My 3rd Gen Toyota 4Runner is old enough to drink and outside of routine maintenance requires almost no thought.
"It's time to get a new car" given that car safety has drastically improved and I have two younger kids in that thing a few times a week but I'm honestly having a really hard time giving it up, something so reliable and plainly functional.
New cars with all their computers and smart technology only look like expensive repairs to me, whereas if something breaks (again, rare!) on my extremely mechanical 4Runner, it's almost always something simple and relatively cheap.
Glad to see Yodas at the top of this list though, when mine finally kicks the bucket, will confidently get another one I suppose.
One of my favorite Onion articles: "Toyota Recalls 1993 Camry Due To Fact That Owners Really Should Have Bought Something New By Now"
Safety between cars, and within cars, has improved. However, due to the increasing size of the average vehicle on the road, among other factors, car safety for pedestrians/cyclists has decreased.
> car safety for pedestrians/cyclists has decreased
It's also decreased for anyone NOT willing to buy a "light truck" (e.g. a modern SUV). There's a loophole that makes it so that light trucks don't have to be tested against the same safety standards as other vehicles. Basically they just have to prove they're safe to crash into other light trucks but do not have to be tested against regular passenger vehicles. This loophole is credited as one of the main reasons car fatalities have been rapidly growing in the US but falling in most other nations. And also for the massive recent explosion in size (again, mainly observed in the US).
But size is just one factor that's reduced safety. Another one is reduced visibility. One of the contributors to the rise in fatalities has been due to parents literally running over their own children in their driveways. These are low-speed, suburban vehicle fatalities that are not happening in other countries
I agree with what you're saying but as a counterpoint, I was literally run over in my driveway by a guardian and almost died, and he was in a '90s Tacoma.
My saving grace was that the truck was so light that even at age five I managed to survive being crushed under one of the wheels thanks to my aluminum frame bike wrapping around my ribcage. Even a modern-day Tacoma is much larger and probably would have killed me.
They want to add automatic braking laws for that, right? I wonder how statistics will change when there are no longer any cars that can't auto brake sold?
People drive horrible now. Running lights, crazy lane changes, excessive speeding etc. Here in the US is started during the pandemic and hasn’t improved.
My counterpoint to this is there have always been a ton of bad drivers. The most important skill to have is to be a predictable driver. Bad drivers will always exist. You cannot change them, and the great number of them is not likely to drop to 0 overnight.
The best thing you can do is drive in a way that even bad drivers expect. Be a speed-limited, blinker-indicating, cautious log in the river. They will parkour around you and you will be fine. Greatly limit your reactions to things. If you freak out, others around you will freak out. Bad drivers cause okay drivers to perform worse. Herd mentality.
(Obvious disclaimer: The best defensive driving in the world won't prevent all accidents)
Both you and the parent post are correct. There have always been bad drivers, a lot of them, and defensive driving is the best thing for that. But at the same time, I have anecdotally been observing a serious breakdown in people following the rules. All the things the parent mentioned have become more frequent in my experience -- the number of times I see blatant bad and malicious driving behaviours has increased significantly in the last few years, except I drive maybe a 3rd of the miles per year that I used to 5 years ago. The density of terrible/self-absorbed drivers has significantly increased.
It's gotten to the point where even defensive driving doesn't do much. How do you defensively drive against someone just blasting through a red light 15 seconds after it turned red and cross traffic is moving steadily? Or the guy in a lifted truck who decides to force you into the shoulder because he thinks it's funny?
"How do you defensively drive against someone just blasting through a red light 15 seconds after it turned red and cross traffic is moving steadily? Or the guy in a lifted truck who decides to force you into the shoulder because he thinks it's funny?"
Probably upgrading to a tank at some point. Or bringing a gun. Or bribe politicians, that they urge the police to focus on maintaining sanity on the roads and take away the licence(and at some point the cars) from those drivers eagerly.
Honestly, if I can, I drive a bicycle, even now in wintertime. But I often indeed wished for a gun, to bring awareness to my fragile self. To express, that I also have rights on the road, despite being lighter. But I am aware, this might not be the best solution overall.
A gun won't save you from the stupidity of bad drivers. And you understand (in your anger) that it won't solve anything. At best (not really) you shoot and kill (?) one of them. You will then go to prison for many-many-many years, you will lose everything and everyone.
Meanwhile there is a million equally bad drivers out there. We can't be doing "a purge" every weekend. It's either policing, or self-driving cars. I am looking forward to the latter.
Altering the built environment helps too. Narrow the streets, reduce turn radii and sightlines, protect crosswalks and bike lanes, use more "uncontrolled" configurations like 2 way stops rather than full stoplights.
It's counter intuitive on one level, but making the road feel less like a racetrack causes most drivers to slow down and treat it less like one:
I'm uneasy about reducing sightlines. There are drivers that will turn blindly into a corner at excessive speed because they feel lucky or invulnerable except they are not, nor the people on the other side of the turn. Small radii reduces speed no matter what, but keep the line of sight. At least one of the two parties have a chance to prevent a collision.
There are drivers that will turn blindly into a corner at excessive speed because they feel lucky or invulnerable except they are not
Making the corner tighter helps solve this.
I walk to work in the suburbs. I have to cross a 6 lane highway. It's signaled properly. But the one thing that nearly kills me every few months the road has very smooth radius corners. Drivers can easily carry 40mph through the corners. Between red-on-red being legal, right-on-green-even-though-pedestrians-crossing-is-active, and generally driver fuckery, I'm amazed nobody has been killed at this intersection.
Speed bumps are brutally effective, like I just experienced driving through spain and france. I also do not like them too much, as they punish everyone and some of them are kind of hidden (by design) and you do not want to hit them even with just 20 mph. So they do prevent speeding in rural areas. But there should be better solutions ..
Speed limiters in cars is one such solution. It's simple to implement - we just need to make it max 130 (or whatever) km/h on highways, 80km/h on "country" roads outside of population centers and 40km/h (or whatever, even making it 50 would help tremendously) in populated areas. It doesn't need to be smart enough to understand every speed limit out there it just needs to know what zone out of 3 possible ones it's in.
Of course car lobby makes it sound like impossible task because of "think about all the edge cases" while even making the most crude system would save tens of thousands of lives and hundred of thousands of injuries per year.
As it is we can even force car manufacturers to implement max 140km/h speed limit in cars even though driving faster than that is criminal level behavior and illegal about anywhere in the world. Like we can't even force them to make the least controversial safety check imaginable already written into law because "driving a car fast boost my ego and you are not taking away my freedom to do so".
Or instead of doing that, just go to smaller engine sizes that force slower driving due to lower power and adjust thr throttle response. Most cars have engines that are way too damn powerful for what's needed (why does a Hyundai i30 need 249HP?) because marketing beats out other concerns. Pair that with modern throttle mapping being a square curve or close to it that means people will just accelerate because the car's behaviour encourages them to. Electric cars only make this worse with instant torque.
Drive an older car from the '90s with a mechanical throttle adjusting a mechanical throttle body and you'll realize that it barely responds until the pedal's about halfway down. Drive a newer car and you'll realize that it's already putting nearly half throttle through the electronic throttle body when the drive by wire pedal is a tenth of the way down. The brakes react like this too, which is a completely difference annoyance. It's a result of manufacturers gaming for fuel efficiency regulations and it manipulates the way people drive into being more aggressive with their acceleration.
For decades never needed speed limiters aside from the gentleman's agreement of 155MPH over tire safety reasons because most people couldn't get above 90MPH, and most cars didn't want to go above 45MPH without stomping on it. Since the early 1990s as a side effect of emissions regulations making engines much more efficient cars have doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled their power output. A 1995 Chevrolet Lumina made 210HP from a 3.8L V6 at the very top of the rev range, meaning for most driving you were at 150HP or less. Right now you can go and buy a low trim Chevrolet Blazer with a 3.6L V6 that makes 305HP about a third of the way up with a flat horsepower curve from there. Just holding speed without accelerating you're at peak horsepower in the Blazer and it feels that way.
Not sure if you're in the US or not, but we have 70MPH interstats crossing over 25mph surface roads and commonly enough my GPS gets confused which one I'm on.
I think every car remembers that spot (or rather the area, which is the intention behind it) and after a learning period, only speedy tourists will hit the road.
Is there a reason small roundabouts are not more popular in the US in residential areas? You probably have noticed them driving through Spain and France as well. Especially in the south of both countries they seem to come very often in small cities. They worked pretty well in my opinion to keep the traffic flowing, but keeping the speeds in check due to merging and turning. Now whether our emergency vehicles could navigate them well is a different story I suppose.
Surrounding my child's school are blind s-curves and streets barely wide enough for 2-way traffic. All densely lined with parked cars. And yet I people speed through these areas on most days during pick-up time, and often they looking at their phones (or whatever else they might be up to behind blackout-tinted windows).
The only thing narrow streets and turns do is make it harder for parents to check for oncoming traffic before crossing. No amount of "traffic calming" will protect us from these rotten drivers. We need at least a modicum of enforcement.
If you get the speed limit wrong with a sign, you can change the sign. If you get it wrong after throwing built obstacles all over it, we are stuck with it. And you're going to get it wrong sometimes, because neighborhoods and safety technology changes (and because safetyism gives low-speed-limit people too much political influence).
"and because safetyism gives low-speed-limit people too much political influence"
Some of us have children, and some of us will hopefully always going to have children, so sorry, but we won't go away with our safety concerns as death on the road is the number one safety issue in everyday life.
There are many readily available technical solutions to limit danger from cars and drivers. The problem is that there is zero political will to do so. I think mainly because of car manufacturers playing this on two fronts: bribing or blackmailing politicians (think what happens to economy if we don't sell faster, bigger, stupider cars!) and influencing pop culture - driving a car in irresponsible manner is still seen as cool and manly thing to do. It's cigarettes all over again and it will take a monumental effort to change it.
"It's either policing, or self-driving cars. I am looking forward to the latter."
But till they are there, policing is the only other option to self justice (aside from changing the road environment like the sibling commentor mentioned). There are drivers who intentionally drive close to cyclists - if one of those will have his tyre shot (without him then crashing into other bystanders, or crashing at all) he likely will have some respect in the future. He also might invest into a bulletproof design, further escalating the whole thing, so like I said, I am not advocating for road warfare. Just expressing my anger.
It’s interesting. I finished reading the Amazon PIP thread. There was a comment about the double standard of at-will employment dishing out immediate firings, but employees must give 2 weeks notice; how employees have become accustomed to getting the shorter end of the stick.
At what point did we lose our ability to enforce our own desires through violence? The one real tool we have for making any tangible change, just stripped away from us at some point.
In my experience, that's usually only because the people that inhabit the gang or the mafia are not themselves civilized.
Dueling, boxing, and so on used to be common among the upper crust. I still get into fights with some of my immigrant friends whenever we reach some total impasse on conflict. We're all civilized, educated, and generally good people. But violence always seems to be the quickest way towards a resolution to certain problems, where simple communication will not do.
In my military officer training, routine boxing/wrestling/fighting was included to give people a "taste of getting hit in the mouth". It was also super effective for solving disputes. I remember having some trivial issue with a roommate that eventually turned into wrestling. After it petered out I couldn't tell you what the problem even was. Sometimes wish a manner like this existed in my workplace settings. A guess the caveat is this doesn't work between large spreads of physical abilities (gender, age gaps etc.). Not complaining i cant fight old people but wish conflict resolution existed in such an immediate and effective manner.
> At what point did we lose our ability to enforce our own desires through violence?
Judging by reports of violent crime, it would be a stretch to say that the “right” to exercise violence when your individual will is otherwise thwarted is very much still possible. I mean if someone wants to gun down their Amazon HR person or manager, there is little to stop them. It won’t end well for anyone though.
I always thought it was a good idea to assume all the other drivers around me were likely to be incompetent idiots. Obviously not the case, but it means when you do encounter one you will be ready.
Replacing old style headlight bulbs with LEDs in housings not designed for them is an increasing problem too, making driving at night often something that is best done with a pair of sunglasses.
> Complete failure of government to regulate and enforce headlight position and brightness.
In my state the only thing they check is the diagnostics to make sure your car isn’t polluting too much otherwise you can drive around just about anything that starts…
I flash my headlights at cars whose lights are too blinding, under the assumption that the driver accidentally left their brights on.
If I’m wrong and their lights are always like that, my assumption is that they would appreciate someone letting them know anyway. If it happens a lot, maybe they’ll figure it out and correct their embarrassing problem.
And if they’ve jerks who know they’re blinding others but just don’t care (or savor it) oh well they should still hear about it.
Someone flashed their lights at me this very morning at around 5:00 am. At first I thought it was because my lights were off, then realized they thought my brights were on. They weren't, it's just that my new car has LEDs that are - apparently - quite bright.
The way I do it is not flashing, which can be misinterpreted as police ahead or something else. I just turn on my high beams until they lower theirs and it works most of the time.
Also headlights are simply higher on average than they used to be (larger vehicles). Very noticeable if you drive a low car. Yet another "arms race" dynamic.
99% of it is people not adjusting the pitch of their headlights or turning on their brights and leaving them on. I had a truck and it was fine, because I cared enough to watch a 5 minute video on how to adjust the angle after a new install of bulbs
We have a newer Subaru and were getting flashed like it was Mardi Gras. I started looking into adjusting the lights and found several places talking about how the Subarus are to high right from the dealer and their service department. That was enough to convince me to just do it.
I don't have a level spot with the recommended distance so we went with some tape on the garage door as a reference. We got them a tad low the first time and raised them up a bit. I can still see and apparently everyone else can too because nobody is flashing their lights at us.
Our other vehicle is a 2014 3/4 ton Ram pickup. Nobody ever flashes me in it.
Not sure if it’s still a thing, but the STI in the mid-00s had a physical slider wheel on the driver side console that changed the pitch of headlights. It was probably a geeky race thing, adjust the pitch when you add weight to the rear maybe?
Either way, it’s genius. I don’t know why that isn’t offered in more vehicles.
> adjust the pitch when you add weight to the rear maybe?
That is exactly the purpose and required (or via dashboard electronics) in most vehicles in the EU after a certain date (don't know which exactly and also I do not know the exact rules but every car i've ever owned had those). Automatic is also fine. They are not meant for "Alternative High beam" as what some people use them for.
The "clip" on the rear view mirror is also not meant for looking at your kids in the rear. It's meant to flip the mirror up so the reflection is not by the mirror but by the refractive index of the glass any you see a "dimmed" image of the high beams behind you.
Yeah they’re all automatic over here. I’ve just never seen a physical, mechanical wheel that controls it. And I’ve never met anyone that dimmed their rear view mirror for the purpose of child monitoring. That’s.. odd.
It is not a race or geeky thing. It's there so that when you are towing a trailer you can lower the headlights.
Usually it is supposed to be calibrated so that the highest position is the default no load in the back position, but you can recalibrate so that it is in the middle if you want.
Interesting, every single car I've ever driven over here (Europe) has had that slider/knob, I'm pretty sure it's required by law. Newer cars with xenon headlights above a certain wattage must have self-leveling + headlight washers to be road legal.
I have family in Europe and visit quite often, never noticed that. Most of the time I get stuck with a Renault even when I try to reserve a nicer rental. I don’t know how those cars are legal. It’s like someone put a car engine in a broken shopping cart.
