New cars are less reliable - Change my mind

People today expect to get a minimum of 20 years from a vehicle instead of throwing it away after four.

In another thread I voiced my opinion of the awesomeness that was the 1991 Pontiac Grand Am that my mom leased from new.  And when it got traded in in 1995, it was a leaky, rusted out mess.  And the A/C always smelled like mold.

I remember real moneymaker cars like the first and second generation Taurus, and the Tempo/Topaz, and the first generation (technically third?) Escort, where they needed the front end rebuilt every 10k miles or so, the brakes needed constant repair, etc.  

I was busy typing in the other thread when this one popped up, but I do think that peeling back the numbers would help.  I couldn't say one way or the other, but I am very curious about the maintenance intervals.  My one data point is the OM642 engine.  Mercedes says it's a 10k OCI and engines that follow the recommendation are known to spin bearings.  The folks that don't have any problems tend toward a 5k OCI.  What's the motivating factor in publishing a 10k OCI instead of 5k or 7.5k?  Has anyone every done a decent test of putting two identical motors through an identical test pattern to simulate 250k miles' worth of wear, changing the oil in one motor at 10k and the other at 5k?  Is it simply that only one standard deviation will grenade by 150k miles on a 10k OCI?

Do the "lifetime fill" transmissions last longer if you change their fluid every 60k miles?  What does the manufacturer consider a lifetime?  They are, afterall, in the business of selling new cars, not maintaining ones that have already been sold.

I'm also not sure that the number of recalls that are issued are a good indication of "reliability".  The Mazda 5 had a recall because the hatch struts could rust and fail.  Subaru had a recall for a small number of vehicles that needed a bolt torqued properly because one guy on the assembly line wasn't properly trained.  There's a recall on some GM headlights to add a sticker that serves as a diffuser for the headlights.  None of that seems like it affects "long term reliability", at least in my definition.

Also define reliable:

For me that is the car failing to start or run..........it doesn't have to run well.

Example I have a friend with a Lexus GS300; the dash is lit up like a Christmas Tree and has been for a few years. The car has 200K on it, the tranny shifts a bit slow, paints peeling but overall it keeps on trucking. His wife thinks it's a heap and would likely deem it unreliable.

By contrast his Audi hits the shop often; it's not ever stranded him but because it's the wife the car gets things done at the slightest hint of a problem. His wife loves the car. 

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to dculberson :

Electric vehicles, assuming they continue to evolve, will become more reliable than ICE cars, which will probably lead to greater adoption of them.

How?

EVs still have HVAC systems that have fans and mode doors and condensors and compressors and stuff.  They still have windows that go up and down and doors that open and close and lock and unlock. They still have security systems.  They still have parking assist and lane assist.  They still have brakes.  They still have ball joints and bushings and steering.  They still make them out of metal.

From a point and grunt "as long as it still moves under its own power then it is good" point of view, then EVs may be more "reliable".  But drivetrain isn't the stuff that breaks all the time.

From.my experience with hybrids, EVs stand to be real moneymakers with respect to how often they will need the brakes serviced.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

From.my experience with hybrids, EVs stand to be real moneymakers with respect to how often they will need the brakes serviced.

How so?  Even in the rust belt at almost 180k miles, the brakes haven't been an issue on SWMBO's Prius.  Replaced the original fronts at 150k because the pads were starting to rust off the backing plates and the rotors were crusty.  Rear drums are still going on the original drums and shoes.  They're crusty on the outside, but everything inside is still fine. 

I wanted this part to be a separate post.

As one of the resident old car guys I will tell you new cars are indeed more reliable.  For me the maintenance intervals alone bear this out.

My Subaru Outback has 130K on it; It's needed brake pads and oil changes. The timing belt was done at 95K (I live in one of the driest deserts in the world) The clutch master cylinder has started leaking.  The car runs and drives as well as when I got it 8 1/2 years ago

My wife's Santa Fe is at 118K it's needed a gasket (oil leak), a starter and pads and rotors. The rear passenger window motor has gone out. She doesn't care about fixing it. As far as service we did the 100K tranny fluid change along with the oil changes.

