1 2 3 4
mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
4/26/12 12:19 p.m.
ShadowSix wrote: I learned when I was trying different Soldiers in the gunner's turret in Iraq, some people need more space around them. It's not claustrophobia, it's just that some guys would hate having a few inches around them and others weren't bothered. I had a HUGE guy that was happy standing in the turret for an 8 hour mission, and a couple skinny 150 lb. guys who would get irritable up there after half an hour.

that is very true. I do not need much space.. but I get a little weirded out when I have to squeeze into something. I learned that when I tried spelunking. Everyone went through this little hole.. I waited till they came back

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
4/26/12 12:22 p.m.
Sultan wrote: Thanks for your thoughts. I feel like we are discussing the build quality between decades. The point if the post is what is the differences between new cars. I also didn't know that new cars don't have mechanical parts. Interesting information. Thank again

Fine. New cars don't have much of a difference between them anymore on the surface, though there are exceptions. Most mechanical maladies these days are from defects in manufacturing as opposed to honest engineering foibles. You can get really nice interiors, by modern standards, in smaller/cheaper cars.

Still doesn't change the fact that as a whole automotive quality is decreasing, both "mechanically" (electronically) and materials/durability, etc.

mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
4/26/12 12:25 p.m.

I still disagree with you Jav... today's cars generally last over 10 years of constant use.. most new car buys are holding onto their cars longer and longer. It was not that long ago that as soon as the payments were up, it was time to trade in your worn out old car.

Duke
Duke UberDork
4/26/12 12:33 p.m.
mad_machine wrote: I still disagree with you Jav... today's cars generally last over 10 years of constant use.. most new car buys are holding onto their cars longer and longer. It was not that long ago that as soon as the payments were up, it was time to trade in your worn out old car.

However, it was also not that long before that when you only got rid of a car because you were bored, or it rusted, not because it was mechanically shot.

Hell, almost any GM product built between 1963 and 1973 would run a quarter of a million miles with nothing more than checking/changing the oil once in a while, and throwing brake pads on it every 50k. My family owned at least 5 of them that way.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic UltimaDork
4/26/12 12:34 p.m.
mad_machine wrote: I still disagree with you Jav... today's cars generally last over 10 years of constant use.. most new car buys are holding onto their cars longer and longer. It was not that long ago that as soon as the payments were up, it was time to trade in your worn out old car.

I don't see any of today's cars lasting as long as old Volvos or Merc diesels.

mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
4/26/12 12:35 p.m.

I consider rusted as part of the "worn out" catagory

I remember my parents buying a GM "custom delux 10" pickup in 1976.. by 1979 they had to trade it in because it had rusted to nothing...

dculberson
dculberson Dork
4/26/12 12:50 p.m.

Jeez, I never felt like I was surrounded by a bunch of geezers any more strongly than now. Doesn't matter how old you are, several of you sound like you're 95. "Kids these days, no respect I tell you!" [shakes cane] "And get off my lawn!"

To the actual OP's point, I do think there's less of a quality gap now at least when talking about the first few years of ownership. We'll see what it's like as the current generation hits 10 or 15 years old, it may be that the quality remains high or it might not be, no telling until time has taken its toll. If you're looking at driving a new warrantied car there's not a lot of reason to pick one auto maker over another on the quality front.

Duke
Duke UberDork
4/26/12 1:24 p.m.
93EXCivic wrote:
mad_machine wrote: I still disagree with you Jav... today's cars generally last over 10 years of constant use.. most new car buys are holding onto their cars longer and longer. It was not that long ago that as soon as the payments were up, it was time to trade in your worn out old car.
I don't see any of today's cars lasting as long as old Volvos or Merc diesels.

Or a '69 Malibu sedan with a 307 and TH350.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
4/26/12 1:30 p.m.
mad_machine wrote: I still disagree with you Jav... today's cars generally last over 10 years of constant use.. most new car buys are holding onto their cars longer and longer. It was not that long ago that as soon as the payments were up, it was time to trade in your worn out old car.