This is indeed a regulation failure. Vehicle lights should have a height limit, but instead, their placement is dictated by aesthetics. SUVs and pickups should have their front lights placed at the bottom front corners, but instead, it's the top front corners.
Often times I think it's just me and my eyesight getting older, which is certainly the case, but it kind of reassures me to see that there are other people noticing this insane phenomenon, too.
And I say it is insane because in many, many cases I just have to slow down when encountering those lights coming from the opposite direction, for the sole reason that I get blinded by them and I can't see the road for one, two, God knows how many seconds. It's insane, from a safety perspective, that we're allowing blinding devices out there on the road.
Some new vehicles come way to bright too, the absolute worst for this seem to be teslas and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was poor qa on bulb alignment
Hmmm, the worst I've seen are german cars with laser and matrix LED lights. Followed by cars fitted with chinese lights off ebay, whose manufacturers don't care about any local regulations.
Subaru has theirs adjusted too high from the factory. They are nice, bright lights, but now that I adjusted them down nobody flashes their brights at me.
I cannot upvote this comment enough. I can't stand these blue/white LED headlights. What an abomination in the night. To top this, in India highways are littered with white LED street lights. I really miss cruising at 65-70 mph on a dark highway, with just the reflectors to guide my path, lit by the the pleasant yellow headlights.
This has also become a problem as a cyclist. I live in a bicycles-first city, commute that way almost every day, and over the past decade when LED lights became the norm, almost every day during this time of the year there's at least one person that just mindlessly snapped their headlight onto the handlebar. It might just fully shine into your face. Back in the days of those dim incandescent bulbs powered by whimsy generators, it basically didn't matter which direction the light pointed, but with super efficient battery-powered lights, this is annoying. And if both of you are traveling at even just moderate speeds, you don't even have time to communicate the issue in a proper way, except for maybe shouting "it's blinding" and hoping the other person can put two and two together.
I would pay for some moon glasses just for this, don't need to be as dark as sun glasses but something you can grab in an emergency with the super brights where the owner didn't know (or didn't care) to adjust the angle of the headlights to something sane. I'ver had to literally grab my rearview at times and angle it completely and the shit was still reflecting partially on the window and chrome components in my car annoyingly
I noticed that too, but I am questioning myself. I’m wondering how much other people’s driving has gotten worse, vs me getting older, more defensive and risk averse, and noticing such driving. If I look back to my 20s, I was not an exemplary driver.
Cell phones were a huge mistake. I was walking my dog and saw someone eyes fully down doing 20 in the street. It was late and empty but if anyone had been in the street, they’d have been dead.
That distraction didn’t exist 25 years ago on the scale it does today. I wish cell phone use penalties would be promoted closer to those of alcohol use while driving.
Mobile phone use is just a symptom. Everyone fiddling with their fancy in-car radio with distracting bright flashing display in the 90s was just a symptom. People fixing their hair in the mirror in the 70s while driving was just a symptom.
It doesn’t matter what distractions you remove - ban eating and drinking (even water) while driving, impose ruinous fines for those caught… none of it will work.
You need to address the root cause, not the symptom.
The root cause is unspeakable. You will face extreme repulsion if you choose to openly discuss the root cause in this society because it would mean tough questions for our cultural identity.
I was driving in the 90s and mucking around with the radio was quite different to using a smartphone these days. You'd maybe flip stations every 20 mins when one got annoying and it didn't even need taking your eyes off the road generally.
The root cause is human nature, which has been warped by various environmental factors: cell phones, traffic density, lack of experience being the pedestrian, etc.
The human nature isn’t going away, and although the environmental factors are technically under our control, they’re just getting worse.
The fact that technology only made a pre-existing issue worse does not mean that technology is not the problem.
Unspeakable, unimaginable, impossible to write in a sentence on HN?
To me the root cause is that 2-ton metal bricks shouldn’t be propelled at 50 kph, much less 140 kph, by tired hairless apes with tired ape reflexes, ape kids in the backseat, listening to other apes on podcasts, or talking even hands free with ape friends or ape spouses.
We were never designed for this. It’s guaranteed to be a leading cause of death and life-changing injury, so long as we keep it up.
Is that unthinkable or unspeakable? I say it on HN all the time.
We've built an environment (in the US, at least) where driving a car is basically a requirement to participate in society. So, people drive, whether they want to or not. And they drive whether they're physically or mentally capable of doing so successfully.
And we're so entrenched in this design that discussion of a change is met with derision and scorn.
We weren't designed for anything. We take metal from ore and make metals which we shape and make thin to cut other apes in some cases to make them better even.
If you were to have 80% of adults performing surgery every morning and every evening, tired and distracted, you wouldn’t be surprised when surgical accidents become the #3 cause of death.
You can say that fine. It's a reason I'm keen on self driving tech. Which usually on HN leads to a conversation along the lines of it'll never work, Musk is a fraud... but Waymo actually works... and round in circles.
On a more immediate time frame, road engineering can work really well which is why deaths are like 5x lower in places like Holland. Put bends and obstacles in the road and drivers will either have to pay attention or hit them.
We are not apes. Apes can't design, manufacture, distribute, and buy automobiles. Apes can't drive. At all. Thank God we are not apes nor live, nor travel like them. We are able and should create technology that betters our lives. We can and have made reasonable cost/benefit decisions on risks required for these technologies.
This kind of exaggeration undermines any point. An invention as useful as the cell phone was a mistake because people (ab)use it while driving? Any invention is used and abused but the benefits of this invention far outweigh the drawbacks. I'm sure more lives were saved by the mobile phone, and even more were made better, than were taken.
Cell phones were a mistake in the sense that all organization-dependent technology was a mistake. People of the past lived more happy and in-peace years of life despite child mortality, diseases, manual labor, wars, violence, inequality etc. Reason is that no matter how you look at it, either from a evolutionary or a creationist standpoint, human mind-body is literally not designed to live in this world of convenience and ease. There is friction, a lot, which we try to adapt to and fail, and will continue to fail. Nor do we evolve in timescales of 300 years.
No unga-bunga is speaking here. NixOS-loving Rust-writing software dev. Read some Ted Kaczynski folks.
Where I live(not US) I need to constantly use the horn in a gentle manner to get people out of whatsapp after 2~5 seconds of green light. Specially when red lights are longer than 40 secs.
Interestingly is to see police officers and transit officers also distracted inside their cars doing the same.
Another anecdote, but the number of times I think "wow, that guy ran that yellow really late!!!" increased massively over the last four years.
The number of drivers using the bike lane outside my house to make illegal passes has also increased. As has the amount of tailgating and excessive use of horns on the same road.
Same boat here although I can say that in my younger days I was always a “civilized” driver on city streets but was also into street racing and bike speeding which was done in isolated areas or late at night. Nowadays I see more “1 block drags” to show the pop-bang of a shitty modded 3-series than anything else. That and the “Coupé-SUV” owners who think they’re driving an MRAP on an assault.
I suspect vision zero policy and phones are also major contributors. Traffic Engineers across the country are setting traffic lights to reduce the flow of traffic to 20mph without changing the actual speed limit. It’s making people crazy.
Strange! Where I live traffic lights are used for the opposite purpose: they are set up to improve flow by creating green waves that mean ypu don't have to care about orthogonal traffic.
If the point was the reduce the flow, why wouldn't you make a roundabout?
> Strange! Where I live traffic lights are used for the opposite purpose: they are set up to improve flow by creating green waves that mean ypu don't have to care about orthogonal traffic.
story: An out of state tech visiting our job site greeted us with "What the hell is wrong with the traffic lights in Florida!?" This was SW FL and I was a little confused because he had driven thru one of the most benign counties. I might be conditioned though.
Just north of Tampa is a county where most traffic lights are timed to insure you reach the next one on the yellow. I've traveled thru it regularly for 30 years. Between 20 and 15 years ago it reached ~as bad as possible status and there it remains.
Adding awful to bad are the drivers who've realized they can defeat much of this timing with sufficient speed.
That is what should be done, but it’s becoming rare. Bangerter Highway in Utah comes to mind as a good one. I know Colorado is a state big on vision zero policy, where if you go the posted speed you will hit every single light.
The lockdowns brought about a pandemic of selfishness. If x% of the people didn't like lockdown rules and they broke them and they were fine, y% of those probably absorbed the lesson that some other rules are useless.
It didn't help that most, maybe all, governmental authorities were improvising their COVID response, some other percentage of people lost their fear/trust in authorities that way.
Here in Ireland, this is visible in road deaths, which have risen significantly this year, reversing a trend of low road deaths as a result of an enormously successful road safety campaign over the previous 30 years.
There's noticeably more serious accidents too, although the data won't be available until mid-2024 to confirm.
Notably, Ireland achieved a lot of their reductions in road deaths by taking all the people walking and biking and putting them in a car instead. For instance, compared to the mid-80's about 250% as many kids are driven to school, half as many take public transport, and half as many walk or bike.
Certainly, when I lived there Ireland was a terrible place to bike or walk.
With police resources constrained, everyone started driving like insane assholes around here, and it hasn't gone back. I noticed significantly more people cheating the carpool lane, no longer using turn signals, intentionally blowing red lights and stop signs, etc.
Driving culture has changed, at least in this area.
That can't be causuality? Probably people that don't take vaccines are more reckless overall.
'Of course, skipping a COVID vaccine does not mean that someone will get into a car crash. Instead, the authors theorize that people who resist public health recommendations might also “neglect basic road safety guidelines.”'
I am not American but I read this again and again. The most correlated reason, I have read, is that the police explicitly stopped enforcing laws in many places, in reaction to some larger political event. I forgot which.
Oh yes. I live in one of those places. It was when a new sheriff was elected who wasn't driven by ever-fattening budgets. The first thing he did - stop allowing fine revenue to influence enforcement.
Ticketing dropped. Also the quality of policing in general (and officers specifically) improved dramatically. We had way better cops than under the previous sheriff.
> People drive horrible now. Running lights, crazy lane changes, excessive speeding etc.
No longer bothering to turn off long beam headlights, when there is oncoming traffic. And with the new bright led lights, the long beams are really bright.
Sometimes even the low beam lights feel too bright, especially if the oncoming car is big, and thus has its headlights sitting higher up.
Most of the US, AFAIK, doesn't have a mandatory yearly vehicle inspection like Germany (and other countries). Mix that with massive trucks with massive lift kits and you get these fun road behemoths that blind you, even with low beams. It's infuriating. I walked past a lifted truck yesterday in a parking lot and it's hood was level with the top of my head. I'm 6ft tall. It was comically large. How can you drive something like that around? You could hide an entire family in the front blind spot!
I've been driving a drinking-age Jeep Cherokee and the acceleration and top speed make me remember how it felt to drive 20 years ago. The street and road design makes a lot more sense at those speeds. We've gotten used to faster and peppier cars over the years but meanwhile the roads haven't changed to accommodate that.
I drive what is basically the slowest new car you can currently buy in North America (0-100 kph in 11 seconds, vroooom). I just have to floor it on highway ramps. Most cars accelerate much quicker, so people get used to never depressing the pedal more than like 1/3 and end up doing 0-100 kph in more than 10 seconds anyway.
IMO the faster acceleration and heavier weight of electric cars will just lead to much more disastrous accident when people (for example) press on the wrong pedal. Long term the extra deaths are probably balanced out if the more dangerous cars displace enough fuel cars and lower carbon emissions and air pollution... but I wish we regulated acceleration (maybe with a different license category, like we do with trucks?)
It shouldn't be possible to kill someone 10 m in front of your car when leaving from a stop because the manufacturer wants to impress professional car reviewers.
People always drive, not to within certain parameters of the law, but to within their risk tolerance. As cars become more safe, the risk factor reduces which allow people to increase risky behavior.
If you want people to drive better, don't put airbags in their steering wheel, put a 6" metal spike pointed at their chest.
Of course, no one will be making cars intentionally unsafe, but the law is also a risk factor, the risks of getting fined, jail time or licence revocation count too, and these risks can be made higher.
> If you want people to drive better, don't put airbags in their steering wheel, put a 6" metal spike pointed at their chest.
Cars without breakable steering column were pretty much this, so everyone had this before ~1990. Yet, deaths in traffic have steadily decreased since then.
Yep. Studies on helmet usage in skiing and snowboarding showed that as helmet usage became more common, brain injuries increased. People felt more protected and thus took more risks.
* The use of safety helmets clearly decreases the risk and severity of head injuries as compared to non-helmeted participants in skiing and snowboarding.
* The beneficial effects of helmets are not negated by unintended risks as their use does not appear to increase the risk of neck or cervical spine injury as compared to non-helmeted participants in skiing and snowboarding.
* The use of safety helmets also does not appear to increase the risk of compensation behavior as compared to non-helmeted participants in skiing and snowboarding.
* Therefore, helmets are strongly recommended during recreational skiing and snowboarding.
I mean, sure, there are BMJ Sports Medicine Opinion Pieces by Dr Paul McCrory who was prolific with his thoughts on the matter but short on evidence, not to mention that whole, ummm, thing:
> Helmets do not appear to increase the risk compensation behavior among skiers and snowboarders.
Nor has it been proven with a bunch of other activities
> Convincing evidence in support of the risk compensation hypothesis has not been seen with the use of the face-shield in ice-hockey, motor vehicle seat belt use and motorcycle helmet use.
Though the data isn’t the best but what we do have does not seem to support that hypothesis.
The head first tackle is illegal anyhow in American football, but they tackle differently to begin with because you want to down the runner as soon as you can and stop the play more than anything.
This feels like you are arguing a point that is irrelevant.
Are you saying that in Grid Iron there are no concussions? Hate to break it to you, but they are fairly common even before they broadened the definition last year.
Or are you saying that no player ever does a foul, or an illegal tackle?
If so, I'll link you to YouTube clips that disagrees with you.
They are constantly researching helmets and trying to reduce the chances of concussion, but ultimately wearing of a helmet introduces a risk factor, in the same way that that bigger cars make people feel safer so drive more dangerously.
if that were the case it would be a purely US phenomenon. Whereas increasing car size is global (relative to the initial size in each region of course)
I personally find it sad to say but the US has a strong cultural dominance especially in the western world but also beyond that.
From car sizes to architecture styles.
Which is a tragedy, it's the reason why city cars like Puegeot 107/Citroen C1/Toyota Aygo (basically the same car, different brands) are not produced anymore.
If consumers wanted smaller cars, they would buy more of them. A car is still much less expensive than a larger vehicle. The data clearly indicates people want bigger vehicles.
Anecdotally, I have personally heard many people say they want to sit up higher, or have a bigger vehicle because it is safer for them.
> If consumers wanted smaller cars, they would buy more of them. A car is still much less expensive than a larger vehicle. The data clearly indicates people want bigger vehicles.
That's true to a point. In the US there are regulatory loopholes for SUVs, so that's impacting what vehicles people choose.
I agree that fuel efficiency standards are pretty silly. Especially CAFE standards. They should just tax CO2 emissions (or fuel) directly, and let the market sort it out.
Perhaps also have a tax on the weight of the vehicle, because that's a negative externality: heavier cars are worse for other people in a crash.
The cheapest car to buy and insure from any manufacturer is going to be their subcompact hatch or sedan. No, people don’t care about price now that I see a bright yellow Urus doing 70 down a local road once a week.
I think you miss my point. When CAFE standards drastically increase the price of small cars, it impacts choice.