The 1990 E250 as 156K; it's needed two new brake calipers, pads & shoes, a fuel pump, throttle position sensor, front trailing arm bushings, a tranny a power steering pump hose and the A/C.

The 86 Dodge Mini Van did 189K: Trans went at 100K, the head gasket had to be changed at 80K (oil leak 2.4 engine), it ate two fuel pumps, we did the timing belt earlier then the specified intervals and yet the belt broke at 185K. We fixed it and she started shopping for a new car.

My Volvo 142E - the Bosch D Fuel injection needed tending to often. No one would put up with that now. It also broke the oil pump drive and ate a fuel pump. The car was very well maintained for before I got it.

When we bought the Datsun 1200 at 100K it needed an alternator, the motor rebuilt and the rear tranny seal done. At that point it was only a 12 year old car. Yeah it runs and runs and runs but the various seals and other small parts wear out fairly regular.

Finally yes I'm aware this is a survey of one.

In reply to rslifkin :

Disk brakes that do not get used enough will seize the pins, the rotors rust and don't get cleaned off.  Basically all the problems rear disk brakes have but now on the front, too.

IMO this would be a great time to go back to four wheel drum brakes.  If the traction motors do all the braking with regen then the wheel brakes are only really there for emergency use.  With brake by wire the nonlinearity of drums can be tuned out.  Unless adjusted wrong they have zero drag.  They are lighter. And as we see from most Japanese cars, they can generally go the life of the vehicle without requiring any service.

Meh, I'm not as reliable as I used to be either, but so what.  Wait...was I ever really reliable???  Just ask my ex

OK, serious answer is that I agree we need metrics to really have a grounded discussion.  However, seat of the pants feel is that cars are much more reliable than they once were.  Growing up in the '80s, my father always had company cars.  He changed every 50-60k miles because that was what the leasing agency felt was the proper shelf life for the car.  Warranties then were 24k miles...if you were lucky.  Vastly different today.  More to go wrong, sure...but better engineering has lead to longer shelf lives for cars.

Intervals between failures and fixes are definitely longer on modern cars but because of their complexity, the only tool that does you any good at all is a cell phone and a credit card.

I used to be able to solve any problems on my old sports cars with a couple of pounds of tools and things found on the side of the road (e.g. a discarded matchbook is just fine for resetting point gaps).  With a modern car I can't even understand the arcane electrical systems much less find where they live in the cars.

I remember the service intervals of cars built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and how rare it was if anyone reached 100,000 miles.   

We are spoiled now.  

That said, the peak might have been the Japanese offerings in the 90s.    But, they didn't have to meet today's mandates...

In reply to Opti :

Well, I suppose I consider anything from the 2000's to today to be "modern".  From a reliability standpoint, I wouldn't think twice about driving my 2006 MINI across the country.  It sits for weeks or months on end and starts up with nary a complaint. My three Triumphs from the 70's (lumping my 1980 TR8 into that era), on the other hand are much more finicky about sitting for too long. Every diesel vehicle I've owned did not like long periods of disuse. 

Emissions-related CELs are definitely a thing. Often a car with a CEL will run fine despite the light being on.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to rslifkin :

Disk brakes that do not get used enough will seize the pins, the rotors rust and don't get cleaned off.  Basically all the problems rear disk brakes have but now on the front, too.

IMO this would be a great time to go back to four wheel drum brakes.  If the traction motors do all the braking with regen then the wheel brakes are only really there for emergency use.  With brake by wire the nonlinearity of drums can be tuned out.  Unless adjusted wrong they have zero drag.  They are lighter. And as we see from most Japanese cars, they can generally go the life of the vehicle without requiring any service.

I've never seen a rotor rust issue on the braking surface with the Prius.  Unless you drive like a total grandma all the time and take a 1/2 mile to slow down from 40, it uses the friction brakes enough to avoid that issue.  And at least on the older Prius, regen drops out once you get slow enough anyway.  The newer hybrids do seem to have stronger regen, but it should be easy enough programming-wise to make sure the friction brakes get used enough to keep the surfaces clean. 

