Are new cars really as bad as they say?

vacheron

Alanp said:

There are companies out there that can repair/replace individual battery cells, ( on EVs) so it might be cost effective to keep EVs on the road for longer, what might be problematic are the over the air updates for modern cars, as with phones, they eventually can’t be updated anymore…

This is another of my concerns, Phones, Smart TV's, PC's (and operating systems), even a number of financial products.

When they are first launched there is so much talk of the manufacturers keeping them updated and providing compatible upgrade modules and support, to ensure they remain future proofed. Then after a few years, they simply lose interest and at some point eventually each and every manufacturer just says, "nope, not doing that any more, just buy a new one"... and we do.

Bad enough for a smart phone, or windows 10, but when you have paid £40-50K for something it enters another league.

born_again

henry24 said:

seatbleltnoob  I couldn't agree with you more but your going to upset a lot of people who have bought a EV with your truthful comments 

Ha Ha.

No more truth there, than anything out of a politician's mouth

Manufactures offer 8 year warranty on motor & batteries when battery is below 70%. Do you think they would do that if they had no faith?

10 YO leaf & zoe are still running around despite no thermal management & are still giving good range & within above spec. Replacement cell or module to replace is in the hundreds, not thousands as many would have you believe. Including labour.

WellKnownSid

born_again said:

henry24 said:

seatbleltnoob  I couldn't agree with you more but your going to upset a lot of people who have bought a EV with your truthful comments 

Ha Ha.

No more truth there, than anything out of a politician's mouth

Manufactures offer 8 year warranty on motor & batteries when battery is below 70%. Do you think they would do that if they had no faith?

10 YO leaf & zoe are still running around despite no thermal management & are still giving good range & within above spec. Replacement cell or module to replace is in the hundreds, not thousands as many would have you believe. Including labour.

Plenty of older Leafs also getting an upgrade to their original much smaller battery.  This guy is even doing it on his drive... 
https://youtu.be/SIQ-RROpls0?si=R2sehPZONRm35sA_

carly

QrizB said:

seatbeltnoob said:

just like phone batteries, from brand new they are 99-98% good, and then they are end of life at 85% good. 85% good does not mean it has 85% of the range it did, at 85% good it has half the life of a 99/98% battery. 

That's simply not true.

seatbeltnoob said:

EVs depreciate hard, nobody wants a used EV because the battery on a used ev is like playing the lottery. 85% good basically means you probably need to change it for a new one at £10-£15K 

That's not true either.

seatbeltnoob said:

"yeah get a brand new EV" to someone who drives 23 year old car sounds like badly thought out advice. 

That's a straw man arguent in bad faith. No-one has suggested that you buy a brand-new EV.

Simple truth is that there is so much ill-informed garbage written on the web that one will never be able to convince an EV hater that they could ever be a good choice for anyone.  I have long since decided to withdraw from any debate.  Personally I've had  EVs for 8 years and maintenance costs currently total   £0.  Pay 7p per KwH charging overnight.  Paid £0 in road tax which will obviously change later this year.  I just let the haters do what they want to do. 

facade

No.

EVs are terrible- they set on fire all the time, cause crop failures, chickens to stop laying and horses to go lame.

You should never ever consider one as that keeps the used prices low enough for us poor people to afford.

Under no circumstances say anything positive, as this could increase demand and hence prices.

To answer the original point, modern cars are terrible, they are built down to the lowest possible cost, while selling for the highest possible price.  

In The Olden Days the problems were 

rust in the poorly protected body & chassis. 

poor build quality 

electrical problems caused by corrosion of the earth points and light units

engine wear caused by lubrication technology and the materials used.

Nowadays the problems are 

rust in all the cheaply sourced components that don't matter because they can't be seen, like subframes and axle beams. 

poor build quality, 

electrical problems caused by sourcing the components from the cheapest supplier who claims to meet specifications, then as soon as the car gets wet water gets into the wiring harnesses & light units, wicks it's way to connectors and corrodes them from inside their water seals

engine failure caused by attempting to get the CO2 emissions down by another 0.001g with things like low tension piston rings that cause massive oil burning, wet timing belts.......