It's similar to house prices. The more regulations you pile on, the more things cost. While those things are seen as "good", it removes choice and increases cost.
When CAFE standards specifically carve out an exception for larger vehicles (pickups and SUVs), thus forcing only compacts and sedans and station wagons to be subject to the new standards, of course there's some price pressure that nudges people into bigger cars.
If CAFE was applied across the board, there'd be no impact on choice at all. But it's not.
Sorry, I don’t buy it at all. People are not rolling up to my kids’ daycare in F150/XC-90/Suburban/4Runner because of CAFE making smaller cars more expensive.
They are buying it because they like bigger cars, and the people that can’t afford bigger cars still want to sit up higher, hence the popularity of CRV/Rav4 type vehicles.
If you don't buy it, I assume that you have solid alternate explanations of why the trends in vehicle size/power/design seem to closely track the preferences expressed by federal policy (intentionally or not) along with fuel costs.
Yes, there are (largely misguided but in some senses game-theory justified) preferences for higher/larger/heavier vehicles. But from what I've read, these don't provide much (statistical) explanatory power for the actual numbers.
I understand what you are saying, but I predict removing or fixing those regulations will not change anything (other than increased fuel or weight taxes), because the underlying reason remains the same. People (in general) prefer sitting higher up and being in bigger vehicles.
I don’t. I would gladly purchase a small practical brand new kei car if I could.
Given the choice between a $35k sedan and a $40k SUV the choice is going to be SUV for most people.
Given the choice between a $15k sedan and a $40k SUV, it gets a lot more interesting.
The US car market is incredibly restricted. You can buy a 300 mile range electric sedan for $25k in China. Why the fuck can’t we get that in North America?
- 2016 Toyota Tacoma TRD OR (4WD + extra features)
The Tacoma is Toyota's smallest North American truck and is dramatically larger than the Ranger. The Ranger suited my needs perfectly except that it wasn't 4WD and would frequently get stuck in Canadian winter. I couldn't even buy good snow tires for it anymore because the rims were too small.
If there were a recently built 4WD truck available in the North American market that was the size of the 91 Ranger, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. It does not exist.
My dad recently totaled his old Mazda pickup. Insurance gave him about three times as much for it as I expected. Turns out the value of used small pickups is through the roof, because there are no new small pickups and used ones are getting harder to find.
They do, just not for the US market. Both ford and Toyota make excellent mid-small-size trucks (Ranger and Hilux). In South Africa we have similar sized trucks from Nissan, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Colt, a bunch of Chinese brands.
Lol up, 90s Tacomas and 90s Rangers are the about same size. 2023 Tacomas and Rangers are the about same size. But wow is there a delta over that time frame.
Looks like it’s 8” wider and 24” longer, with a box that’s 6” shorter. To be fair on the length/box size, mine was one of the “club cab” ones with the two sideways-facing backseats and no rear doors. Great for throwing the dogs in the back seat but not so good for passengers. It would probably have been an option but I bought the Tacoma a year before the Maverick was released.
> People (in general) prefer sitting higher up and being in bigger vehicles
I don't think that in isolation people broadly prefer bigger vehicles, but in the context of other people having bigger vehicles, a circular problem exists, with people feeling like they're in ever increasing danger behind the wheel if they have a small car but are surrounded by behemoths. If it weren't contextually dependent, I don't think it would be a relatively recent phenomenon, since big vehicles have always been available, and I think you'd see people getting large vehicles despite what's common around them, in terms of both geography and what's on the road. I'd prefer a larger vehicle if I was driving around polar bear country, and I think every other car on the road in North America is a metaphorical polar bear.
don't apologise. this thread is filled with urbanists that aren't "debating" in good faith. Do not give an inch on the car debate because that won't be all they will take.
It's a US thing, pedestrian safety continued to improve in France (mainly caused by infrastructure improvements), but we are starting to have the same sized cars, with the same issues)
in parts of Europe, vigilante groups are deflating tires of SUVs to discourage people from contributing to this trend. Not that I endorse the practice but it's interesting to consider how unimaginable something like this would be to Americans. Whereas in Europe people can probably at least understand why they're doing what they're doing
Those vigilante groups do it largely when a large SUV is parked illegally, such as on a sidewalk. You don't have as much of a chance to park like that in the US.
I've always understood the US's giant car problem was an unintended consequence of the CAFE fuel efficiency legislation, why is Europe getting caught up in the giant car fad? I'd imagine that'd be much more obvious of a terrible idea when the streets are half the size.
It's a result of cultural imperialism and basic psychology.
Many Europeans are bathed in US media. They see the huge cars constantly on US footage, and some are inclined to purchase these even if they are impractical in EU towns and cities. As these behemoths are introduced in the traffic mix, others in classic smaller cars feel threathened, and their next purchase will be a big tanky SUV to feel less vulnerable.
While SUVs are on the rise in Europe, there's still a large gap between what Europeans consider a large SUV and what Americans consider a large SUV. I'm European and I drive what I consider to be a large car: A 2014 Nissan Qashqai. I'm sure it is considered a small can by Americans. There are bigger SUVs on European roads (like the Volvo XC90) but the true American behemoths are rare here. It's usually Americanophiles driving tricked out RAMs.
Europe also has pedestrian crash safety standards as well. US crash safety standards deal exclusively with the occupants of the vehicle, and not at all with the lives of whatever was smashed into.
Even if local roads aren't getting bigger, cars getting bigger due to it's international product. Here in Japan, thankfully there are narrower JDMs available on some category, but for who want a modern expensive SUV, there are only international big SUVs.
Yep, that's the legislation I was referring to that's the cause of the massive rise of gigantic trucks in the past decade.
There's some formula between overall car area (the literal length x width of the vehicle) and the allowed mpg for the automaker's corporate fuel economy. Yay for second order effects...
> There's some formula between overall car area (the literal length x width of the vehicle) and the allowed mpg for the automaker's corporate fuel economy. Yay for second order effects...
Well, every economist (or anyone with half-a-brain) could have predicted these effects.
This wanker (Been driving a Land Cruiser 95 since 2001) feels positively out-wanked when driving in the US; my 4x4 is considered large-ish at home, but is dwarfed by what appears to be common fare in at least parts of the US; I was in Port Fourchon, LA last week, driving a Corolla - the Silverados, RAMs, F350s and whatnot surrounding me could almost fit my Land Cruiser in the glove box!
The Corolla? I don't think half of them would even have noticed if they ran it over.
Anyway - point being, I don't think we are anywhere near getting caught up in the giant car fad. Not yet, anyway.
> Anyway - point being, I don't think we are anywhere near getting caught up in the giant car fad. Not yet, anyway.
Oh we definitely are, it’s nowhere near as bad as in the US yet because they are decades ahead in that mess, but around here mid-size and light-duty full-size are becoming more and more common.
They functionally didn’t exist a few years ago, nowadays it’s a good days when I don’t see one. And that’s not including the few I know of parked in driveways on the drive to work.
Because pickups were not generally available in europe so you wouldn’t bother unless you really actually genuinely needed one (e.g. forestry services), and many countries had automobile taxes which approximated power via displacement, so huge american-style engines led to absolutely prohibitive car tax rates (that’s why euro engines have historically been pretty small, and even completely weird e.g. the UK’s RAC horsepower didn’t even use displacement at all it only used bore, so a small-bore long-stroke piston was taxed significantly less than a large-bore short-stroke one, for the same displacement).
It's also becoming an European thing, I've left a separate comment for it but the latest environment-related regulations are the reason why very small cars like Peugeot 107/Citroen C1/Toyota Aygo and the Renault Twingo (the recently announced EV version is a very expensive marketing gimmick) are not produced anymore.
You attribute it's reliability to it's simplicity, but I'd argue Toyota simply builds things to a better standard.
As most people know, Lexus is also Toyota, and I've been driving a fully loaded luxury sedan from 2008 that also gave me no problems I didn't cause.
It had plenty of fancy do-dads (that are pretty standard nowadays), a steering wheel and seat that moved into place upon entry, adaptive headlights that swivel and self-level, heated/ventilated seats, backup camera and infotainment, etc.
Only time I thought it was acting up (error with the self-levelling headlights), I discovered something had bashed the entire sensor bracket off the undercarriage. Replacing the bracket fixed it immediately.
It made it to 280,000km (175k miles) before a red-light runner wrote it off, and it went to the scrapyard without even the check engine light on.
Meanwhile the equivalent BMW fell apart on me in half that mileage, and hell, so did an F150 actually (and it was as basic as could be!)
FWIW, the computers don’t tend to break. The things that do break are essentially the same as they were 20 years ago. The bells and whistles are mostly for creatures comfort. The mechanical components haven’t changed much.
The only thing that I couldn’t fix on my own in my 2020 vs my 2006 was re-alignment of lane keep system after replacing the windshield.
The chips themselves don’t tend break, but wires and connectors and sensors all do tend to break, and they are effectively part of the computer system. Today, it’s practically moot where you draw the line. Something mechanical on my CRV broke somewhere, and the computer didn’t know what it was, and so the dealer didn’t know what it was, and the computer tended to shut down over unknown problems, and it eventually caused a cascading failure of physical mechanical components when the timing belt melted and it took out the alternator with it.
> The bells and whistles are mostly for creatures comfort.
This is increasingly (and rapidly) less and less true. Traction control, lane assist, adaptive cruise control, and emergency braking, are all things computer controlled (and things that are programmed to disable when the computer barfs. You can argue these are creature comforts, but in my experience they are becoming necessary modern safety features.
In a previous car, the sound system wigged out completely when it was only 5 years old. That’s a creature comfort, except really annoying to go without, and it was insanely expensive to replace, several thousands for a pretty basic stereo.
> in my experience they are becoming necessary modern safety features
EU recently mandated that all new models have Intelligent Speed Assistance[1].
This requires the car to use GPS, read signs and such to determine the current speed limit, and provide some feedback like a dynamic force on the gas pedal[2].
I got this in my new car, being a model introduced last year, and while it's nice when it works, it's often confused or wrong. And that's when it's operating normally. I already had to replace the gas pedal unit because the force feedback mechanism in it had some issues (would tap the pedal like a light hammer strike at a specific position, repeated around 5 Hz if held at the exact position). Wonder how it'll all hold up down the line.
I have never seen an electrolytic capacitor fail in an automotive context, and I've owned my fair share of capacitor plague-era vehicles. I'd imagine it's a combination of preferring other types of capacitor for that environment and not buying the cheapest shit they can find in the markets that day like Dell did.
Yeah, it could also be a product of where you live. I live in the southwest us so it’s more area here and likely to dry them out faster. You’re definitely right about good quality not being as good as it used to be
Yes - it was probably more in the failure to prevent category, but I’m not sure because we never got to the bottom of it, the computer would just freak out and refuse to recognize any systems. We were playing a game of pay the dealer to replace something random to see if it worked, and then repeat when it didn’t. Once it asploded, we paid over $5k in repairs, only to have the computer start convulsing again, so we sold it back to Honda. Something was seriously wrong with Honda’s overall computer design here. I don’t know if they’ve fixed it, but I’m not alone, this is a relatively common issue for ~5 year old CRVs, based on what I’ve found online.
Sounds like you need to stop relying on the dealer and find one of those old guru mechanics that can diagnose a car just by listening to it. Good mechanics are worth their weight in gold and I promise they’re out there if you look for them.
Hehe they can hear the sound of the computer? I have a couple of excellent mechanics on speed-dial, but they couldn’t have done any better here, and I wouldn’t have gotten the work partially reimbursed, nor would Honda have bought the car back after the damage if it had been a 3rd party. It turned out to be really useful in my case that Honda was the one that tried to fix it, and the dealer admitted the problem was out of our control.
Listening to the computers does not work. Debugging electronics also requires different skillset and oftenly, expensive equipment to even talk to it. Also, manufacturers are increasingly locking down debugability of the cars and after market part availability via parts pairing.
That's why people don't like increasing amount of electronics in cars.
As a car nerd, a popular opinion is to avoid cars with computers because they could fail anytime, and can't be macgyvered into a repair roadside.... but after ~50 years of computerized cars, it seems that simple solid state computers, ruggedized and often potted in epoxy essentially never fail. And moreover, they can both give early warnings before you're stranded, and diagnostic data that can be used to pinpoint and fix a problem in the middle of nowhere.
I especially love the mid-90s and newer VWs, which will report through VCDS software literally every part failure, or sensor output, from any system in the car.
It's not computers breaking you need to fear, but your engine management refusing to turn on when you've put a in third-party window washer motor that doesn't provide the correct response to some proprietary encrypted canbus query.
VWs and Audis of that era were notorious for the electrical system getting haunted by ghosts. Forums are littered with threads of perplexing symptoms, engine codes, voltage readings, often no solutions either for most of these threads from userbases that are competent enough to swap engines or transmissions themselves.
As a longtime VW forum guy, those issues are mostly from people not knowing what they are doing and usually involve extensive water damage to the electrical harness- that can be prevented with proper maintenance. For example, there was a design flaw in some of the coolant reservoirs that cause coolant to leak into the wiring harness. If you know about this, you can look for it and catch it early or prevent it.
I have a couple of '71 VWs and you can fix almost anything on the with toothpicks and Scotch tape. They just run because they're so simple ... You can actually count the wires in the harness and read the color codes! Thing thing that drives me nuts are the mechanical voltage regulator - they are finicky and today's hardened solid state devices near them in every way.
Simplicity is huge for reliability… but Volvos from that same early 70s era were also crazy simple yet used solid state boxes to control everything… and were way more reliable than the VWs.
If you don't intend to keep them fully stock there are modern solid-state drop-in replacements for reasonable prices! Given that they are fairly simple cars building one yourself from common electronic parts would not be too difficult either.
The reality is more like how Ford has victimized its customers with its EPAS system. That's Electronic Power Assist Steering.
They got rid of the old dead-simple power steering pump and replaced it with a flakey system based around an electronic sensor that is prone to shorting if you look at it funny and can only be replaced along with the entire steering rack that it's attached to...to the tune of thousands of dollars.
Having a newer VW with VCDS is a superpower. If you are getting vague codes (e.g. Air Intake Leak), you get really good at analyzing sensor data to determine exactly what an issue might be and can either fix it or swap the sensor, most of which can be had for reasonably cheap (notable exceptions include MAF and emissions related sensors).
When I bought a new 2012 VW GTI there wasn't even a schematic for the fuses. Apparently the wiring is not even consistent on a model year, so they just didn't provide it. Easy to understand why with even computer codes mechanics are stuck with a plug and pray methodology.
Sounds like someone has never had to replace a wiring harness or deal with electrical “gremlins.” Also a lot of parts are just really terribly made these days. I had a 2000 car that was already succombing to modern plastic everything crap philosophy. Basically all the motors controlling the windows or power door locks were shot or close to shot. The internal gearing was all plastic and had gone brittle. The fix? Take apart the internal panelling and replace the whole motor assembly with a new unit that has the same fundamental issue with it, even though a five cent gear or clutch is what broke, until you can source no more new oem units, at which point the part is broken until the end of time since all the junkyard stock will also be rotting apart. This is the world we are building for ourselves.
Depends on how well the wiring is done in the first place.
I am an enthusiast of the entire reliability spectrum of vehicle brands.
