[skel1977]

There is no best car for CT. There are good drivers, bad drivers and experienced drivers and inexperienced drivers. That is all.

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

No, that's simply not true. Manufacturers do NOT want passenger vehicles to last for millions of miles. They could easily engineer that for only a little more money. Maybe an extra 5k on 20k vehicle. Look at tractor trailers. They go for millions of miles and are given WAY harsher treatment. They tow 80,000 pounds and are way heavier with way more powerful engines. There's a reason crown vic's can make it to 300k+ miles. They were designed that way. Compare that to an Audi A-4, which was designed to fall apart much earlier because of different markets. Crown vics are livery vehicles that need to last and get the crap kicked out of them. Audi's are a car most people keep for 5-8 years absolute max and then dump.
Compare the ford crown vic to the mid 90's Taurus. Both made by the same company! No comparison between the vehicles when it comes to reliability.

It's a simple philosophy. If you build someone a car that lasts a lifetime, they never buy another one. Compare that to a car that's replaced every 5-10 years. Where's the money at? Car manufacturers realized a long time ago new and shiny sells and means more money to be made for them!! Car manufacturers spend a fortune re-enginering everything every few years. That doesn't help reliability. Keep the car the same with rare updates and you have a cheaper more reliable product like the crown vic which remained unchanged for years. It's all glitz, shiny marketing nonsense. Think of the suv commercials with the person taking their explorer at 50mph offroad. LOL

Wow, you sound so knowledgeable, have you ever designed anything from concept through product launch?

[seymourct]

Originally Posted by Tetto

Wow, you sound so knowledgeable, have you ever designed anything from concept through product launch?

Well, late hubby and I were told by Audi Service dept, back in 2005, that their cars major engine parts are designed to fail or need major repairs at around 60K miles.

[LRPct]

Lol.. funny stuff. Its just the common deal compromise inregards to weightbetc. Especially with EPA MPG nameplate averages. You could build say a midsize sedan chassis to lastva million miles with alot less maintnance, but then it would weigh closer to 5-6k lbs instead of 3-4k lbs which in turn would bring MPG to unrealistic numbers. Do the companies HATE that cars wear out in 100s and some parts in 10s of thousands of miles?? No. But they certainly arent designed with a certain time span of failure as a target... any clue what a million mile lower control arm and bushings would look like / weigh??? Itd be a BEAST that would totally change the packaging of subsystemscas well..lol...You can put away the tin foil hats.

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by LRPct

Lol.. funny stuff. Its just the common deal compromise inregards to weightbetc. Especially with EPA MPG nameplate averages. You could build say a midsize sedan chassis to lastva million miles with alot less maintnance, but then it would weigh closer to 5-6k lbs instead of 3-4k lbs which in turn would bring MPG to unrealistic numbers. Do the companies HATE that cars wear out in 100s and some parts in 10s of thousands of miles?? No. But they certainly arent designed with a certain time span of failure as a target... any clue what a million mile lower control arm and bushings would look like / weigh??? Itd be a BEAST that would totally change the packaging of subsystemscas well..lol...You can put away the tin foil hats.

My point exactly. Design is a compromise between cost, available material and efficiency. The damn Mars rover still functions past it's 3 month design life, but it cost $250 million to develop and launch!

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by Tetto

Wow, you sound so knowledgeable, have you ever designed anything from concept through product launch?

Don't appreciate the condescending tone. As if YOU'RE so knowledgeable.

Why would I need to?

COMMON SENSE.

Completely redesining a vehicle every few years cost money and means the vehicle is less reliable. Car companies do this because most consumers demand something new and shiny every few years. On a separate note, watch the Nader film unsafe at any speed to figure out what car companies are really about. They put people in death boxes for years and fought against basic safety regulations that are now standard.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

No, that's simply not true. Manufacturers do NOT want passenger vehicles to last for millions of miles. They could easily engineer that for only a little more money. Maybe an extra 5k on 20k vehicle. Look at tractor trailers. They go for millions of miles and are given WAY harsher treatment. They tow 80,000 pounds and are way heavier with way more powerful engines. There's a reason crown vic's can make it to 300k+ miles. They were designed that way. Compare that to an Audi A-4, which was designed to fall apart much earlier because of different markets. Crown vics are livery vehicles that need to last and get the crap kicked out of them. Audi's are a car most people keep for 5-8 years absolute max and then dump.
Compare the ford crown vic to the mid 90's Taurus. Both made by the same company! No comparison between the vehicles when it comes to reliability.

