Rant: Why Do We Accept Being Punished for Buying "Better" Cars?

"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind) 01/02/2017 at 20:16 • Filed to: Rants

0

25

I have always wondered why so many off-road vehicles are unreliable. Wouldn’t those be the vehicles you’d want the highest reliability in? Why do performance vehicles seem to be so fragile to own and yet are designed to survive being driven all out for hours on end? Even when you spend more for a luxury product you seem to simultaneously lose reliability and durability. What’s crazy is that all these vehicles are made to handle the most extreme conditions but constantly struggle for survival when asked to simply exist day to day.

Is this all a consequence of NOT utilizing the vehicle as intended? Why is it that only Toyota increases in reliability as you spend more and go for models with higher capabilities? Arguably the most successful automaker in the world has a history of rewarding consumers for spending more when they move into that Land Cruiser or Lexus model. I thought automakers emulated what is known to work!

Once upon a time Mercedes and Volvo were putting out vehicles known for being vaults in durability, reliability, and quality. Looking back, it was during the time when Honda-Acura and Nissan-Infiniti were focused on how capable their models were that their longevity and ease of ownership were greatest. Everyone adored these automakers and the automakers reaped the rewards of that consumer admiration. There were no downsides to producing vehicles that increased your quality of life!

Shouldnt consumers expect demand higher reliability, dependability, as well as lower costs of ownerships and better residual values as they move up in an automaker’s lineup? Am I crazy to believe there needs to be some kind of incentive to keep a purchase for years when you spend more?!! How can we say all these features, materials, and marvels make for a better vehicle when that same content destroys the desirability as time goes on?

Why do we accept being punished for buying “better” cars?

Gerry197 > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:25

1

What metric did you use to determine that “many off road vehicles were unreliable”?

bob and john > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:28

2

Long story short, consummerism.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:28

9

Cynical answer: Because the people who buy them new under warranty likely won’t experience the problems within their two years of ownership, and the owners after that just have to fork over money to get the thing fixed, which car makers and dealers like.

Less cynical and more realistic answer: The fancier and more expensive a car is, the more complicated and cutting edge it likely is. And the more complicated and cutting edge something is, the more likely it is to break, and the more expensive it is to fix.

daender > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:29

1

Ever seen that “Hey Arnold!” episode where Eugene sold indestructible watches? They don’t make money if they’re not selling us crap that we buy so why sell something that will cause consumers to buy less often?

Basically, today most companies build cars that’ll last a few years before they fall apart because they know most consumers are stupid enough to keep buying a replacement, especially when it’s “hot” and “new” and they want to keep up with the Smiths.

Wobbles the Mind > Gerry197 01/02/2017 at 20:31

7

Nautical miles per hour.

Bourbon&JellyBeans > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:37

3

Most of the time it’s the luxury cars that are the first to adapt new technology. Sometimes that technology isn’t perfected and ends up being a nightmare in the long run. But with luxury car buyers, they want technology and gadgets and toys more than simplicity and reliable design. That’s probably one reason.

EDIT: sm70 beat me to it.

fintail > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:38

0

Better usually means more complex, more things to go wrong, even if they don’t disable the car (the roads aren’t exactly clogged with broken down DCX era MBs, for instance). Bleeding edge cars let people beta test. I am not sure if a LS is really any more reliable or durable than a Corolla, and even Toyolex can have issues here and there. Some durable brands like Toyolex usually aren’t really on the bleeding edge.

More leases, more new purchases always under warranty, those people don’t care so much. For both in and out of warranty, Euro cars have always been a little finicky, even MB back in the golden years. Most people expect a few hiccups.

RyanFrew > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 20:39

0

The more complex something is, the more likely it is to break. Been in a Land Cruiser lately? They are solid, which is what you pay for, but laughably equipped in comparison to a Range Rover. No one is being punished for buying a better car...they’re punished for buying a more sophisticated one.  

RyanFrew > daender 01/02/2017 at 20:42

3

This is patently untrue. Cars last longer now than ever before. What cars can you name that actually last “a few years before they fall apart”? The average car in the US is 11.5 years old right now, which is a record, btw.

RyanFrew > Bourbon&JellyBeans 01/02/2017 at 20:42

3

Haha, I didn’t see yours or SM70's post and just said the same thing. Yay, redundancy!

daender > RyanFrew 01/02/2017 at 20:44

0

Good comeback. I got nothing, I was just venting.

DipodomysDeserti > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 21:28

2

They make cheaper Land Cruiser trims and models, we just don’t get them in the US. Also, despite being crapily made, I wouldn’t say Wranglers are unreliable. Minimal electronics in base models and lots of parts that have been in use for multiple decades (they still use Dana front and real straight axles). I have the decades old EGH engine which isn’t stout but also isn’t unreliable, so I don’t know how the Pentastar stacks up. For reliable and cheap offroadability, Subaru is always a good answer. The same is true for performance cars. The WRX gives you performance and reliability in a cheap package.

Race engines have to be rebuilt pretty much every race. For true performance, reliability is thrown out the window. That’s why endurance technical marvels.