Sticking slide pins is an issue on many cars though, and I personally hate sliding calipers as a result.  Better calipers would avoid that issue. 

I also can't say I've ever had a car with rear discs struggle to keep the brakes clean.  On the Jeep it's a total non-issue.  On the E38, the rear brakes do take longer than the fronts to clean up if the rotors get rusty, but they clean up well enough to not be an issue.  If the rear brakes are crapping up from hardly any use, then in my mind, the brake proportioning on the car is poorly designed and under-using the rear brakes for light braking. 

Personally, even with the maintenance issues of some disc setups, I can't stand drum brakes, mostly working on them.  And I won't buy a car that has them unless I can convert it to disc within reasonable effort.  Drum in disc parking brakes are my absolute limit in that respect. 

Wally (Forum Supporter) said:

I strongly disagree, at least as far as simple cars go. My last three new car: 

Fiat 500 hit 140,000 miles needing only brakes, rear wheel bearings. 
 

Buick Verano: 240,000 miles needed a high pressure fuel pump, brakes, and a cam timing solenoid.

 

Jeep Renegade: 104,000 miles has needed front brakes. I haven't put more than $100 into a car at a time in probably ten years except for the Corvette which led a bit of a life before it got here.   

Wish I could say that about the wife's Fiat 500. That multiair system is no end of problems, I would kill for a conventional intake cam on that car.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to rslifkin :

Disk brakes that do not get used enough will seize the pins, the rotors rust and don't get cleaned off.  Basically all the problems rear disk brakes have but now on the front, too.

IMO this would be a great time to go back to four wheel drum brakes.  If the traction motors do all the braking with regen then the wheel brakes are only really there for emergency use.  With brake by wire the nonlinearity of drums can be tuned out.  Unless adjusted wrong they have zero drag.  They are lighter. And as we see from most Japanese cars, they can generally go the life of the vehicle without requiring any service.

Only trouble is that if regen fails, or isn't available at full charge because there's no load dump (common issue), then you'd be trying to stop like it's 1949. Maybe bringing back front discs + rear drums would be a good compromise.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Or single, non-vented discs, with two piston fixed calipers.  Simple, light, and reliable.  Could use the same setup at each wheel.  

GameboyRMH said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to rslifkin :

Disk brakes that do not get used enough will seize the pins, the rotors rust and don't get cleaned off.  Basically all the problems rear disk brakes have but now on the front, too.

IMO this would be a great time to go back to four wheel drum brakes.  If the traction motors do all the braking with regen then the wheel brakes are only really there for emergency use.  With brake by wire the nonlinearity of drums can be tuned out.  Unless adjusted wrong they have zero drag.  They are lighter. And as we see from most Japanese cars, they can generally go the life of the vehicle without requiring any service.

Only trouble is that if regen fails, or isn't available at full charge because there's no load dump (common issue), then you'd be trying to stop like it's 1949. Maybe bringing back front discs + rear drums would be a good compromise.

Drum brakes have more braking power per area used than disk brakes do.  The main reason for a switch to disks was because drums lock up so easily.

Notice that power brakes were not really a thing until disk brakes started to happen.  A manual 4 drum system feels rather nice to drive, light easy pedal like a power disk setup.

In reply to Tom1200 :

Do you realize the premise was reliability peaking in the 00s. Im am not of the delusion that cars were more reliable in the 80s or 70s. Maintenance intervals havent changed much in the last 15 or 20 years, outside of OCIs and servicing transmissions from what Ive seen

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

OK, serious answer is that I agree we need metrics to really have a grounded discussion.  However, seat of the pants feel is that cars are much more reliable than they once were.  Growing up in the '80s, my father always had company cars.  He changed every 50-60k miles because that was what the leasing agency felt was the proper shelf life for the car.  Warranties then were 24k miles...if you were lucky.  Vastly different today.  More to go wrong, sure...but better engineering has lead to longer shelf lives for cars.