There are people on Range Rover forums wondering why their infotainment doesn't work half the time in their brand new SUV, meanwhile when I goggled why my windshield wipers wouldn't turn off in my 97 Tacoma, I found a thread that suggested a wire would wear through in 200-300k miles (which was my mileage).
I owned a BMW 325i that was full of gremlins, then owned the competing Lexus IS350 (with far more features), to double the age and mileage without 1/10th of the issues.
One thing that years and years of looking at CR has attuned me to is that car electronics break all the time and are the reason why many brands have poor reliability scores even though the engines run, the lights turn on, and the doors open and close (most of the time).
German and American cars seem to have a very frustrating time with reliable electronics compared to Asian brands for some reason, and the problems persist year after year.
For especially electronic heavy brands, typically higher-end ones the problem can become particularly pronounced, the bottom ranked vehicles on this list are mostly high-end, expensive, and packed full of gear (except for a few). Electric vehicles and PHEVs have the biggest problems being almost entirely electronics.
The thing most likely to cause an accident with my car is the horrible Apple Car Play system via USB. I don't know if it's a VW problem, Apple problem, or just a bad combination of the two. It can be so frustrating and fiddly that I'll just pull over to deal with it. I've been considering going old school with a mount and just use the car speakers via bluetooth instead.
VW problem. My missus' VW Polo has the same problems. I did work out that a brand new, known-good cable and working out that pressing and holding the power button to hard-reset the dash would get it to finally start connecting every time (or connect properly after it's done its "I'm useless" failure mode)
CarPlay is hit-or-miss. It's been totally unusable in every Chevy I've driven and moderately bad in some other cars, but it worked flawlessly in my last Chrysler rental car of all things.
You know what's even better than a working CarPlay, the cupholder in my own car that can hold my phone in a nicely visible spot.
Car Play has been reliable for me in a Toyota. Now the Toyota software, twice in two years I've pulled over to power cycle the car because the head unit was wedged. I'm not sure how that compares to other cars but never had to reboot any of the many rentals I've used over the years.
That's not a new problem. My experience is the most reliable actuators are simple vacuum spring design but they're so much more complex to route and take up space.
Sadly even old computers will being to break at some point. My Ford Focus is old enough to drink too and the central unit has become flaky, like numbers disappearing from the odometer and the speedometer going to 0 in mid route. The repair shop said those were dirty contacts, then the soldering, then they took it to a 3rd party... they didn't solve anything. The mechanics of the car are still good, but I feel like its time has come because now I'm not feeling confident of taking it for a long trip.
As others have mentioned, sensors and stuff related to safety fail all the time. I recently paid $800 to re-enable the safety systems in my (newer) car after a part failed. I've never had such expensive repairs on my 20 year old car.
My 2001 BMW with electronic throttle and fuel injection is doing just fine, the weakest point is plastic in the engine bay gets brittle and starts rotting (especially around coolant system).
As a BMW owner, I actually found the repair pricing quite comparable. Maybe not quite to a Corolla, but it was to a Lexus.
If anything the Lexus was a bit more, due to how common BMW specialist shops are, while there's none for Lexus.
The issue for me was the frequency of the repairs, 5 years of Lexus ownership cost me less than any 3-4 month period of BMW ownership over the 2 years I owned it.
I suppose I can only compare 2-3 repairs, cause the other dozen repairs for the BMW simply didn't break on the Lexus, nor did it spring any of oil leaks my BMW was famed for.
It depends on the country. BMW are well known by any mechanic and parts are widely available, OEM and aftermarket. In my experience BMWs are not more expensive to repair than any Toyota or VW, but due to the increased set of features they have a higher failure surface.
Do computers last 20+ years in cars? Well, my 2005 SAAB 9-3T is still working quite nicely outside of a failing turbo and the injectors needing replacing. Computer still tells me when lights are out, if I'm having A/B throttle sensor voltage issues, etc.
But that's 18 years old. Give me two more and we can have this convo again.
My 1989 Bronco II has a computer ignition system. Even an OBDI diagnostic capability. You can count the pulses and it tells you the error code. It still works fine. Most brands of cars were using solid state computers at least in some capacity like this since the late 1970s
"The only thing that I couldn’t fix on my own in my 2020 vs my 2006 was re-alignment of lane keep system after replacing the windshield. "
That car isn't old enough for anything to be breaking yet. It's barely 4 years old. In a 2006 so many basic simple things break like the clip to hold down the center console, the knob on the AC control. Not to mention the suspension, fan on the blower, belts, power window on at least 1 window. And you expect that touchscreen and software to make it?
My Xdrive unit in my BMW died 3 months after buying it. I thought...ya, out of all the things that could break in my car...it was the bell and whistle computer. I'm betting it was just a capacitor or something, but of course you have to get a whole new one as a replacement.
But the control/configuration of mechanical components is now being done from touch panel and if it becomes unresponsive then it’s as good as mechanical component breakdown.
Yes, I keep on thinking that a premium market will develop for Toyota and Honda cars from roughly ~2006-2010. Those cars were the height of internal combustion technology without all of the electronics.
Absolutely. I have an 08 accord, an 02 Silverado and a 2019 odyssey for the wife and family. I want the safety and sensing upgrades for the family and road trips, but I get a bench seat and /real/ buttons!
I'm averaging 20-30% of a new car payment keeping them running and replacing big parts, but I would spend double (maybe lol) that so I can keep the experience. If I had a commute longer than a half hour maybe I'd look into a Prius or Leaf? Just waiting for a cts-v wagon to fall into my lap....
I don't know of any car from that period that don't have electronics, they all have a bunch of sensors (lambda probe and whatnot), an ECU, ABS and ESP. Or maybe by electronics you mean the various fancy assists like lane keeping and whatnot?
That said this electronics is rock solid, my '08 Civic Type-R is basically pristine mechanically and after 15 years only required maintenance of wear parts. The paint job though has time taking its toll, as varnish is peeling off in various places. Still with proper care I expect the car to last another 15 years without breaking a sweat.
Keep in mind if you're buying a used 2007 Toyota Camry that the oil burning problem was a Toyota Service Bulletin and not a recall. The TSB has expired. If the previous owner(s) did t do it in time, you can't do it for free anymore. You might need to "top up" half a quart of engine oil or do oil changes every three thousand to five thousand miles even with full synthetic oil, ignoring any Toyota assurances that you may wait longer.
That oil burning fix for my 2007 Camry was a lifesaver, I had been quoted $8000 (more than the value of the car) to essentially replace the engine. Then one day the letter arrived from Toyota telling me they'd fix it for free. My sister is still driving that car! That made me a lifelong Toyota customer.
Yeah. I honestly don't know if I'd trade my 2006 Saab 9-3 Aero for a 2023 anything. No trouble, no nonsense, it's fast enough, it doesn't nag at me if I drive around the block without my seatbelt, and minor repairs are rarely more than $100.
A few years back, I had a late model Mercedes GLS, and the damn thing was in the shop almost every other month, and each time it was at least $300-400. Mostly it was electronic components that were at fault; an error in the anti-theft system which cost me $2000 was too much to bear, and I sold the car at a loss...
On most cars you can disable the seatbelt chime with the right sequence, it's just not advertised and won't be found in the manual, but is easily found online.
2005 9-3 Linear here. I wish minor repairs were that cheap. Wait until you need your water pump replaced ;) Get ready to squick hard at the required labor charges (water pump is integral to the engine IIRC, requiring the engine to be pulled.)
Right now I need new spark plugs, injectors, and a turbo replaced, and a grounding strap issue somewhere I haven't been able to isolate. Gonna run me a small bit of change.
2005 was the first year of GM ownership of the brand but SAAB engineers were still all over that vehicle. I could tell in my 9-3t. Definitely some wiring harness decisions you wouldn't see out of GM!
hah those GM connectors are light years ahead of the OG saab/volvo ones that saab used in the 90s. Those were absolute trash. My whole harness on my 88 is just... deteriorating slowly and randomly.
I think a lot of companies started 'getting it right' during that time.
FBOW however, the increasing demands of Fuel Economy and emissions standards led to a lot of poorly-executed moves for various companies from a reliability standpoint; Sometimes it's dual clutch transmissions or CVTs, sometimes it's stuff like cylinder deactivation or a cheaped out Turbo 4 or 3 cylinder design.
And then, all the speeds on an auto in general now. It took a decent amount of time for (most of) the automakers to make a reliable 4 speed auto across their lines. Hondamatic 5 speeds warned of things to come, because first everyone started flipping to 6 speeds (emphasis on the starting bit, in 2006). Then over the next 10-12 years we got all the way from 6 speeds to 10, often without enough size increase budget to know it will all be reliable.
To me it feels like Mazda did it right even though they got a lot of crap for it. Still feels like they are a hidden gem. What they did was focus on fleet average. Their thesis was whats the point of being green if you still are selling gas guzzling hogs and you just sell some garbage EV to offset them.
So what they did was first drop their pickup truck and then develop a smooth and efficient 4 cylinder engine mated to traditional transmission to deploy across the fleet, then slowly migrate all of them to a hybrid drive and then finally move to a fleet wide EV architecture. This keeps the fleet average down while also not compromising in other ways like crummy CVTs. (Im not sure if they use deactivation.)
Will it work? well so far their first EV entry didn't fare so well. But they are still on the move to hybrid phase and they make some pretty darn smooth cars these days.
Mazda does OK. They did have their own missteps (a diesel) but they at least haven't been Toyota'd like Subaru.
> Their thesis was whats the point of being green if you still are selling gas guzzling hogs and you just sell some garbage EV to offset them.
Ford doesn't do this, but at the same time I find it hilariously suspicious that despite the success of the Maverick, there doesn't seem to be any messaging about increasing capacity. And I say that because even as an early adopter -most- problems have been in the 'I can still drive it' category. And yet they won't increase production.
I don’t know what’s going on at Ford, but it seems to be nothing but production issues with them. They have constraints on nearly all of their popular vehicles, and are losing tons of sales. I wanted a Maverick, but had to settle for a Nissan Frontier since Ford can’t seem to build one.
This is the era of my 3 cars, but really they weren't the height of ICE tech. There was a breakthrough in power/efficiency around 2018. I just like how non-fussy the older cars are and how they look.
The the breakthroughs you’re referring to are direct injection, then those come with their own downsides. Either severely reduced reliability (when solely using Gasoline Direction Injection (GDI) injectors) or increased cost and complexity. (When using a dual-injection setup, such as GDI + Port Fuel Injection (PFI))
Agreed. It was a time where the computer did all the important stuff of fuel trim, timing etc. but none of the bullshit. 2005-2010 was peak ICE. And the parts are dirt cheap!
The ones from the 90s in good shape are already commanding higher prices after bottoming out like a decade ago. I don’t think the late 90s supra or s2000 ever got truly cheap.
Keep the 4Runner and buy something new for a family hauler.
New vehicles are much safer from a structural standpoint than older ones. Modern high strength steels form the safety cage of the vehicle, and greatly reduce the risk of injury in offset frontal impacts, side impacts, and rear impacts.
And then you have the multitudes of air bags.
Finally, the various electronic gizmos that further reduce risk of injury.
The presence of high strength steels alone warrants a new vehicle purchase. Vehicles are disposable, people are not.
>New vehicles are much safer from a structural standpoint than older ones.
Perhaps if you compare the same model 15 years ago and now that is true, but people rarely buy the same model used as they would new. At least among my aquitances it is common to consider a higher class used car, or a much cheaper lower class new car. I doubt a 6 years old lexus rx350 is less safe than 2023 Toyota Yaris for example. Two cars of comparable price around here in Central EU.
Depends on the new safety tech; it often comes into the luxury brands and works it's way down. 6 years could be long enough for something significant to be in the Yaris.
I can believe that. I've currently got an oldish Merc E class which is statistically one of the safest cars and didn't cost so much to buy. Servicing and petrol are a fair bit more than a small new car though.
> I doubt a 6 years old lexus rx350 is less safe than 2023 Toyota Yaris for example.
Ok, but those two vehicles are significantly different sizes regardless of year, are they not? And that’s usually very relevant where safety is concerned.
that may be true of these two cars, but I don't think he was cherry-picking those just to make his general argument. are you making the general argument that this larger vs smaller car issue will always be the difference? what happens to the difference in safety improvements over time, always overshadowed by size in the used market?
My point was that, depending on the type of collision, a 6 year old rx350 could easily be a lot safer than a Yaris due its much larger size.
Maybe there would be less of a difference in a single vehicle collision, but AIUI in a multi vehicle collision size (and relative height) usually matters a lot. So it didn't seem to make their point very well.
> The presence of high strength steels alone warrants a new vehicle purchase. Vehicles are disposable, people are not.
Agreed. Although the steels used for safety critical parts of new vehicles are now "ultra-high-strength steels", with tensile strengths exceeding a gigapascal. These can be 4x stronger than "high strength steel", and 6x stronger than steel from the "good ol' days"
- Improved FEM makes modern crumple zones deeper and smoother
- Heavy use of composites dramatically improve the raw amount of energy absorbed by the car instead of the passengers
- Better manufacturing methods mean parts can be shaped/placed to be less likely to enter the cabin
- Better placement of more airbags means you're more likely to hit something soft
- Better seats and better placements of better seat belts means you're less likely to snap something due to whiplash
- Better brakes and steering geometry reduces your chance of losing control
- Better brakes and steering geometry improves your ability to avoid other vehicles
- Electronic stability control _massively_ reduces chances of rollovers
- Electronic stability control _massively_ improves your ability to dodge other cars in emergency maneuvers
- Electronic stability control _massively_ improves your ability to handle bumps and potholes and waves and black ice and other disruptions
- Electronic stability control _massively_ improves the car's ability to go where you point the wheels regardless of speed or condition
Seriously, especially if you're driving a truck or SUV, you _need_ electronic stability control.
> According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic
> Safety Administration and the Insurance
> Institute for Highway Safety in 2004 and 2006
> respectively, one-third of fatal accidents
> could be prevented by the use of the technology
> Additionally, SUVs with stability control are
> involved in 67% fewer accidents than SUVs
> without the system
> The IIHS study concluded that ESC reduces
> the likelihood of all fatal crashes by
> 43%, fatal single-vehicle crashes by 56%, and
> fatal single-vehicle rollovers by 77–80%.
> ESC is described as the most important advance
> in auto safety
Not "the most important since seat belts", not "the most important since air bags", not "the most important current advance". Electronic stability control is THE most important safety feature in modern automotive vehicles, the single biggest factor in whether you will die because you got in a car _period_, more than air bags, more than seat belts, more than crumple zones, more than _headlights_ or _tire compounds_ or _safety glass_. Preventing an accident entirely is better than any mitigation and ESC is incredibly good at preventing a huge class of accidents.
And those numbers are from 2005-ish. Modern active rollover prevention and traction control systems and anti-understeer/oversteer controls are _even better_.
Electronic stability control is pure wizardry. It’s useful to dig up some videos on YouTube watching it in action, or, even better, when it’s not in action. Look up the “Moose maneuver”.
Traction and stability control, are one of those things I wonder if they aren't negated by human factors.