Same problem areas, just modern versions, the difference is that with the introduction of "just too late" in the 1980s no-one keeps any spares, and the prices have rocketed for both parts and labour

Goudy

The simple answer to the question is no, they aren't.

There have always been good and bad new cars on sale and nothing has really changed there, plus there have been good and bad owners that looked after their cars differently which obviously effects reliability.

What has changed is your modern car can generally do the same sort of mileages and more with far less fuss in regards to servicing and this servicing has changed, they generally need far less of it.

Modern oils and engines no longer require different oils in summer and winter.
Who these days knows how to set a set of points and time an engine or know what does a ignition condenser does or set valve clearances.
These things used to be in the owners manuals to do yourself every 6 to 12 months.

Cylinder bores are no longer drilled out of raw steel liners but finished in things like plasma and silicon carbide to reduce wear and friction.
The materials they build cars out of are far better and better produced.

Sure they get things wrong from time to time, often chasing ever increasing emission regulations but we've been there in the past as well. 
Back in the day when they started building cylinder heads out of alloy they weren't that reliable, now all are made out of the stuff.
Over drive units were once an expensive option, now we fit cars with 5, 6, 7 or 8 speed gearboxes as pretty much standard.

Car manufacturing has never stood still, they have always moved things on and this has generally made the cars more reliable than the last bar the odd one, but as it's never stood still the same question keep arising.

This process has caused some manufacturers to produce "mistakes" for a while and learnt what not to do.
Companies are now backtracking and putting back more physical buttons, dry clutch DCT's are now wet clutch DCT's and so on.


Cars have always been built to a price for maximum profit, Henry Ford himself did that with the Model T in 1913 so it's hardly a new thing.

Mildly_Miffed

seatbeltnoob said:

I drive a 23 year old VW golf, wife drives a 17 year old corsa. 

MOTs are getting a bit pricey for us, each year spend about £250-£300 getting it through the MOT. Other than than fairly reliable motoring, just bushes and ball joints and things are always going on these, there's probably some 30+ of them in each car so it's not surprise they need doing.

That's just routine maintenance, replacement of consumable components.

MOTs don't "cost £250-300". MOTs cost £50.

The other money is just deferred maintenance. Work that didn't get done because the driver ignored the knocking and clunking, until it was so bad as to render the car unroadworthy - which is precisely what the test is for.

If things like bushes and balljoints that have been recently replaced fail again rapidly, it's usually because cheap and nasty poor-quality parts were fitted.  Buy cheap, buy twice. With bushes, it's often because they've been fitted incorrectly so they were pre-loaded.

Older cars, otoh, don't have depreciation... £250 in deferred maintenance, once a year? Compared to more than that every month in finance costs and depreciation...?

seatbeltnoob

facade said:

No.

EVs are terrible- they set on fire all the time, cause crop failures, chickens to stop laying and horses to go lame.

I love how you wrap the genuine issues with some wild tinfoil hat argements to sort of make the genuine concerns look like tinfoil hat theories. 

EV fires are a genuine risk and are terrifying. A ICE car fire usually you will see smoke/smell the fire and have plenty of time to act. Thermal runaway on lithium ion cells is fast, very hot and very intense. It will come on some fast that it will cook you before you can get your seatbelt off. Tesla (the company which has the best EV fires record) had a recent one where an EV fire came on so fast and took out the door lock controls which meant the driver could not open their doors from the inside and the windows were ovciously unbreakable in the most inappropriate of times. 

The owner was burnt to a toast, the fire couldnt be put out and fireman just have to stand back and suppress the spread of the fire to nearby buildings and cars. 

facade said:

You should never ever consider one as that keeps the used prices low enough for us poor people to afford.

Under no circumstances say anything positive, as this could increase demand and hence prices.