You're telling this to a guy that owns a 1973 car that sat outside for 28 years that started right up. And a 1986 with 228,000 miles on the original engine and trans that's raced. That used to own a 250K+ mile RX7 that went one to win Club Races at PIR on the original engine. 10 years is jack nothing for a car. My Dad still DD's his 1969 AMC Ambassador! The engine has over 350,000 miles on it!

SilverFleet
SilverFleet Dork
4/26/12 1:30 p.m.

I, like many of you, have had many cars over the years. I think the count is up to 15 now, and I'm 30 years old. Here's some examples of my past cars and what I think about them:

The oldest car I owned was a 1964 Skylark. The interior appeared big, but in retrospect, it really wasn't. It had a giant bench seat with 4-way power controls, a giant, thin steering wheel, and a very basic dash layout. I liked to cruise around in it just fine, but it was like sitting on a couch that happened to be in a weird blue rolling diner. Forget having anyone in the back seat. I drove it until it got too rusty.

My 1979 Trans Am is similar, except it has a red interior and bucket seats. It's really ratty, so I can't comment on the overall quality, other than it has had a tough time surviving all these years. It was slapped together as fast as GM could crap it out the assembly line. You really have to take a car like this and pull it completely apart to make it right.

Fast forward to the 80's, and you have my old 1987 Cougar XR7. It was very comfortable, with it's awesome velour full power Recaro-style seats and fat, sporty steering wheel. It had the full instrumentation digital dash with fuel computer, which I thought was ahead of it's time and actually not too hokey. I thought it was worlds better than my friend Pseudosport's 1986 Monte Carlo, even after he re-did it. It was an exceptional interior for its era, and the rest of the car was built well too, although it was gutless. I still miss it.

How about my 2002 VW Jetta GLS? The interior was very nice. Decent, simple dash layout, nice gauges, and comfortable but unsupportive seats. It felt like my friend's Audi A4 inside. I bet it's nicer in a 2002 than in a 2012 Jetta! Interior quality isn't everything, though. Too bad it was horribly unreliable and poorly engineered. I don't even want to get into this one.

Let's move onto my 2002 WRX. It was a quirky little car, and that carried over into the interior. The seats were nice to sit in at first, but the driver's seat bolsters wore out and the seat track itself snapped during acceleration. The dash was boring for a performance car, with green gauges like a cheap econobox. The steering wheel was nice though. Paint quality was terrible, and the lightweight body panels were easily dented. the drivetrain was the real star; it put up with over 50,000 miles of modified daily abuse, so I really can't complain. I'd own another someday, but not for daily driver duty.

Next... my 2009 WRX. Not sure what happened here.they managed to go backwards from the older models. The interior was terrible and uncomfortable. It was all hard plastic and creaky. The seats were wider than the 2002's but offered much less support. Forget passenger comfort, it was nonexistent. The stock shifter felt like a Twizzler on a hot day, even after switching to urethane bushings. The gauges were nice though, that's about it. Paint quality was worse than terrible, and the car just felt cheap, like they cut corners all over the place. The car was very fast, but it had niggling problems all the time and was extremely finicky. It was an uncomfortable, problematic, and disappointing car.

I currently have a 2012 Mazda3 as a daily driver. So far, I love it. The interior is smaller inside than a lot of cars in its class, but I like it a lot better than my old Subarus and even that Jetta's interior. It has awesome, supportive seats, a driver-oriented dash layout, a digital readout data center much like my old Cougar (!) a good stereo, hands-free Bluetooth integration, and the best stock shifter I've had in any car. It has great paint! There isn't one chip in my front bumper form this winter, where my last WRX's bumper had cracked paint just from cold weather!!! It feels like the designers of the car really cared about making a car that you would want to drive and own, and not making a car that will become a burden on you as it gets older. It is a very simple,well put together car, and it seems very easy to work on too.