I have an old 90's tachoma that doesn't even have antilock brakes. It drives a bit like a car when compared with a modern truck, but the rear will slide out even on gentle curves, in the rain it can slide hundreds of feet when stopping (yah pulse the breaks manually), and its narrow and high meaning they roll over if you look at it wrong. One doesn't feel "safe" in it, and you know to maintain a lot of stopping distance, slow down before curves, and generally drive like a 90 year old. I have a much newer tundra. It is a brick on wheels with magic traction control, and it feels glued to the road because of it. Except it is easy to fail to respect it and discover one is simply going too fast into a turn, or a stoplight/whatever, and the antilock and traction control aren't going to save you. The one significant advantage is that you can steer it into a ditch while panicking rather than ramming it straight into oncoming traffic when that happens.
So, i'm betting in the end, the more aggressive driving the turndra encourages by giving people more of a feeling of being in control negates some of the additional safety. It's like power steering lets tiny women (and men) drive massive trucks/SUVs they wouldn't otherwise drive if they had to crank those huge tires holding all that weight manually.
I've disabled ESC and it's pretty amazing how much of a difference it makes in my car. But I can still make it go crazy by driving over a small bump while turning and accelerating (like, out of a driveway onto a busy street)
Well considering that SUVs have a higher CG and people tend to drive them like they are small cars I'm not surprised ESC is so effective for SUV drivers.
ESC in a car for me can be helpful or detrimental depending on the vehicle and the implementation.
Having watched some youtube of most dramatic webcam recorded crashes, I can believe that. They often start with some car losing stability and going sideways.
Not even slightly. I wouldn't touch a human-safety-critical system like that if you paid me twice what I'm currently making. No, I just would really like it if people didn't die in car accidents, I think that modern controls theory is Really Neat, and I'm entirely willing to evangelize for modern safety technology when it has the potential to prevent ONE THIRD of all deaths in automotive accidents in the US.
I remember when ABS braking was introduced, with all the fanfare of your enthusiasm. ABS braking was supposed to reduce accidents but actual statistics said it didn't. It made people write articles that said "it's almost as if humans have a built-in riskiness gauge, and as we make cars safer, they drive more recklessly" (and not "wreck"lessly haha).
I just checked wikipedia and there is a paucity of info showing actual effectiveness, and some showing what I just mentioned. It's a little suspicious that there is not overwhelmingly positive data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#Effec...
It's interesting that motorcycles show a flat and unambiguous 30% fewer fatal crashes when riding bikes equipped with ABS. Which does somewhat support the theory that it's down to a Jevons-paradox-alike effect, given that AFAICT motorcyclists tend to be reckless enough drivers that there's no physical way for them to become more reckless in response to improved safety technology.
I believe motorcycles are in a different category than cars for a few reasons:
1. If you are too fast to squeeze the brake lever, the tire carcass will not deform properly, giving you the the maximum braking potential. There's a large difference in braking performance just grabbing vs. applying in a controlled manner. You can look up motorcycling racing brake application for more info on this.
2. Breaking too hard can cause a stoppie (a wheelie using your front wheel). Done improperly, that creates a lot of fear in the rider.
3.If you lock the brakes and steer, you are likely to have the front end of the motorcycle dip, causing it to lowside.
People complain about new cars being harder to fix because of electronics but I think post OBDII they are actually easier because they tell you what is broken with error codes and also forums of experts are just a click away.
I do think its true that you can no longer be a diy hotrodder for most models because there is so much complexity with timing, emissions, fuel efficiency strategies, variable valve timing etc.
I've found most car forums tend to drive the real experts away due to them being full of blowhards. The real experts get tired of getting told by these folks they don't know what they're talking about, and end up creating closed invite only forums to trade info and advice on that the casual shade tree mechanic has no access to. I completely gave up on Rennlist after I asked a question about the turbo control system on the Porsche 951 only to realize many useless replies later that these people didn't even understand the basic theory behind how a turbo works. I answered my own question by bench testing an old junk turbo I bought on eBay and reported back to the forum only to be yelled at for not trusting their 'expert' advice. I've had similar experiences on other forums. Don't even get me started on the internet myths of DOT5 brake fluid that pretty much every forum takes as gospel. Even stacks of research papers and mandatory legal requirements don't keep people from spreading false information. Who needs all that nonsense? I now typically just pick up the phone and talk to experts I have personally worked with.
Funny you mention a 951 that is the exact car I am working on right now (an 86). Certainly Rennlist has been not very helpful, but I think its just in the nature of the internet to have an extremely bad signal to noise ratio. I use the term experts lightly but I find that the knowlede online goes way beyond what you can find in the service manual. Roughly 75% of the time I can find an answer and the rest I need to do some basic science or logic like bench testing a turbo.
When a car makes regular maintenance really easy and/or cheap, it's going to be more likely to never break. My Toyota Prado had the oil filter easily accessible at the top of the engine bay instead of being a PITA deep underneath near the sump, and had a "lip" around the seal to catch oil drips and divert down a hole to a catch line.
Makes me actively angry that this design isn't universal.
Same sentiment for my washer/dryer. Bought an older (used) set for $300, They have lasted 7 years so far, which is in addition to however long they were in use before: I would guess at least 7 more.
Seems like lots of people lament how things like cars, refrigerators, washers, etc. are becoming less mechanical and more electronic. Maybe there's a market for "bespoke" mechanical items.
Its kind of ironic that here in HN, a forum about technology and software, a lot of people have sentiments about less electronics and software. We know this stuff breaks in bad and odd ways and the more you have in a product (car) the more chances there are of it happening. Less is more.
Electronic stuff is still reparable. Probably even more cheaply, in some regards (certainly material cost). We've just been made to become accustomed to viewing electronic devices as disposable/primarily replaceable. And while most people have turned a wrench before, knowing how to use a soldering iron/heat gun/magnifier effectively is not a common skill. Could be, though.
My built-in refrigerator was slowly dying. Weak beeping, occasionally power cycling - and getting worse as the days went on. No longer under warranty, and no replacement parts being made. Replacing the fridge would escalate to replacing cabinetry, and possibly a full remodel since that would “enhance” the worn look of everything else. You may know how this goes…
I knew enough to google the symptoms and found someone that would “rebuild” the main circuit board for a flat fee of $250 with about a week to turn around. That’s a fair bit cheaper than the remodel option.
But that got me thinking “if it’s a flat rate, and occasionally something is hard to fix that means most repairs must be trivial or the person wouldn’t be making enough money”. What’s an obvious, easy and cheap circuit board problem? Capacitors.
I had to buy a tester for $150 but I get to keep it. And the bad capacitor it found cost $.08.
Knowing just a little and being willing to learn a little more saved me a considerable amount of time, trouble and money.
I hope the same is true for cars because I have three relatively new ones in the family and we tend to keep them 10-20 years.
We also know that any electronic stuff is very often designed to not be reparable at all. While there are standard interfaces for standard diagnostic data, you rarely can skip dealing with a very closed stack of software, intellectual property around a thick shield of armor.
This is why you get things like heatable seat DLC.
I would like people to get into the habit of spinning up homebrew firmware/software to deal with this. Rockbox for your Ford. It's a heated seat, Michael, how much could it cost? Ten hundred lines of code?
Repairing electronics is not fun. Ask any undergraduate that spent hours looking for broken op-amps and bad solder joints. I don't think its the same class of repairability as old cars.
Maybe our family have just been lucky with the brands we pick, but I definitely haven't found this... My Electrolux fridge has been 100% solid for over seven years now, which I bought because my parents had had one for eight or nine years at the time (which is still going). My Bosch Series 8 front-loader washing machine has also been a tank, same age, no signs of anything going wrong, same story - I bought it because a friend had had a similar model for years, theirs is still going to...
Seems like there are still reliable appliances to be found, it's just probably that there's more low-quality cheaply made appliances on the market than there used to be, so it used to be easier to get a good one without researching so much...
It's sad that we're at a point where you consider a washer lasting 7 years to be something worthy posting about. Not long ago, applicances routinely lasted for decades.
SQs are reliable, and pretty robust. However, it is important to know that the top-loader agitator models and are popular on the Internet use quite a lot of water and are pretty hard on clothing. You may keep the SQ longer, but a modern front-loader may allow you to keep your existing clothing longer.
I don’t think all that many people really feel this way in the end. A significant majority of new car buyers feel very strongly about having Apple CarPlay for instance. And hey, me too.
Adding Apple CarPlay or Android Auto to older vehicles is easier than adding it to a newer one. On a newer vehicle you have to worry about car systems like the AC, seat controls, etc being integrated into the infotainment system. On an older car with a single din radio (w/ cassette deck or cd) you can just buy an off the shelf radio that has CarPlay and Android Auto.
Yeah but that’s just one example. As much as I like to imagine myself as a practical driver who might want to do performance driving or whatever, in reality I like all the creature comforts of a modern car.
Not quite as old, but I drive a 2007 Tundra. Does all the things I need it to do. About a year ago I replaced the foggy headlamps and people thought I had gotten a new car lol
I was at the Toyota dealership not long ago and the mechanic says, “we’re not supposed to say this, but if you just do basic maintenance these cars will go for 20+ years. No way would I sell this for a new one. They cost too much now.”
I had one of those and it turns out they don't have true four wheel drive, but rather an antilock rear differential. It is controlled by a sensor that can freeze in icy conditions and fail to engage. Living in Montana, we had to sell the otherwise perfect truck for something that could reliably get up our driveway in winter.
It was the TRD package that had the locking differential which was electronically actuated, right? But that’s entirely separate from the “true” 4x4 with the barrel drive shaft synchronizing the front and year diffs.
Did you have a pre-runner? Some of those were sold with funky combinations that have the locking diff but a crippled 4x4 that disengages when you hit 10 mph.
Mine didn't have 4WD at all - don't need it where I live. My use case was hauling stuff in the bed and towing a boat. When I purchased the truck, it was one of the cheapest trucks with the towing capacity required for my boat.
I have a 2012 Honda Fit that they will need to pry off my cold dead hands. It's my favorite car of all time, it's everything that I want from a car. Except possibly a larger gas tank.
2003 Honda fit owner here @ 180Mm. Outside regular maintenance, not once have I had to take it to the mechanics. Zero issues. This car was the pinnacle.
Fellow 2012 Fit owner. I bought it after reviewing carcomplaints.com and finding it was a very reliable car by their metrics, all the top problems are related to accessories.
Interesting contrast with the Onion’s other parody, Ford marketing a used 1993 car as the option for poorer buyers “who just need to get from their mother-in-law’s to the unemployment office”.
> it's almost always something simple and relatively cheap
That's a key point. Reliability might be good these days, but long-term repairability is very low.
It's come to the point that even a mind-dumbingly trivial change like changing a brake light bulb or a battery can't be done (on a BMW, surely many other brands) without access to factory repair computers.
So when the factory stops supporting your particular model, what then?
I firmly believe that a century from now we'll still have historical cars from the 1950s-60s running around, but surviving cars from the 2020s will be extremely rare, since they can't be repaired beyond factory support.
I bought a 2004 corolla off the lot and my experience has been the same.
legitimately the only major repair I've ever needed is to replace the oil pan and that was my fault. runs like a champ, I literally just got back from driving it about 10 minutes ago.
It looks ugly as sin as over the years people have thrown themselves at the vehicle, including a line down the passenger side where a fedex semi took a left turn too sharply, but it runs beautifully. Part of that is maintenance, of course, but if you treat'em well they'll treat you well.
I'm in a similar boat. I drive an 07 Volvo wagon, and it's practical, mostly reliable besides the odd repair and replacing wear items.
It's still relatively safe, at least in terms of passive safety (it has a well engineered crash structure, curtain side impact airbags, etc).
It drinks fuel like a drunk uncle drinks wine at a wedding, burns and leaks a little oil, etc. Fuel is very expensive where I live (currently around $8,3 to the gallon), so that's a thing.
But mostly, modern cars are extremely expensive and just not appealing to me as a driver or as an owner. I'd have to go through a ton of repairs and fuel before I'd break even on a new car, I can probably drive my car for more than a decade still before it gets to that point.
Pair that with Mozilla's Privacy Not Included report[0], pervasive tracking in modern cars and bullshit practices like "heated seats as a subscription", and I'm out.
I'm considering just buying a good shell of a car and have it converted to EV when the time comes to replace the Volvo. An EV conversion is about $30-35k for a professional to plan, build, execute and certify. If I want to buy a car that matches or exceeds the comfort, practicality and joy of my Volvo, I'm looking at $60k+ on the new market, at least.
Interestingly the article actually calls out the 4Runner as "among the most reliable models in the survey". Apparently the newer model years are still pretty solid!
On the other hand anecdata, I had a 13ish year old 4Runner with only about 70K miles lose a transmission line on me a couple years back. The dealership shrugged and said maybe it was a chip on the coating from a piece of gravel. Though it may well have been a manufacturing defect. In any case, ended up having to nurse the vehicle home and basically nurse it 2 months until I could get a new Honda.
Which I actually like a lot better. The 4Runner is a very old platform. Other than the infortainment system, a rental I coincidentally had a couple years back was basically identical to the fairly poor handling SUV I had for 10+ years.
Why did the transmission line require replacing the vehicle? I've replaced them on a cargo van...it was cheaper and easier than a pair of rear drum brakes, a normal piece of routine maintenance
The transmission was drivable but damaged because it was a bad leak. Given its age and some body damage, it didn't make sense to repair--and I got a ridiculously good trade-in anyway.
2000 4Runner 2x4 (I think last year made in Japan) 320k miles. Still original alternator, starter and every other major component (transmission, rear end, etc). I am not sure but may have replaced water pump about 10 years ago but I could be wrong and it still might be original. Just tires, brakes, battery and religiously change oil every 3k. Has a little hail damage but other than that looks new and feels dependable and drives well. It is my first Toyota...
Yes, 1999 Tachoma, is largely the same thing, although there is a laundry list of things that need to be done as basic maintenance, which I assume is the same on the 4runner since they are basically the same vehicle. Mine needed rear axle seals, timing cover seals, and I did the water pump preventatively as part of the timing belt change, also because I have the warm climate version, the starter is too small and eats the starter contacts every ~70K or so miles, and last time I just swapped in the higher current starter instead of doing the contacts for the 3rd time.
It also has grease fittings on the drivetrain that, if not greased on a regular schedule (read maybe every ~10K miles), will squeak, the mass airflow sensor needs to be cleaned on nearly the same schedule as even tiny amounts of contamination throws it off and the gas mileage will suffer and eventually the 5ZVFE will knock because of it. And because it doesn't have auto tensioners on the belts, they need to be checked and adjusted every 40K or so, etc. Lots of extra maintenance that some of the newer Toyotas don't seem to require. And of course, just about all of the toyota truck/4runners/etc of that era a super sensitive to brake and tire wear issues which turn them into vibration machines if not kept in perfect alignment/wear/etc because apparently the suspension/etc are so lightweight. Plastic headlamp fog is another one.
While yes, things that seem to wear out on other vehicles seem to be designed for the vehicle's life (alternators, wheel bearings, AC, cabin controls, etc).
(ex my 201x 4.6L tundra, which is plugs every 100K, brakes, tires and fluids, oh and hell the battery on that thing even lasted 2x as long as it was labeled for, I just replaced it last year)
Anyway, many of those items can be ignored for a long time if the vehicle is treated like a 20 year old beater. Things like the rear axle seals can leak into the rear drums and largely be missed until someone notices that the rear diff has been run for 100k miles with barely any fluid, and is cooked. The same is true for the valve covers; they seep in the back near the firewall or onto the exhaust manifold. Unless you look for it, there won't be enough oil lost between changes to notice.