Go read the first post. I said I think reliability peaked in the 00s, in general, and since then the additional complexity and chasing fuel econonmy has led to a reduction in fuel economy.

Yes most 80s cars where garbage by todays standards.

I'd say modern cars started with OBDII. Any reliability metrics before that don't count, as it's not an apples to apples comparison.

With OBDII, we can get warnings of major problems before they happen. We also get warnings for minor problems, like fuel system EVAP leaks which few people really cared about before the check engine light started coming on. Is that a reliability issue? I think it is, a in some areas, you won't be able to register the car unless it can pass an emissions inspection.

On the other end of the spectrum, I had the water pump fail twice on a Ford 3.7 V6 prior to 100k miles. It knocks the car out of timing and pisses all of the coolant into the oil pan. That's a major failure. 

Unless we all agree on the reliability metrics we're talking about and what exactly "long term" means, we'll have a lively debate that ultimately goes in circles. 
 

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/average-age-of-vehicles-in-the-us-increases-to-122-years.html

Average age of vehicles on the road has been steadily increasing. I too remember in the 90s where 90-100k on a vehicle was widely considered worn out (our subculture of mechanics notwithstanding) more and more people are expecting 150-175k of life out of a vehicle. Additionally, by and large progress has been made regarding corrosion resistance, so vehicles are lasting longer from that perspective. 

Thing is, we have a massive uptick in visibility of issues due to internet/social media, so it is easy to get the bad impressions as they are much more at your fingertips than ever before.

We can all find specific good and bad anecdotal examples, but by the metrics I see encompassing more the entirety of vehicles on the road...  They are doing a way better job of lasting longer as time goes. 

Depends on the vehicle, and where you live. The more fancy options, the higher rate of failure. And if you live in a harsh climate (like New England), you have to factor that in. 

Two vehicles recent to my fleet come to mind:

2012 Mazda 3: Made it to 187k without needing a major mechanical service (bearings in trans went out). Only went to the dealer once (evap purge valve at around 130k) and that was only because I was too lazy to do it; it involved dropping the tank and it was winter and I would've had to do it outside. It did receive regular maintenance, and I did do some fairly involved repairs, all well over 100k miles, like an AC condenser/radiator, suspension bits, etc. Engine ran perfectly at the end, and it never once burned a drop of oil. 

2023 Mazda CX-50: We've only had it since August, and one of the light-up sill plates fell off and the ecu that controls the HVAC functions died. There's also a piece of felt sticking up between the dash and A-pillar that I recently noticed. Only about 5k on it so far. Mechanically, it's been fine and it drives great, but time will tell. 

I have noticed that cars built in the past few years during Covid do have some minor quality issues (like our CX-50). But again, more options, more potential issues. More basic cars like my old Mazda 3 seem to just keep going with basic maintenance. 

Opti said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Do you realize the premise was reliability peaking in the 00s. Im am not of the delusion that cars were more reliable in the 80s or 70s. Maintenance intervals havent changed much in the last 15 or 20 years, outside of OCIs and servicing transmissions from what Ive seen

I did, my long winded post (as usaul) was to show the progression over the years. I do believe that progression is continuing.

With that said some systems have teething problems so the 2023 vs say 2005 may be model or manufacturer specific.

I might buy the premise if we're limiting the discussion to just ICEs, but hybridization has really helped reliability for the most part, and as the amount of electrification increases (from standard hybrid to PHEV to EV) the complexity and potential issues tends to decrease (along with emissions, fuel consumption, and maintenance requirements).

In the late Aughts, hybrids were basically just the Prius/Insight (and oddly a small number of full sized GM trucks/SUVs). Now, most manufacturers offer hybrid versions of sedans, CUVs, etc and we're seeing that tech expand into new classes as well like minivans, and half ton trucks.

In reply to rslifkin :

Here's the older BMW (e90?) I am working on right now.  We did pads/rotors last year.

Rear:

Front:

would this fail in states that have inspection? Idly curious.  The only inspection we have here is an emissions test on cars 25 and newer.