Technology in cars is hurting reliability

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Vacanegro

Still more reliable than Windows 10 and for those of you that have been alive long enough to drive 70s (late) and 80s cars you know we are nowhere near that unreliable.

1970s cars were less reliable, in the sense of shorter mean time between failure. But once those failures occurred, they were easier to remedy. And typically an incipient failure would have telltale signs... noises, vibrations, smells. Today's electronic wonders can go from fully-functional to fully-dead, without warning.

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I realize your average soccer mom carting kids off to school can't DIY their own work, but usually what I say is this. If your DVD Nav dies, or the lane avoidance system dies, or some other electronic gizmo dies in the car, usually you can still drive the car.

Yes, but if a mysterious and inscrutable sensor in the EFI or emissions-control system dies, the car might become undriveable. The sensor is there, to optimize combustion just-so. It provides incremental benefit in mileage, emissions, maybe power. But if the sensor fails, the damage is not incremental at all; it's catastrophic. And with today's tighter engine compartments, it might be very difficult to find and access this sensor, even if the repair itself is simple.

As an example, my 1996 BMW has a failing Idle Control Valve (ICV). I know what it is, and what to do about it. But I can't reach it. It's perched somewhere underneath the intake manifold, which is not a trivial exercise to remove. And this is a 20 year old car! Well, if the ICV is faulty, the engine won't hold idle when it's cold – at all. That makes driving a powerful car with a manual transmission an interesting adventure.

Originally Posted by LeagleEagleDFW

There are a ton of cars that offer nothing more than basic transportation available.

That depends on the definition of "basic transportation". Show me a 2016 model with a carburetor, without antilock brakes, and without airbags... and even better, with a hole in the front bumper through which to insert a hand-crank.

Originally Posted by ss20ts

What problems are we talking about? I have owned numerous vehicles in my life and the only ones I had any real problems with were ones that were over 5 years old....usually 10 years old or more

Failures within 5 years are really more a manufacturing defect, than a lack of reliability.

"Reliability" is the operational robustness of a car that's >20 years old, and has >200K miles.

[ss20ts]

Originally Posted by duster1979

I don't see this being a big issue short-term. But I have thought about the long-term implications of some of this technology.

I've always kept an older pickup around just for the convenience of having a truck and a backup vehicle. My current truck is a 1990 Dodge, rough as a cob but still starts every time and gets me where I need to go. I have to wonder if, 25 years from now, there will be any 25-year-old vehicles that won't have been scrapped due to failing obsolete electronic systems that can't be fixed.

My first vehicle was a 1984 Oldsmobile Firenza. It had a computer. When it died, the car wouldn't start. Technology is far from new! It's certainly older than 25 years.

[ss20ts]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Failures within 5 years are really more a manufacturing defect, than a lack of reliability.

"Reliability" is the operational robustness of a car that's >20 years old, and has >200K miles.

And how many 20 year vehicles are really out on the roads today? None where I live. Why? They rust out before they get that old! And when that cash for clunkers program was around, the number of old used cars rapidly dwindled.

[Ultrarunner]

This is my point... why do we have to drag in 40 year old cars with 500 miles added to odometer in 12 months anyway... for many years it was a 25 year rolling exemption.

This week I drove my 85 service truck two days... my 91 pickup to tow a trailer and tonight needed the 96 f150 4wd to help a friend...

My 85 was 15 years older than the smog tech who said he couldn't remember the last time he had a car with a carburetor come in...

[AlaskaErik]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

This is my point... why do we have to drag in 40 year old cars with 500 miles added to odometer in 12 months anyway... for many years it was a 25 year rolling exemption.

This week I drove my 85 service truck two days... my 91 pickup to tow a trailer and tonight needed the 96 f150 4wd to help a friend...

My 85 was 15 years older than the smog tech who said he couldn't remember the last time he had a car with a carburetor come in...

What's a carburetor?

[sholomar]

continuing to use the for the most part looked down upon dual clutch transmission in Fords doesn't help out Ford.. those who want a stick will buy a stick.. those like myself who want a slushbox are not going to argue with manual transmission people about the supposed inefficiencies of a slushbox and the 1 MPG I might lose from using it. Want a focus, with a 5-6 speed slushbox. Until then, Camry it is.

There's nothing terribly complicated about modern vehicles.. with a copy of torque and a usb code reader most things can be diagnosed by the layman. A service engine light doesn't really need to be addressed in my state which has no emission testing.

[Dburger]

Originally Posted by ss20ts

And how many 20 year vehicles are really out on the roads today? None where I live. Why? They rust out before they get that old! And when that cash for clunkers program was around, the number of old used cars rapidly dwindled.

My daily driver is well over 20 years old and I drive it because it's...not complex.