There's one thing about "newer" cars (mine's a 2014) that older cars don't tend to have, and that's the ability to make the car beep remotely. That is insanely valuable in large parking lots.
Bluetooth stereo: that, you could install after-market.
If you use Apple CarPlay or connect your iPhone to Bluetooth Apple Maps will remember where you parked your car once you disconnect. I use this feature quite a bit to know how far I have to walk back to the car when I’m out on a hike.
Though, I imagine an AirTag will give you more precise location.
I hear ya. We have a Toyota that's over a decade old at this point. It only ever needs routine maintenance. We'd like to purchase something newer for the same reasons as yours. But also everything is now "smart" and always online. Just like I want my TVs, I want a dumb vehicle with buttons and knobs. But dumb with premium features like how vehicles used to be, not the cheapest barebones models.
> when mine finally kicks the bucket, will confidently get another one I suppose.
If you can legally buy one. In the near future you might not be able to transfer ownership over on older cars because of their "emissions" and new state or federal restrictions
This has never happened in the United States, and every expert out there says there is no sign of any kind of effort or legislation to do so. Involuntarily losing access to old cars is an imagined problem.
I have a 2006 Toyota Sienna that's approaching 300k miles and a 2001 Mercedes that's got about 220k miles. That's almost the top and bottom of the list and IMHO it's all about regular maintenance. I have a 2008 Honda FIT with under 100k and it constantly needs something.
I’ve got an 08 Fit as well, in 15 years and 150k miles
I haven’t had to do anything outside of brakes/ignition coils/spark plugs. What sorts of things have gone wrong with yours?
Broken front sway bar linkage, leaky caulk art the rear roof seams well-known), spots where the paint wasn't right, early death of DI coils (they should get more than 60k), rodents eating the wiring harness (twice) as Honda uses what they claim is environmentally friendly insulation.
But yeah ... I forgive plugs, oil changes, brakes, filters, etc as it's PM that has given my other cars their longevity.
> Parts can be more expensive than one might think.
Couldn't agree more, due to their added size maintaining/operating a Silverado 1500 was similar to maintaining my Lexus. Reliable enough, but bigger tires, brakes, rotors, more fuel, etc.
Biggest material regret of my last 5 years was getting rid of my 99 Limited. I worried about some of the pillar rust compromising safety with my kid in the car, but you couldn't beat the 3.4, rear locker, etc. Take my vote to not sell yours.
it's an inanimate car that is dispensable. your family's life is not. there is a DRASTIC difference in safety and survivability of newer cars. I would switch over yesterday
Note that these stats only account for reliability in the first three years:
> Then the brand reliability score was calculated by averaging results from 2021 to 2023.
As someone who usually buys ~10 year old cars and drives them into the ground I'm much more interested in long term reliability. It may correlate but these stats are not that!
The Finnish transport and communications agency publishes yearly statistics about inspected cars and their three most common reasons for failing inspection as well as the percentage of failed inspections by car year and model.[1] The graphs on the site itself aren't that interesting but the provided excel sheets have some neat insight especially on the slightly older cars.
In Finland it is required by law for all cars older than 4 years to be inspected yearly or every two years (depending on the age of the car) so the statistics include quite large selection of different car models.
This is a very interesting data source. So let's say for "Model-specific statistics on faults detected in passenger cars during inspection in 2022 by year of entry into service (in Finnish)", I should be looking at column "Hylkäys-%" sorted in ascending order to find the models with least failed inspections?
Higher Hylkäys-% = more failed inspections. It translates to "disqualification-%". So for example in the 2022 data the worst car was 2009 Dodge Caliber with only about a third out of 171 cars passing the inspection.
My mother is still driving a 1999 Corolla hatchback. She bought it around 2005, has driven it every day since.
When her friend passed away, she inherited his 1998 version of the same and has been using it for spares.
Now she's considering selling both, they are classics now so they are actually increasing in value. I'm a bit sad, as I live on the other side of the world and I feel like in my trips home that car is one of the constants in my life. I half expected to inherit it and pass it on to my own children someday.
When I worked in a tire shop, the highest mileage vehicle I saw was a 500k mile Corolla, driven by the original owners. It was a mid 90s model IIRC. This was in 2018 or so.
> With the Corolla you just might just have to decide when you've had enough of driving the damned thing.
I've got a 95 Honda Civic with a bit over 200k. And the prospect of having to finally change out the belts is making me decide it's probably time to call it quits.
But honestly, I don't think I'd go for Corolla because it has too much longevity at this point. It'd be like buying a gas-powered parrot.
From what I've heard the hybrid powertrains are way more complex and prone to extra problems on top of ICE problems. But it's a testament to Toyota's engineering that the Prius makes it seem that this isn't the case.
In any case, on the much higher bar of running a car into the ground I think the Prius would get priced out on repairs for the last 20% of the run time. You've got both the regular battery and the hybrid battery, the regenerative braking system, and probably a lot more little dingles and dangles that would cause arguments with a spouse if you dug your heels in and kept paying for them just to run the car all the way to the finish line.
With the Corolla you just might just have to decide when you've had enough of driving the damned thing.
The extra complexity spreads out the load. All of the things that often fail in an engine are less likely to when the engine only operates for a limited duty cycle, for extended durations, and for a fixed optimal load. You have the more robust motor system smooth over all of the transients. So while there are more single point failures the system might be overall more reliable.
If simplicity was the only way to make something reliable we would have rickshaws rather than cars.
I also think this is correct. Apart from the fact that any reasonably modern cars will usually go into limp-home modes, or even stop driving, if errors are detected, I seem to remember something about an electric drive motor needing to spin backwards when driving using the combustion engine. That feels wrong as I write it, but I remember it being something fundamental to the planetary "Power Split Device".
Depends what, but mostly yes. If the battery fails then the engine is used permanently. If the engine fails then the battery can be used for its limited range.
I'm genuinely curious how that would be true. Doesn't a hybrid have ~all of the parts of an ICE vehicle and ~all of the parts of an EV? Wouldn't that mean it can fail in far more ways?
The transmission of a traditional ICE vehicle is a component commonly prone to failure due to reliance on clutches, friction couplings, gear engagements, etc.
Hybrids replace this transmission with one composed of two electric motors and planetary gear sets. One or both of the motors also act as generators. It’s complex, but the highly variable speed of the output shaft is managed almost purely by torque splitting of the planetary gear sets along with routing of electrical energy within the system— no clutches or gear disengaging/reengaging.
And the ICE engine itself has an easier time (often Atkinson cycle) because the electric motors can provide much of the responsiveness to immediate power demands, allowing the ICE to operate in a much less stressful power band.
It reads like you’re describing a series hybrid where the ICE feeds into an electric generator which feeds into a battery or electric motors.
That is not how most hybrids work. That’s how almost none of them works in fact, although it is how diesel electric works on large vehicles (an electric transmission essentially).
No, he's right. If you're interested, read about the Prius e-CVT transmission. It's pretty amazing.
Essentially, it connects the ICE and two different electric motors to the same drive shaft. By spinning the electric motor forwards, backwards or using it as a generator, it can regulate torque going to the wheels for a wide band of RPM. At the same time, torque and RPM coming out of the ICE are kept in a much smaller band.
But yes, the ICE is still directly connected to the wheels.
In a planetary gear setup, there's three different rotating planes you can hook onto. Traditionally one is free, two are rotating. But if instead, one is the output, another one the ICE engine (with electric boost) and the third one is another electric engine, the electric plane can change the influence of the output plane on the ICE plane, effectively intermediating the RPM and torque it sees.
1. Series, where it is fuel -> engine -> battery -> e-motor -> wheels , with regenerative breaking as a second power source to the batteries. These are range-extended vehicles, where a small generator allows both for more range than the small batteries could supply, and the ability to run without electric charging.
2. Parallel, where both systems are driving the wheels through a clutch system. Both systems would be expected to operate at the same rate if both are engaged. This is a motor-assist system, and the majority of road power is supplied by the gasoline engine.
3. Series/Parallel (or Split) where the two systems are mixed using a planetary gear system. Among other things, this allows for gasoline motors to be optimized for efficiency with a specific set of operating conditions, knowing the electric motor can smooth out operation.
4. Plug ins, very similar to series/parallel but where the wheels are now being driven primarily by the electric motor. The e-motor is more powerful and there is significantly more battery, which now can be charged independently. The batteries are still far below a full EV, having only 5-10% of the range available as a "full EV" mode.
All of these systems effectively have a single point of interaction between the gasoline and electric systems - for series it is the batteries, for parallel it is the clutch, for split systems and plug-ins it is the planetary gear system. The difference I suppose is that the series system has a wire connection to the gasoline engine rather than a physical drive connection, so conceptually it seems easier to swap out.
I heard that the Chevy Volt as an example was originally planned to be a series system, but the electric motor simply wasn't capable of providing the highway performance they wanted - so it ultimately shipped as a series-parallel system.
Definitely not, at least in systems where both the engine and motor-generator mechanically connect. You only reduce complexity when it's basically just an EV where the ICE can recharge the battery, such as the Chevy Volt or Mazda's new rotary engine vehicle.
> There are interesting insights with the reliability of electrified models this year. Overall, hybrids have 26 percent fewer problems than cars powered by internal combustion engines (ICE). Some standouts include the Lexus UX and NX Hybrid and the Toyota Camry Hybrid, Highlander Hybrid, and RAV4 Hybrid.
> Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are more of a mixed bag. As a category, they have 146 percent more problems than ICE vehicles. Several PHEVs are even less reliable than their conventional counterparts, such as the below-average Audi Q5 and Chrysler Pacifica. The latter has the lowest score in our survey, at 14.
> Electric cars and electric SUVs don’t fare much better, with average reliability scores of 44 and 43, respectively. At the bottom of our vehicle-type rankings are electric pickup trucks, with an average score of 30.
You can get some deals if you buy used cars with some problems to to fix. I see a bunch of cars on facebook marketplace (i miss old school Craigslist) that are about 1k that need repairs of various sorts.
Now is a really good time as winter is here and people need their driveway space back.
Cash for clunkers and covid, what a one two punch for the used car market. Might be a decade before things stabilize.
The first 3 years of a new car are almost always covered under manufacturer warranty, hence manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to minimize issues in that time interval.
A less biased review would also include years 3-7 at least, but perhaps up to 10.
That's not what bias means. If I'm in the market for a new car I want to know how the 2022 model is expected to perform. Whether the car was reliable 10-15 years ago isn't all that relevant to me considering how quickly lines are refreshed.
But the company's culture around quality likely hasn't changed much, so long-term reliability is a useful secondary metric for those who want to keep their new car for a long time.
This does not match with reality. When a company is on the chopping block there are many instances of them finding a way to make things works. (eg. Big three after the bailouts, Ford running up the launch of the Taurus, Kia in the 70s, Nissan when Carlos Gohsn joined etc)
I think Toyota and their "5 whys" and Tesla with their "move fast and breaks things" are decent examples of ways a culture has lasted over time and has continually effected their products.
It's chronologically impossible to rank the best long-term reliability of new cars. At best, you can rank who made the most reliable new cars 10 years ago, which isn't helping anyone trying to buy new cars now. As someone who usually buys 10 year old cars, an article about the reliability of new cars is clearly not aimed at you.
It would have to be from the small list of cars you can still buy new that haven't changed much in the last decade. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Challenger come to mind.
100% share the method. If you are patient, somewhat knowledgeable, and frankly lucky you can pick up some nice things for real cheap at that point. Sometimes they can turn into money puts, but oftentimes with some preventative maintenance, things just keep going smooth.
I'm finding that the limiting factor is the catalytic converter. They just seem to wear out around ~200k miles. Replacement is about $4000 and California has a scheme offers $1000 to scrap it so at that point it is usually more economical to replace it with another ~10 year old car.
Just checked and for my 24 year old truck in Mississippi I can get a new one for under $200 and it takes maybe 30 minutes to change. $4000 seems quite crazy to me.
Totally agree, I want to know what or of warranty cost of ownership is.
Especially since most auto manufacturers only design for say ~10 year reliability. Sure we could make a a part that would last forever, but it’d be heavy (bad for fuel economy) and expensive, so let’s make the lightest and cheapest part that will last about x years (we still want all that spare part revenue too!)
That's fine making it light, but you have to engineer the car so you can get at it reasonably.
There is zero reason to put a battery in a wheel well for instance. What did it make the car $1 cheaper to make? Forget the battery till the end of the design?
I agree. 3 year reliability is not 10 year reliability. After 3 years the car should be "broken in" and should then be good to go for another decade. Something that is deemed unreliable after 3 years is total and utter shit.
I think it's easier to get the answer you are looking for yourself: Just look outside and tally the number of old cars you see, and which models they are. That's your answer.
If you are considering buying an older car, but you rarely see it on the road, you have your answer as to whether it'll be a reliable car or not.
Toyota is amazing for making reliable cars but writing truly shitty code. IIRC, a lawsuit a few years ago about Toyota's faulty brake system revealed that Toyota engineers cramped tens of thousands of lines in a single file and the lines freely update hundreds of global variables. It's also interesting that Japanese companies follow ISO this and CMM that yet they develop slowly and produce shitty software services everywhere. On the other hand, they have amazing engineers who wrote amazing books about deep technical topics and optimize the hell out of esoteric mathematical software that is probably used by millions of people. Truly mysterious country
Is it truly mysterious though? I find it interesting whenever HN has a strong fascination with all things related to "Japanese-ness". For example, there have been links to wikipedia pages of some Japanese term, and it will make front page with comments. I can't think of any other nation that has this kind of cultural representation on here.
And yet, the myth of Japanese "uniqueness" is largely the product of Japanese national propaganda, serving many useful purposes for the state, for example increasing tourism and limiting permanent immigration. I find it quite fascinating in modern times this propaganda still lives on strongly throughout the world, as people say "things are so different in Japan."
There is a lot of propaganda about Japan's culture, but there is no mistaking that it is indeed different and quite unique, not always in good ways. It is quite common for island or peninsula countries to have strong, unique cultures, and Japan certainly sits at the exceptional end of that in terms of how strong the culture is.
not the person you're replying to, but seemed pretty obvious they were rejecting the idea that Japanese programmers are somehow unique in being good in some cases and bad in other cases
They reward tenure and respecting the hierarchy. Wonder what kind of positive (from western pov) skills and behaviours are fostered in that environment.
Regarding hierarchy, I have an anecdote about India. A manager told me that western teams are more likely to challenge a ticket than Indian teams, who hesitate to do that and are more likely to power through. His theory is that the culture makes it disrespectful to question the upper hierarchy, given its caste system, and causes a clash with western culture.
His solution was to communicate much more actively with the Indian team, to try to squeeze more feedback that they would hesitate to give at first.
Haha, that's a funny meme. But the main picture sort of is different, no? In Tokyo, you'd wander through the streets and see all sorts of interesting things in that melange of billboards: model train stores, little book stores, an indoor hydroponics farm, a teppanyaki place. I've got nothing against truck stop off-ramps looking like they do (they provide great utility on road trips) but it's qualitatively different and I can see someone liking the former and not the latter.
It's kind of the same to me. There's videos on YouTube of Japanese tourist or exchange students in America, gawking and having fun over the most mundane American things.
Huh, I suppose we're different. I wasn't born American, and both the truck stop stuff and the Japanese city are wondrous to me. But they're obviously different experiences because of how many novel things I can experience in a short amount of time.