Urambo Tauro > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 01/02/2017 at 21:37

1

Probably both, to some extent.

plak424 > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 21:39

0

Same goes for modifying cars. Thats why I tell non-car people that my hobby is to take perfectly good functioning cars and make them terrible to be in and around all of the time.

Phatboyphil > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 22:13

0

This isn’t my theory but I like it (stolen from Eric the car guy YouTuber.) I belive he said this pertaining to late 80s early 90s Japanese cars. That companies would make their entry level cars much better than the higher classes to build customer loyalty. He was a Acura/Honda tech and said Honda did that very well with the Integra. Iirc honda actually sold them at no profit the first few years, but many of those buyers became life long honda/acura buyers, so it payed off in the long run.

Bourbon&JellyBeans > RyanFrew 01/02/2017 at 22:42

0

That’s how you know we’re right. Lol

Tapas > Wobbles the Mind 01/02/2017 at 23:24

0

In fact, it’s the opposite.

Car makers now focus on luxury, features tech gimmicks, face lifts and newness to make a sale and make money . All of this is piled on a modular chassis that is used for many cars to save cost.

Of course, its a proven chassis. But its the bits and bobs that cause stress-induced hair-loss.

When people chose the base sound system and got a better after market one that was cheaper and better than ticking an option on their list - they didn’t like it. So they made it an integral part of the car.

This is not to say that the cars themselves can’t last on their own. But when you integrate everything into one infotainment thing and add a zillion sensors, you inherently make things unreliable.

When Land Rover came out with the new one 2 years ago, its not because they perfected that model’s capabilities over many iterations (hah!). Its because they had tacked on so much useless bullshit with minimal regard for reliability and ease of repair, that they couldn’t go on adding more stuff without having the car self immolate.

But what was worse that people knew that. So they didn’t buy it anymore. They weren’t selling.

Cars are still durable. They’re not reliable. You can swap stuff out and fix them, but that is now intentionally more expensive than buying a new car. Because they won’t make money if their cars last 15 years without need for replacement.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > RyanFrew 01/02/2017 at 23:31

1

Yes, but how many cars will be purchased and then owned by the same person for those 11.5 years?

RyanFrew > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee 01/03/2017 at 00:52

0

Not many; the average length of new car ownership is 6.5 years in the States, according to CNBC. That said, the automakers still suffer if their cars are unreliable because it impacts sales and depreciation rates, so they are pretty motivated to make them not suck.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 01/03/2017 at 01:35

1

This. The money is going to innovative features, not necessarily to durability testing of said features.

Svend > Wobbles the Mind 01/03/2017 at 02:19

0

Many of the more premium cars have such small tolerances as they can be so over engineered. I seem to recall a performance Jaguar that needed an oil change every two or five thousand miles as the oil would thicken sufficiently enough that it would affect the engines performance.

Many wealthier people (I know of anyway) tend not to maintain their vehicles and only fix them when they actually breakdown. By the time they’ve reached the second hand/used market the engine and drivetrain have taken quite a beating and the next owner down the line gets a what they’ll come to know as an unreliable car.

Svend > RyanFrew 01/03/2017 at 02:20

0

Dammit. I’ve gone and said the same thing too. Doh!

I really should read all the comments before replying myself.

random001 > Wobbles the Mind 01/03/2017 at 08:23

0

Buy a Corvette, enjoy the most reliable and overbuilt car I’ve ever owned. 170k miles on my Z06, tracked a bunch, and I had to replace a thermostat. Should never have sold that car.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > Wobbles the Mind 01/03/2017 at 13:09

1

Quite a few good explanations. I’ve thought of a good example of where car companies face a typical challenge when designing a luxury car:

Imagine an electric window motor—one of the perpetual issues dogging European cars to eternity.

Many luxury cars have window glass thicker or larger (or both) than those in normal cars. Your engineers go through the parts catalogue and they find a window motor/regulator rated and tested to 1 million cycles. It’s used on your normal cars, but not rated to carry the weight of your extra-thick glass.

You tell them to call up the supplier. “Sure, it theoretically could carry a little more weight, but uh....we haven’t tested it that way. It might not last as long. We give it that rating for a reason.”

So you ask if they have anything designed to carry a heavier load. They say sure, but our Big Motor is rated to 300K cycles and only tested to 100K cycles, and has not been tested to Arctic temperatures or Florida humidity.

The right thing to do would be to buy the Big Motor and pay the supplier to rate and test it to the same environments as the one you already use. The supplier would likely recommend X, Y and Z design improvements to this motor before it would qualify for the harsher testing. The cost for this Big Motor “Plus” would be passed on to your accounting guys and then to the consumer, but we all know how that goes.

So some companies take a risk with Small Motor. Some others take a risk with the Big Motor non-Plus. And a few actually do the right thing and spec the Big Motor Plus. Some go back to thinner windows and risk customer complaints/journalist criticism.

And then the dealer network starts to report that customers are interested in soft-closing windows that they saw on some Bentley...

torque > Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever 01/12/2017 at 01:58

0

Most excellent detailed example Chan. This should be its own post!

I’d Argue

Cadillac probably go with the smaller electric motor

German luxury (BMW, Audi, Merc.) go with the larger motor w/o enough duty cycles

Lexus/Toyota go with the bigger motor+