 2019 updated Traction Law allows all-season M+S tires with sufficient tread depth (3/16") as counting as sufficient traction tire. Do you carry chains also, in case they enforce the Chain Law?

 

[Jetronic]

In Europe, on some mountain passes chains are mandatory in winter. It would depend where edyvw's vans operate if he has snow chains or not. I don't have snow chains as I avoid the mountains when the weather is bad enough to warrant them.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by UG_Passat

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by supton

Originally Posted by edyvw

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $.

Sure, but you can still run numbers and try to be educated. Nothing worse than someone (here or in real life) realizing that their new purchase has some routine high cost item that they didn't know about.

Quote

Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

Ah, I see. You were ok with perhaps a higher vehicle TCO in order to drive down employee turnover costs, thus leading to a better bottom line. Makes sense. I'm an employee of one, pretty hard for me to fire myself. Although somedays I sure wish I could... [I try to view myself as being in business, that way I try to look at my decisions impartially. How will it affect my bottom line? in an attempt to avoid poor decision making.]

My point about that is that I run on all vehicles Michelin, Continental or Bridgestone tires. I run winter tires as a. they are required by the law, b. I do not want someone to get killed. Winter tires: Continental or Good Year (we do not get those GY in the US). I am never going to try to save every penny as it does not make sense or it will cost me somewhere else, maybe where money really does not matter. That is how operate my vehicles too. I have six sets of tires for three vehicles. Set for summer, set for winter, for each vehicle. Could not care less about expense, as you really cannot put price on that.

Technically winter tires are not required by law in CO. The 2019 updated Traction Law allows all-season M+S tires with sufficient tread depth (3/16") as counting as sufficient traction tire. Do you carry chains also, in case they enforce the Chain Law?

I have a fleet of cars in Europe.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Jetronic

In Europe, on some mountain passes chains are mandatory in winter. It would depend where edyvw's vans operate if he has snow chains or not. I don't have snow chains as I avoid the mountains when the weather is bad enough to warrant them.

I have fleet of cars in Europe. Chains are not necessary if all snow tires (3peak snow flake) on all axels with min. 4mm depth on personal and some commercial vehicles.All vehicles my business operate there are light deliver vans. Some commercial vehicle must have chains.

 

[UG_Passat]

Originally Posted by UG_Passat

Originally Posted by edyvw

Originally Posted by supton

Originally Posted by edyvw

My point is that it is not exact science. You cannot get exact parameters to single $.

Sure, but you can still run numbers and try to be educated. Nothing worse than someone (here or in real life) realizing that their new purchase has some routine high cost item that they didn't know about.

Quote

Yes, I still have fleet of cars. One thing I never did, or wanted to do is to save as much as possible. When you start to do that, you lose something much more important: employee. And that costs much more than saving absolutely every penny on vehicle upkeep.

Ah, I see. You were ok with perhaps a higher vehicle TCO in order to drive down employee turnover costs, thus leading to a better bottom line. Makes sense. I'm an employee of one, pretty hard for me to fire myself. Although somedays I sure wish I could... [I try to view myself as being in business, that way I try to look at my decisions impartially. How will it affect my bottom line? in an attempt to avoid poor decision making.]

My point about that is that I run on all vehicles Michelin, Continental or Bridgestone tires. I run winter tires as a. they are required by the law, b. I do not want someone to get killed. Winter tires: Continental or Good Year (we do not get those GY in the US). I am never going to try to save every penny as it does not make sense or it will cost me somewhere else, maybe where money really does not matter. That is how operate my vehicles too. I have six sets of tires for three vehicles. Set for summer, set for winter, for each vehicle. Could not care less about expense, as you really cannot put price on that.

Technically winter tires are not required by law in CO. The 2019 updated Traction Law allows all-season M+S tires with sufficient tread depth (3/16") as counting as sufficient traction tire. Do you carry chains also, in case they enforce the Chain Law?

I have a fleet of cars in Europe.

What does that have to do with Colorado's winter traction law?

 

[edyvw]

What does that have to do with Colorado's winter traction law?

Nothing. I am not sure where you saw I mentioned Colorado.

 

[UG_Passat]

Nothing. I am not sure where you saw I mentioned Colorado.

You didn't see your response, in Post #114, when you quoted my response to your false claim that Colorado requires winter tires by law.
"I have a fleet of cars in Europe"

 

[edyvw]

You didn't see your response, in Post #114, when you quoted my response to your false claim that Colorado requires winter tires by law.
"I have a fleet of cars in Europe"

"I run winter tires" was reference for fleet of commercial delivery vans I have in Europe, not here in CO.
The discussion was about fleet of vehicles I have so I did not specify location as Supton already indicated that before.

 

[JT20]

How about this may be now a myth: European cars like very heavy motor oils, 0W-40 and up because German.

My E30 liked heavy oil, however... I wonder if I could actually run regular thin oil in it and be okay. 5W-30, maybe a stout 0W-20 if I'm really brave.