One thing that Japanese did really well is keeping their language identity. In particular, they don’t translate their words. They give us gyoza instead of dumplings. They give us ramen instead of some lame-ass noodle. They give us Sudoku instead of number puzzles. So much so that Japanese words have some kind of zen-like connotation to many people. In contrast, mainland Chinese always translate words to English. Ironically, gyoza is literally Chinese word 饺子，and Ramen is really the Chinese word 拉面。
Is this something that's happening because of something Japanese people are doing or because of the perception of Japanese culture where foreigners like Japanese words and thus don't translate it?
I think a big part is that Japanese is a lot easier to pronounce for westerners. We won't get it fully right but there are no tones and it transliterates to English pretty well, compared to pretty much every other Asian country.
Japanese has a lot of loan words from Chinese, which isn’t surprising. They aren’t even written in katakana. Japanese are more likely to adopt phonetic translation of new things (like computer) whereas Chinese will make a new word diannao (electric brain). Of course Chinese not having an auxiliary phonetic writing system (unlike Japanese or Korean) makes this necessary, although that’s probably by design (not completely true, some non-Chinese languages use Chinese as a phonetic writing system!).
Sounds like you're describing how English speakers treat Japanese loanwords, which sounds more relevant to the identity of English rather than Japanese.
From what I've heard, the Japanese has no qualms about importing English words or just making up "nonsensical" new English words to suit their needs.
Yes, but I thought it was Japanese culture that drives such adoption. Otherwise, it’s hard to explain why English vocabulary does not include many modern Chinese words in similar fashion, but does include a number of Cantonese words.
Oh please. Look and see some example Mandarin and Cantonese words loaned to English. [1] They also have your Japanese examples in there.
Want more counterexamples? Probably literally every Italian food: spaghetti, pizza, ravioli...
To me, this is just more evidence for how strong this meme of Japanese uniqueness, coolness, "sugoi kawaii desune~~ ^-^" is. I'm not bashing people who think Japan is cool. But I do think it's weird how they can't recognize it's just a meme, to the point of fetishization.
Did you notice that most of the words, if not all, are based on Cantonese. Hence I was careful to say "mainland Chinese". The early immigrants were mostly from Guangdong and Fujian. They didn't translate their words but to use phonics directly and I wish the mainland Chinese did the same. A good example could be the Japanese word katana。If it were from mainland Chinese, you'd bet the word would be "Chinese sword" instead of "jian" or "dao".
I mean, those are not new words. Languages more often than not take the foreign name of a new discovery/item/concept, and Japanese is no different. As sibling commenter mentions, they have a huge amount of English words written with katakanas.
Some languages had periods where they tried finding a new, “pure” name for a foreign concept/item, but these have varied success rates, and often sound idiotic to native speakers, and they don’t see the point.
I never met a Brazilian who went to Japan and didn’t spontaneously say that things there are so different. I don’t think it’s solely propaganda (if any at all).
I mean I would figure it would be extremely different, much more so than say visiting the USA or Europe since our heritage all comes from the same parts of the world (minus indigenous which USA and Brazil also share to an extent)
They’d probably have the same reaction to America or much of Europe considering you’re talking about two countries with quite different levels of development and standards of living.
No, that’s not it. These people are used to go to the US and Europe and it’s not the same reaction.
It is a mix of development, very different culture (Brazil has a lot of European and US cultural influence), but also safety, institutional efficiency, traditions. Idk, there is a lot of different aspects and things.
African culture also has a lot of influence in Brazilian culture. But anyway, there is another uniqueness aspect aspect, which is the urban development of Japan.
I visited African tribes, and of course it is different than a big city in Brazil, it is just as different as an indigenous tribe here in Brazil, or a more rural village.
Japan uniqueness, I believe, comes from its urban development. Rich, clean, polite, functional big cities is the uniqueness that I see in Japan that it’s not common in any other place in the world. I didn’t find that in LA, NY, Paris, London, Dakar.
Maybe Copenhagen (from the ones I visited) would match some aspects of it, but then it’s not as big as Tokyo, nor it is blended with the tradition as in Japan (or I am used to Nordic traditions more than Japanese)
I am convinced that Japan has some unmatched uniqueness which make it more different of other countries than other countries are among them.
I hear you. Having studied Japanese seriously it takes a lot of the magic out of jargon that’s just common Japanese nouns. But it is still alien to most of our ways of working (though I think that has more to do with nonprogrammers programming than anything about the Yamatodamashii).
Not arguing against your point, but there's an active element in America media that's very anti-Chinese. When's the last time you saw a story that was cool or innocent related to China in HN (because MSM's totally out of the question)?
If you fed Americans Chinese news stories from Chinese media directly, they would have an even lower opinion of China. Give an American a copy of global times or China daily (you can find them at the airport) and watch them wonder if this is satire or real!
There were a lot of pro-China articles and comments on HN about 5 or so years ago, China’s popularity has just taken a huge nosedive since then. Sexy Cyborg makes China look cool until the government shuts her down, making China look very uncool.
Definitely. Unfortunaly, the people who are currently enjoying the benefits of being China's leaders would only lose. So they have decided to take a different path, esp. in the recent years.
Japan definitely has their own business culture, which has pros and cons (e.g. it is very seniority-aware, but that’s also a negative).
It seems to fit well engineering, but it is not that good of a fit for software development - as they are generally not too great at the latter. I have only heard these things, so not even first-hand experience, but due to a senior people basically “have to be” at a higher position, there are software companies where the higher ups don’t know shit about what is even a computer.
I think you could perhaps say that Japanese are extremely highly sensitive to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_barriers in indusrial and administrative processes relative to other cultures.
If something causes friction or pain, but switching away / updating to a new system would incur a high cost or retraining time or break institutional knowledge, there seems to be an extreme bias to adapting to the pain rather than suffering the switching cost temporarily to improve the situation. There does seem to be a benefit though of extreme adaptation that occurs when a process remains unchanged for a very, very long time and actors in the system can develop extreme levels of experience.
For handwritten resumes, the pain is kind of the point: handwriting hundreds of copies, which must be perfect down to the last stroke, is how new grads demonstrate their diligence and commitment to future employers. (It's still an idiotic relic though.)
> Toyota engineers cramped tens of thousands of lines in a single file and the lines freely update hundreds of global variables.
While the "single file" part is not great, using all global variables in an embedded system can be a good thing. I've worked on a critical piece of software for aircraft that did this deliberately, for safety reasons.
One of the most important criteria for that software is determinism, which means no dynamic allocation since it is hard to predict how the allocator would behave. The stack can also be very limited in size, so what remains are global variables.
It also makes debugging easier. You know exactly which variable corresponds to which address in memory. And with a probe, you can know the full state of the program at any time. That's also how we tested "impossible" conditions (for coverage): by overwriting specific memory addresses.
Many of the reasons why globals are bad didn't apply there. We had no concurrency, no resources to share with other processes, in fact, we didn't even have an OS at first, Nothing was dynamic, all arrays were of fixed size, including strings, which were array of characters padded with spaces to the appropriate length.
Of course, we documented usage of these variables, proper up-to-date documentation was not an option as it was certified software. It was one of the most boring job I ever had, and it is probably for the best.
As an embedded engineer I’ve never heard of this and it seems… unwise.
Yes, we avoid dynamic memory allocation but using globals for everything?
Assuming C:
For inter-file access static variables with getters/setters achieves the same thing and makes it easier to split/test
I’ve never went as far as not using local variables in functions but you could use static here too to avoid the possibility of two functions sharing the same variable.
We still had local variables, for internal calculations and the likes of course, but most of the interface was done through globals. (btw, it was indeed C)
Perhaps what is missing is that the way we did testing was a bit unconventional. That is, we didn't have unit tests. Instead, we did it all through integration testing on the real hardware. And setting these globals was how we got coverage. We also had a particularly good traceability, so we knew exactly which tests to run after each code change and get our coverage back, which made up for the fact that we couldn't tests the functions independently.
It was a rather successful project, we got audited a couple of times with only minor issues. It certainly made testing more difficult, but we in exchange, it was much closer to real life conditions.
Note that it was a while ago, newer project use a more modern approach with a continuous integration platform, unit tests with an emulator, etc... We also use less C, instead using industry specific tools and certified code generators, multitasking RTOSes, etc... With C and ADA for the inner and legacy parts.
As someone who wrote code for one of the bigger auto manufacturers that wasn't Toyota, but one of the most respected auto manufacturer's for quality... Everyone here would be buying 15+ year old cars if they got a peek at that codebase.
90% of embedded code is horrible global variable messes like that, it's truly horrifying if you value CS and SE sensibilities and get into embedded. Invariably you'll also be expected to interface to and utilitise someone else's code of that style, so you can't even try to make much of a positive impact from within.
Meh, I've worked on several embedded systems, majority of developers did not use globals and bad coding practices. They weren't massive class hierarchies like I'm sure a lot of HN people would desire. Mostly (if c++) single inheritance, basic usage of RAII, basic usage of smart pointers (if allowed to use STL, some roll your own). The C projects I worked on were a little more ramshackle but almost no one used global variables or data. Lots of good use of translation uses to separate areas of interest. Most people avoided pointers until needed. It's not as bad as HN likes to portray.
Yes, a curious lawsuit that was, it seems the software bugs were discriminating against the elderly and the otherwise unaware. The darnedest thing.
(Ironically you can look at say Bosch ECUs and will find much the same: thousands of global variables and lots of "odd" code, but that's because its generated from a dataflow language).
I've been considering newer Toyota Tacoma's recently and their interiors are still stuck in 2010. I believe they are releasing a new redesign, but I still can't believe how outdated even 2022's are.
Years ago http://reliabilityindex.com/ had a fantastic list of the repair costs of used cars, collected by a UK car warranty insurer. They took it down for reasons I’m not aware of but it was basically this but for used cars (and Europe-focused). It let you see repair costs per brand, model and generation. There’d sometimes be mad regressions in quality between the old and newer generations of the exact same car - newer isn’t always better!
It was also mildly surprising to me how badly cool cars did. Eg Porsches and Audis had insane repair costs, compared to eg similarly sized Volkswagens. I assume this had more to do with the average driving style of Porsche owners than the hardware though - but that’s equally part of the risk math you gotta do when buying a used car!
We ended up buying a 12yo used Ford Focus for 3000 euros, from a generation that had miraculously low repair costs according to the site. We had nearly no repairs on it for the 6 years after (and then it suddenly pretty much fell apart, but still). I know nothing about cars and I fully credit the site for making me not screw up.
I really miss that site so if anyone knows something similar for used car, please do share!
My impression has always been that cool cars are expensive because rich people are willing to pay for comfort and status, and as such they're expensive to repair and likely to need it because the cost goes to superfluous vanity/comfort/speed aspects rather than reliability, which is what sensible people pay for. Buying a used luxury car is often a huge financial mistake, because they're either meant to not be driven, or only meant to be repaired at a high cost paid by someone who doesn't need to care about proportionally little money to them.
After all, the most reliable car is no car :) When my 2009 Volkswagen (which was fun to drive sometimes) finally shit the bed, I wasn't in the position to need another or afford one, and I now lived somewhere where there were viable alternatives. Ever since then, when the prospect of considering a new one crosses my mind, I just think about how much of a liability it really was, and without the original constraints of an obtuse commute, I'd just be buying it for hypothetical impromptu road trips, and paying an extremely high cost to do so over time; insurance, gas, lots of repairs and basic maintenance at specific shops, the risk of accidentally hitting someone or getting into an accident, that attrition on my body from not walking enough, parking fees, broken windows, fuuuuuck that
Now when I need one, and I do maintain my license, I just rent an arbitrary new car for the week or so I might need it, and that's so far been pretty serviceable except for post-pandemic shortages and demand.
This is one of the more correct ways to go. The methodology of the article is customer surveys and that is unreliable.
There is also an ODB2 manufacturer that collects stats about ODB2 error code frequencies per model and manufacturer (they have an API their hardware uses for up-to-date info), and they correlated that to repair costs per error code to estimate the reliability and maintenance costs of vehicles. I can't remember who it was, though.
“ Porsches and Audis had insane repair costs, compared to eg similarly sized Volkswagens”
It’s a known thing that those brands share parts between models, but the price will be substantially different if you buy the “Porsche” part vs the (identical) “VW” part. The price discrepancies don’t necessarily indicate they Audi/Porsche are less reliable.
> The price discrepancies don’t necessarily indicate they Audi/Porsche are less reliable.
No but once you express reliability not as "chance of breakage" but "repair cost", which IMO is the key metric for someone considering a used car, then it does. Especially when you also factor in the behavior of the average Porsche driver on the road, which means more wear and tear.
Cool cars are engineered to be cool, not reliable daily drivers. That means putting in whiz-bang features of one kind or another even at the expense of reliability. For instance, suicide doors make a car more complex, with more potential for failure and more expense if it happens. But they're pretty cool, if you're making a crazy sports car.
I wonder if hybrid being more reliable than gasoline cars is simply a function of most of those being Toyota, versus any effect stemming from the car being Hybrid.
A standard hybrid (of the sort that a range of companies make, handwavingly a parallel hybrid with creep capability, which a PHEV is just a supersized version of) eliminates a huge swath of things that go wrong with ICEs.
First and foremost, the transmission replaces the rather staggering pile of complexity of a modern automatic transmission, typically, with "a few motor/generators, some planetary gears, maybe a band that only engages when a motor is already stopped, and some power electronics." Compared to the 9+ speed automatics, this is dramatically simpler. Quite a few hybrids don't even have a mechanical reverse gear, it's just using the electronics for that brief period.
But, beyond that, you generally aren't asking the engine to idle, or to provide "starting torque" for the car - the hybrid system handles that sort of thing well. On at least the Gen 1 Volts, the motor "idles" at about 1200-1300 RPM, vs the ~750 RPM in most other vehicles, because it's almost never needed at low speed (heating in the dead of winter is the one time I notice it). But you don't have low speed, high load operation on the engines (which is a hard regime to operate in), and you don't have rapid speed changes with gear shifts (which is certainly more stressful than smooth speed changes or continuous speed operation).
You have less brake system wear, and... it goes on.
I know there's this popular "Hybrids/PHEVs are the most complicated of both worlds, so they must be the most unreliable of all worlds!" thing going around, but the data is quite clear that they're exceedingly reliable in actual use, and the "most complicated of all worlds" things tends to zoom out far enough to avoid looking at the transmission or engine design at any level of detail.
> "First and foremost, the transmission replaces the rather staggering pile of complexity of a modern automatic transmission, typically, with "a few motor/generators, some planetary gears, maybe a band that only engages when a motor is already stopped, and some power electronics." Compared to the 9+ speed automatics, this is dramatically simpler. Quite a few hybrids don't even have a mechanical reverse gear, it's just using the electronics for that brief period."
There are very few PHEVs that aren't using the same automatic gearbox as the plain-ole ICE model. You are describing the architecture the Prius uses I guess? In almost all cases the manufacturer just wraps a small electric motor around the output shaft of the same automatic gearbox connected to a small battery.
Mazda PHEVs - same auto gearboxes
BMW PHEVs - same auto gearboxes
Volvo PHEVs - same auto gearboxes
Mercedes PHEVs - same auto gearboxes
etc
There are probably some other exceptions i'm missing, but few PHEVs have a custom gearbox. While they may be just as reliable in many cases, they are almost always more complex designs than their ICE variants.