They depreciate like a ton because their maintenance costs are factored in. Just like toyota hybrids are so expensive for their age and mileage because they're reliable - they have a premium because it's going to cost the owner less than other cars to keep on the road. The battery replacement is a maintance cost on EV, its just a big cost that comes after 7-10 years of ownership. If theyre so dependable, reliable and cheap to service. They will be holding their value high and owners who buy them from new; will hold onto them and won't pawn them off on the cheap taking massive depreciation hit. The drop in prices reflect the fact that first owners dont want them any more and 2nd hand buyers dont want to touch them either.

The deprecation is a sign that all is not good with EVs. 

The big cost is the battery - which is often inttegrated in the floorpan of tesla cars - i dont know if the major car brands do this too. It is very expensive to replace the cells when they reach serious issues. People will scrap the cars by then. People run into engine issues with ICE cars. Nobody will pay £15,000 for a new engine and gearbox on their 2010 BMW (some might take a chance on a salvaged engine). With EV cars, that is the equation, reaches 10-15 year mark. You alwost definately need to fork out £15K on new cells. 

The trouble is EV cells are constantly evolving and improving. The EV maker probably wont make those same cells in 15 years time. So its not certain if it would be possible to replace the batteries on a 15 year old EV. 

seatbeltnoob

Mildly_Miffed said:

seatbeltnoob said:

I drive a 23 year old VW golf, wife drives a 17 year old corsa. 

MOTs are getting a bit pricey for us, each year spend about £250-£300 getting it through the MOT. Other than than fairly reliable motoring, just bushes and ball joints and things are always going on these, there's probably some 30+ of them in each car so it's not surprise they need doing.

That's just routine maintenance, replacement of consumable components.

MOTs don't "cost £250-300". MOTs cost £50.

The other money is just deferred maintenance. Work that didn't get done because the driver ignored the knocking and clunking, until it was so bad as to render the car unroadworthy - which is precisely what the test is for.

If things like bushes and balljoints that have been recently replaced fail again rapidly, it's usually because cheap and nasty poor-quality parts were fitted.  Buy cheap, buy twice. With bushes, it's often because they've been fitted incorrectly so they were pre-loaded.

Older cars, otoh, don't have depreciation... £250 in deferred maintenance, once a year? Compared to more than that every month in finance costs and depreciation...?

you no what I meant, dont be pedantic. 

The car used to cost me £50 to get it through it's MOT, but now it needs to repair and replace non-service stuff like exhaust flexis, bushes etcs do to age. 

Nobody needed you to explain that the MOT test by itself doesnt cost £250. 

Mildly_Miffed

seatbeltnoob said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

seatbeltnoob said:

I drive a 23 year old VW golf, wife drives a 17 year old corsa. 

MOTs are getting a bit pricey for us, each year spend about £250-£300 getting it through the MOT. Other than than fairly reliable motoring, just bushes and ball joints and things are always going on these, there's probably some 30+ of them in each car so it's not surprise they need doing.

That's just routine maintenance, replacement of consumable components.

MOTs don't "cost £250-300". MOTs cost £50.

The other money is just deferred maintenance. Work that didn't get done because the driver ignored the knocking and clunking, until it was so bad as to render the car unroadworthy - which is precisely what the test is for.

If things like bushes and balljoints that have been recently replaced fail again rapidly, it's usually because cheap and nasty poor-quality parts were fitted.  Buy cheap, buy twice. With bushes, it's often because they've been fitted incorrectly so they were pre-loaded.

Older cars, otoh, don't have depreciation... £250 in deferred maintenance, once a year? Compared to more than that every month in finance costs and depreciation...?

you no what I meant, dont be pedantic. 

The car used to cost me £50 to get it through it's MOT, but now it needs to repair and replace non-service stuff like exhaust flexis, bushes etcs do to age. 

Nobody needed you to explain that the MOT test by itself doesnt cost £250. 

You completely miss my point.

You are complaining about simple routine maintenance and poor previous maintenance. The most expensive maintenance is that which doesn't get done until too late.

It's still FAR cheaper than replacing a perfectly good car.