What does all of this say? Automakers are at a crossroads, with newer cars becoming more expensive every year due to EPA regulations and the rising cost of industry. I think there are car companies that continue to cut corners and decontent their cars while giving the illusion of quality in order to make profit. Toyota and Subaru come to mind here. And then there are other companies that are starting to put together cars that they are proud to sell. Mazda is one of them. I also point to the new Ford and Chrysler products too, as they have gotten leaps and bounds better than their cars from even 5 years ago. These companies "get it". I see a bright future for companies that put out cars like this.

Otto Maddox
Otto Maddox SuperDork
4/26/12 1:52 p.m.

ShadowSix wrote: I have noticed that recent VAG interiors are beautiful.
Max_Archer
Max_Archer Reader
4/26/12 1:56 p.m.
mad_machine wrote:
ShadowSix wrote: I learned when I was trying different Soldiers in the gunner's turret in Iraq, some people need more space around them. It's not claustrophobia, it's just that some guys would hate having a few inches around them and others weren't bothered. I had a HUGE guy that was happy standing in the turret for an 8 hour mission, and a couple skinny 150 lb. guys who would get irritable up there after half an hour.
that is very true. I do not need much space.. but I get a little weirded out when I have to squeeze into something. I learned that when I tried spelunking. Everyone went through this little hole.. I waited till they came back

I feel the same way about this. Being somewhere compact is fine with me. It's the thought of getting stuck in something that gives me a problem.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic UltimaDork
4/26/12 2:16 p.m.
dculberson wrote: Jeez, I never felt like I was surrounded by a bunch of geezers any more strongly than now. Doesn't matter how old you are, several of you sound like you're 95. "Kids these days, no respect I tell you!" [shakes cane] "And get off my lawn!"

Yes I am. (born in '88).

alfadriver
alfadriver UberDork
4/26/12 2:22 p.m.

Here's what I'm reading here...

A few guys lamet the the "fact" that new cars are not as reliable as old cars.

Others argue with them...

As a person who lives off of new cars, I'm pretty sure you will never convince Jav or Civic otherwise. And that's fine- as far as I can tell, they will never buy a new car anyway, so this debate that they want to claim how great their car is, is actually very moot.

One thing, though, the current average age of a car on the road now is older than it has ever been. Something like 10 years old is the average life of a car- way longer than it ever has been. For the number to get that high, now, either 1) more cars are crashing and are being destroyed, or 2) cars are just more reliable. hmm.

Anyway, arguing the merit of new cars with people who will never buy one is pointless. They are right, they KNOW they are.

HiTempguy
HiTempguy SuperDork
4/26/12 2:22 p.m.
mad_machine wrote: I still disagree with you Jav... today's cars generally last over 10 years of constant use.. most new car buys are holding onto their cars longer and longer. It was not that long ago that as soon as the payments were up, it was time to trade in your worn out old car.

Anything built after 1989 by Japanese manufacturers can last forever, the domestics seemed to be about a decade behind (but handled rust better), and by 1999 had caught up.

1996 GMC 1500 - 500,000kms 2004 GMC 1500 - 350,000kms and counting 1993 Legacy Turbo - 460,000kms and counting

I bet I could get a million kms (650,000miles) on a non-turbo car that was brand new these days. You were NOT getting that before the new millennium, no way, no how.

Having said that, the interior thing is interesting. ALL manufacturers around the recession time (2007-2008) seemed to really go backwards on interior materials. The dashes in new GM trucks are disgusting, this sandpaper rough (not quite, but still) black slab of rock hard material. My 1989 Firefly had softer touch material than that!

At the same time, you can get into a base model bmw for $35k cdn. That's nothing to sneeze at!

Bobzilla
Bobzilla SuperDork
4/26/12 2:33 p.m.

Honda still can't build an automatic transmission to save their butts. I know that for a fact. But besides that, the gap between what was once a "bad" car and what was a "good" car has decreased. Part of that is due ti the "good" car companies getting lazy on their quality while the "bad" car companies have kicked into overdrive.