It's a simple philosophy. If you build someone a car that lasts a lifetime, they never buy another one. Compare that to a car that's replaced every 5-10 years. Where's the money at? Car manufacturers realized a long time ago new and shiny sells and means more money to be made for them!! Car manufacturers spend a fortune re-enginering everything every few years. That doesn't help reliability. Keep the car the same with rare updates and you have a cheaper more reliable product like the crown vic which remained unchanged for years. It's all glitz, shiny marketing nonsense. Think of the suv commercials with the person taking their explorer at 50mph offroad. LOL

Consider the Crown Vic is ridiculously simple with an engine that's been fine tuned for decades, RWD, simple proven transmission, etc.

Guess what? It's also ridiculously heavy, inefficient, underpowered, handles like crap and has barely any modern electronics.

There's always trade-offs in engineering, and no car company these days is nefarious enough to purposely design cars that will break down. They are trying to meet a price point at the end of the day, and compromises and complicated engineering jobs that are very quick paced tend to yield some defects. They're also getting parts from other suppliers and things go wrong.

On tractor trailers, consider that there is a lot of routine maintenance and repair done on those. Transmissions are often replaced. The engines do last forever, but they're also diesel. You'll see the same phenomenon with well maintained VW and Mercedes diesels lasting to 500k miles and beyond.

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Consider the Crown Vic is ridiculously simple with an engine that's been fine tuned for decades, RWD, simple proven transmission, etc.

Guess what? It's also ridiculously heavy, inefficient, underpowered, handles like crap and has barely any modern electronics.
.

Yes, it's made heavy because of it's use in livery and police. The handling is bad because of it's old outdated rwd suspension. That's an easy fix. It's hardly under powered. It's got a v-8.

My basic point is that a midsized sedan could easily be engineered at a 15-20kk price point that could last hundreds of thousands of miles. If car companies would simply stop trying to update the models every few years and stuck with one basic design then us consumers would have much more reliable cheaper transportation. A lot of the electronics crap isn't even needed and makes a car more dangerous(think toyota acceleration problems). Just give me Cruise control, ac, heat, power seats, mirrors and windows and I'm good to go.

Think of what Microsoft does with windows. Rather than making a more stable OS. They continue to update with all this crap and add ons that no one used and bogs down the processor.

[jaydez]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Yes, it's made heavy because of it's use in livery and police. The handling is bad because of it's old outdated rwd suspension. That's an easy fix. It's hardly under powered. It's got a v-8.

My basic point is that a midsized sedan could easily be engineered at a 15-20kk price point that could last hundreds of thousands of miles. If car companies would simply stop trying to update the models every few years and stuck with one basic design then us consumers would have much more reliable cheaper transportation. A lot of the electronics crap isn't even needed and makes a car more dangerous(think toyota acceleration problems). Just give me Cruise control, ac, heat, power seats, mirrors and windows and I'm good to go.

Think of what Microsoft does with windows. Rather than making a more stable OS. They continue to update with all this crap and add ons that no one used and bogs down the processor.

Actually, most of that other crap is required now. Airbags: front and side, traction control, stability control, Roll stability control, ABS, and for 2014 (I think, possibly 2015) backup cameras! Also the problem with the Toyotas was the electronic throttle bodies and the gas pedals that go with them. Those are required on most cars now for emissions purposes.

Unfortunately we have all these systems being shoved down our throats by the federal governement. They make cars heavier, cost more, and have more things that can go wrong.

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Yes, it's made heavy because of it's use in livery and police. The handling is bad because of it's old outdated rwd suspension. That's an easy fix. It's hardly under powered. It's got a v-8.

My basic point is that a midsized sedan could easily be engineered at a 15-20kk price point that could last hundreds of thousands of miles. If car companies would simply stop trying to update the models every few years and stuck with one basic design then us consumers would have much more reliable cheaper transportation. A lot of the electronics crap isn't even needed and makes a car more dangerous(think toyota acceleration problems). Just give me Cruise control, ac, heat, power seats, mirrors and windows and I'm good to go.

Think of what Microsoft does with windows. Rather than making a more stable OS. They continue to update with all this crap and add ons that no one used and bogs down the processor.

Not trying to be condescending here, but they don't completely re-design anything. Many parts of one style are repurposed on a next gen or new design. Same frame tooling, same same electrical connectors, same engines, they just take a little Industrial design with sheetmetal and plastic and viola! New car.