Hal
Hal Dork
4/26/12 2:35 p.m.

Well I am one of those "old geezers" (born in 1943). Been driving since 1959 and have had a wide range of vehicles. From LBC's to American Muscle, Full size pickups to compact cars and most everything in between.

We have a 2010 van and two cars (2000 Buick - 2001 Focus). I like the ergonomics in any of them better than 95% of what I had previously.

As far as the latest cars go we have looked at a few and they seem to be equal to or better than our current cars. Guess I will find out for sure in August when we go looking for a replacement for the Buick.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic UltimaDork
4/26/12 2:36 p.m.
HiTempguy wrote: I bet I could get a million kms (650,000miles) on a non-turbo car that was brand new these days. You were NOT getting that before the new millennium, no way, no how.

Oh really?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/record-setting-volvo-driver-closing-in-on-3-million-miles/1

93EXCivic
93EXCivic UltimaDork
4/26/12 2:39 p.m.

Just to be clean I really think the longest lasting cars are from the '90s. I don't trust at the electronics to hold up in the long run because I have never had an electronic gadget hold up for more then a few years. I just find the materials and ergonomics of new cars to be very displeasing.

HiTempguy
HiTempguy SuperDork
4/26/12 3:20 p.m.
93EXCivic wrote: Oh really? http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/record-setting-volvo-driver-closing-in-on-3-million-miles/1

One, ONE example is what you can come up with. Many cars would have had a catastrophic failure by then. I've been around a lot of cars (as I'm sure you have) and I have NEVER saw/heard of a car in Alberta with more km's than 500,000. It's just unheard of.

There are how many cars on the road? I'm sure a few have gone over 1mil plus miles, but they are extremely rare (and IMO) comes down to the owner taking extreme due diligence.

However, I am seeing TONS of newer (2000+) MY vehicles popping up with over 300,000kms on them. Could you imagine putting 300,000kms on a Chevette? Nope!

tuna55
tuna55 UltraDork
4/26/12 3:32 p.m.

to the OP, I recommend starting a new topic. Say something like "I care only about the differences between cars built today vs other cars built today and interiors are irrelevant to my interests".

This one, I am afraid, is too far gone.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
4/26/12 3:33 p.m.
alfadriver wrote: One thing, though, the current average age of a car on the road now is older than it has ever been. Something like 10 years old is the average life of a car- way longer than it ever has been. For the number to get that high, now, either 1) more cars are crashing and are being destroyed, or 2) cars are just more reliable. hmm.

Or it could be that more new cars have been sold every year (with a few small bumps) for so long that the statistics are getting skewed?

39 million cars produced worldwide in 1999, 54 million in 2007. 250 million cars in the US in 2010, 225 million in 2000, 193 million in 1990, 161 million in 1980, 111 million in 1970...

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html

Hmmmmm....

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
4/26/12 3:35 p.m.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Doesn't Volvo have an obnoxious mileage club with grill badges and the whole works for 1/4 million, 1/2 million miles, etc? Come on man, you're reaching and you know it...

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac MegaDork
4/26/12 3:54 p.m.

I think i've personally seen maybe 5 Volvos with over 1/4 million on them.

The fact of the matter is that a MAJORITY, and a large majority at that, of cars made in the 80s or prior, never made it to 200k miles. That's all he's saying, or all i read.

ppddppdd
ppddppdd Reader
4/26/12 4:00 p.m.

You used to make a car reliable by using a lot of heavy duty high quality parts. Look at an old Mercedes. That made good cars expensive.

Now you make it reliable by engineering and manufacturing it VERY well. Unit cost is a lot lower.

Thanks, Japan!

1 2 3 4

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
H0M4SyncI0Uf6TUWm9s9OuX3pIV62P3XOOXIkvmIXhh2dPMXHt3tx8L1TXrob1ro