Toyota and US brands tend to adopt Series-Parallel hybrid system. European tend to adopt Parallel hybrid system like you listed, and Mazda/Hyundai want to be like an European. Japanese tend to adopt Series hybrid system.
Series-Parallel and Series hybrid remove transmission so possibly there's an reliability advantage. For Parallel hybrid, it's electric addon so I don't know there are reliability advantage.
"There are very few PHEVs that aren't using the same automatic gearbox as the plain-ole ICE model."
Except the most popular hybrid, the prius, which admittedly does t have a non/hybrid counterpart because it was done from the ground up to avoid unnecessary legacy technology
Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV uses a GKN 'multi-mode dedicated hybrid' transmission with some notable differences than a standard auto gearbox.
Some Lexus & Toyota hybrids and PHEVs use the eCVT transmission, which uses 2-3 electric motors inside to adjust torque rather than a belt.
The Subaru Crosstrek PHEV (internationally also called the e-boxer platform for the Forester hybrid) uses a Toyota eCVT variant that also still facilitates symmetrical AWD instead of a separate electrical motor driving the rear axle.
As I said, there are exceptions, but broadly its just slap motors on output shafts. The motor is usually designed to bolt onto an existing automatic transmission housing.
Are you using PHEV as "Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle" in the sense of "Has a long range on battery only"?
The ones I'm familiar with (which, admittedly, don't cover the ones you use) are all "parallel drivetrain" sorts of things, with a Prius-type transmission. Though I'm really only familiar with the Prius and Volt type drivetrains.
No - I'm using it in the exact same sense Consumer Reports did here and the car industry at large does - Hybrid cars that have a CCS charging port or similar and can run on electric only propulsion for some period of time. There are far more PHEV models on sale than just the Volt and Prius. If I recall correctly, the Volt isn't even sold anymore.
This is the same definition wikipedia uses too:
"A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid electric vehicle whose battery pack can be recharged by plugging a charging cable into an external electric power source, in addition to internally by its on-board internal combustion engine-powered generator."
> I know there's this popular "Hybrids/PHEVs are the most complicated of both worlds, so they must be the most unreliable of all worlds!" thing going around, but the data is quite clear that they're exceedingly reliable in actual use, and the "most complicated of all worlds" things tends to zoom out far enough to avoid looking at the transmission or engine design at any level of detail.
The article suggests plug-in hybrids are nearly 150% more prone to issues than regular cars though? I mean, I have one, and it seems good so far, but it contradicts your assertions.
Hmm, I don't have the numbers to compare and draw any conclusions, but aren't many (most?) Toyota hybrids using CVT transmissions? The newest Yaris doesn't have a "real" CVT (eCVT with planetary gears instead) but the old one does. Those are not used in the none hybrid Toyotas at all as far as I know. Also CVTs have huge reliability problems, at least in some cars (Honda comes to mind).
Hybrid motors take a lot of stress from the ICE during load changes. This makes the ICEs potentially live much longer. A lot of taxis areound here are older hybrid Toyotas. They must have at least 400,000km mileage already.
A taxi driver in Vancouver had a 2004 Prius and drove it 1 million kilometres with only regular maintenance and no failures. Toyota bought it back from him and took it to Japan to study it.
It looks like it wasn't the 1+M km version that they bought back, but the chap was an early adopter of Prius in that taxi role, and they bought back (exchanged?) his first one from 2001:
> For those working on the next generation Prius 2004 model, Grant’s taxi held invaluable information about wear and tear.They struck a deal: Grant sent his 2001 model back to Japan for testing and had a brand new 2003 model delivered.
I thought maybe it was from mostly keeping the ICE engine in a comfortable power-rpm band, rarely making it lug at low RPM's to get the car going, rarely reving up to high RPM's, and never idling the engine, it's either running under load to charge the battery (or drive the car), or turned off.
My Toyota hybrid reliably does not start after 4 weeks not driving. The 12 volt (1 year old) battery is drained too much after such a period of inactivity. I was not expecting this from Toyota, pretty disappointing.
This is true of basically every car ever. Lead acid batteries can’t maintain a charge forever. Get a battery tender if you aren’t going to drive for long periods of time. If you only drive once a month do you even need to own a car? Just rent/uber when you occasionally need a car.
Is it the stock battery or after-market? Even if you bought it one year ago, when was it filled with acid? Many auto parts stores sell sealed lead-acid batteries as "new" when they've been sitting on the shelf for a year and the clock starts ticking when the acid goes in. You can get higher quality AGM batteries that will last far longer, but know they are quite expensive. Alternatively, you have a parasitic battery drain going on with your car.
Happened to my wife's ex-Toyota CHR hybrid (not plug-in hybrid) after 5 weeks of vacation. I hooked a CTEK charger to it for 8 to 12 hours and all was good again. I didn't leave the car on the CTEK charger for five weeks because it was parked outside and not at our place.
Otherwise CTEK chargers are really nice. Certain car brands like Porsche while sell you a "Porsche charger" for two or three times the price but it's just a CTEK charger re-branded with the Porsche logo on it.
If you've got a garage with electricity, it's an option. If you don't want to let the car on the charger during 5 weeks, just connect it as soon as you come back and in a few hours the car is ready.
I have a VW bus that doesn't see a lot of use and with a bit of fiddling it was easy enough to run a (fused) connector to just behind the grill with a little rubber lid to make it waterproof. That allows me to plug in a trickle charger without having to open the hood. That little trick has saved me multiple batteries already.
I could have gone that route but it would require the cable to go into the interior from the outside so that's why I hardwired it to the front. It also helps that I park it with its nose to the garage so the wire is very short and I just let it dangle down when it isn't in use.
My Honda Hybrid is the same way, sometimes I go weeks between drives and if I park it for more than a couple weeks, I plug it into a 12V battery charger to keep the 12V battery topped up.
But I blame the car's smart features (that use the cell modem to allow remote start, etc) rather than it being a hybrid. I suspect that the non-hybrid model would be the same.
My 1991 Honda motorcycle does this too. I can promise you that it has no smart features. It doesn’t even have a fuel pump. Lead acid batteries just don’t have long shelf lives.
Well I get that lead acid batteries experience self discharge, my 2003 era car will go for over a month with around 20% discharge (it'll be around 12.4V), but after 2 or 3 weeks, my 2020 Honda will be at 50% discharge (around 12.0V).
I'd like to think that at some point the parasitic drain devices will shut down before they drain the battery completely, but I've never tested it beyond that point, I always plug in the charger if the car's going to be parked for more than a couple weeks. I installed a charger plug that comes out the front grill so I can plug it into the battery maintainer without even opening the hood.
> I always plug in the charger if the car's going to be parked for more than a couple weeks.
To this day, since ~1980, I disconnect the +ve battery lead if the cars not going to be used for a few days or parked up in the bush waiting for when we get back from a walk.
Stops parasitic drains and Heisenbug discharges when thermal expansion during a very hot day causes a hard to track short.
My 2019 vehicle's manual explicitly says not to do this, and that if the battery fully discharges you should make a follow-up service appointment to frobnicate the computers. I miss older cars.
Lead acid gel batteries hold their charge MUCH better than standard lead acid batteries. The difference is gel lead acid often self-discharge around 1% per month but standard lead acid batteries self-discharge on the order of 10% per month. I only use gel batteries on my small engine equipment like snowmobiles, motorcycles, and snowblower.
One thing I never understood is why hybrids have the 12 volt battery at all. Couldn't the entertainment system etc be powered from the 200V EV battery (after stepping it down obviously)?
Everything on the 12V system essentially is powered from the traction battery (the big one that can power the motors), once the car is turned on.
In Toyota, at least, the traction battery is completely disconnected (via a relay) when the car is off. The 12V battery is needed to power anything on the 12V system up until the car starts-- that includes the car's computer, which is what (after doing all its self-checks and whatnot) activates that relay and connects the traction battery to everything else in the car.
The traction battery isn't always connected probably mostly for safety reasons (having 400-someodd volts energized across the whole car even when it doesn't need it isn't great), but that also keeps it from getting excessively drained if something in the car malfunctions. It's pretty cheap to replace a 12V lead-acid battery if it's overdischarged after you left the lights on... the big hybrid battery, not so much.
Some EVs will monitor the 12V battery and periodically connect the traction battery to the DC-DC converter to maintain the 12V battery when the car is parked for an extended period of time. (On the older Smart EVs, this doesn’t have a limit, so the traction battery will kill itself trying to maintain a weak 12V battery. There’s a firmware patch for it.)
My Kia EV6 does that, and when the 800V battery pack is charging the 12V battery while parked, an orange light on top of the dashboard goes on.
This had me worried the first few times it happened. Then I found out it is a warning to mechanics/tow truck drivers/first responders that the high voltage system is energized.
The light is on top of the dashboard, right in the middle. It's intended to be very visible, especially from outside the car.
It is only on if the car is turned off and parked and the high voltage system has turned on to charge the 12V battery. When you're driving or just have turned on the car while parked, the light goes off.
So the only occasion the light might be annoying is if you're taking a nap in the car at night. And then you could just throw a towel on top of it.
You expect to have the high voltage system energized when driving, otherwise the car wouldn't go anywhere. There would be no purpose for this light to go on.
The light is specifically to indicate that the high voltage system is on when the car is parked. It's a safety warning for that situation.
There's a lot of Tier 3 supplier…stuff…in a car that was architected for 1978 and has never had a thorough re-think, because the profit margin is like nothing.
12v is such a common top-rail voltage for electronics of all kinds, I think its a bit more that than "car makers are too greedy to manufacture 400v headlights."
No. Or, at least, not easily. The high voltage battery isn't generally connected until "the computers are happy" with the state of things, for various hybrids/EVs/etc.
There's also a legal requirement that "marker lights and such" still work (presumably, also power locks and such) after a prime mover failure. Basically, if the engine quits, you should still be able to signal, get over, turn your 4-ways on, etc.
The easiest solution is to just put a lead acid 12V battery in the car for that. Lithium, in particular, is a problem below freezing because you can't safely charge it, whereas lead doesn't have that problem.
Because they want to completely disconnected the big battery when not in use to prevent phantom drain, and you need a little power to run passive systems that need to be on still (like remote keys etc).
Some EVs like Tesla now use a separate lithium ion 12v battery that should last forever, instead of a lead acid 12v battery with a limited life span.
Even if they don’t have a 12v battery they still have to have a 12v system for reasons others mentioned and because it’s a requirement to sell cars in the USA. My Porsche Taycan has jump start lugs for the benefit of other cars and so I can have my low voltage systems operate with some help from another car.
My mild hybrid Audi is the same way. Gas engine, 48v accessory belt run battery, and that 48v battery works in tandem with a small 12v battery for the low voltage system.
I own 3 Kia’s and they all have various problems, including really big problems, but this is an area they got right. On my daily driver, the Kia Niro, it has a battery button that instantly charges the 12v from the HEV battery. I’ve only needed it once, when I left a light on camping, but it was like magic.
Edit: A friend of mine just got a free engine swap for her... 2012-ish Optima. It threw a CEL on the highway, had the appropriate trouble code, and bam, new engine from the dealership when she told them the code.
I did some analysis of the Tesla 12V system back in 2016, and I'm amazed the batteries lasted as long as they did with how badly they abused the lead acid battery!
Welcome to the motorcycling world! Today's cars continually start the engine - that's a huge draw. If you're going to leave your car sit more than a couple weeks then you should put your battery on a tender. Motorcyclists have been doing that for decades.
Yeah, I (not really) joke that everything on the hill gets plugged in. It makes life a lot easier.
Even with no idle draw, lead acid batteries self discharge over time. Life got way easier when I just accepted it, and now I've got a pile of 6V/12V battery tenders that go into just about everything (I have no shortage of 6V vehicles out here too). That and block heaters. The tractor and truck both appreciate them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a component. But I would be surprised if that’s a primary reason.
There’s just a lot more to go wrong with an ICE vehicle. You need oil and regular oil changes. A radiator, tubing, and antifreeze. An alternator. A carburetor and a catalytic converter. Timing belts. A exhaust system. None of this (as far as I know, IANAM) is needed for an electric vehicle.
A disproportionate amount of what’s under the hood of an ICE has to do with managing the consequences of the “C” component of that acronym (heat, combustion gases, electricity generation, lubrication, carbon deposits).
You may have misread the parent comment, which talked about HYBRID vehicles being more reliable than ICE-only vehicles. Hybrid vehicles include all of the comments of an ICE vehicle, plus they have electric batteries and motors, and may have a system of transferring power from either system to the wheels. Overall they have higher complexity than either ICE or electric-only vehicles.
They have higher complexity, but also more redundancy. Likely neither of the powertrains experiences the same rate of wear and tear as either would experience on ther own.
This is not true, at least for the most popular Toyota hybrid drive train. It's probably got fewer moving parts than the ICE counterpart by virtue of dispensing with the automatic transmission. See sibling comment:
Most of the images there are broken, all I see are some conceptual block diagram type things. Find a teardown of the hybrid unit and compare to a teardown of any automatic, look at the actual internal complexity and moving parts. I was surprised. Here's a video of the P710: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O61WihMRdjM
Slightly OT, but I recently found that here in Germany there is a service where you can go to just like to a car wash without making an appointment. They will do the oil change for you within ten minutes or so and you do not even have to get out of your car during that time. This makes oil changes so much less annoying.
Jiffy Lube had 1,000 locations in the U.S. in 1989. According to my experience in the 1990s (limited mostly to the Midwest), quick oil change shops were ubiquitous even in small towns.
I’ve never seen a shop that will let anyone stay in the vehicle while it was being worked on, even for something so simple as an oil change. Where did you find one?
In the US, this is really common. There a few big chains, like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline, but also a lot of local places. Just look for "drive thru oil change" on Google Maps
I don't think so. You're using two low load, low power systems combined. The least reliable ICE systems almost always correlate to the more powerful ones.
Edit: While I'm still dubious about these metrics I was ranting about an entirely different company here. Sorry. A very similar report has been making the rounds recently from JD Power, probably part of a marketing campaign of some sort. The JD Power list is even more hilarious because it is book-ended by two brands: Dodge and Chrysler. Also it suggests Alfa Romeo for reliability. https://www.cars.com/articles/2023-j-d-power-initial-quality...
This is just "initial quality" which has always been a bullshit metric invented by JD Power to sound good in automaker advertising.
The way it works is for the first 90 days of ownership every problem that bothers the owner counts as one point. So expensive cars that cater to fussy people score poorly compared to cars bought by people who only care about reliability and getting from point a to point b and don't pay attention to their car. Also, there is no weighting to the issues.
So you might have a situation like:
CR: So what problems did you find in the first three months of owning this expensive luxury car?
Owner: The glovebox latch is too loud and the heated seats heat up from the back first instead of the front first like I prefer and the power mirrors adjust too quickly.
CR: Ok, that's three points.
CR: Next person, what problems did you have?
Owner: Well, the rear wheel fell off after about 50 miles and after I owned it a couple of months it burst into flame on the highway.
CR: I'll mark that as two points.
This is Consumer Reports, not JD Power, and they said they surveyed for issues in the first 12 months. It's about "new" cars after all so you can't go further back than that. They also weigh issues for their severity. Where are you seeing that their methodology is the same as JD Power?
> Every year CR asks its members about problems they’ve had with their vehicles in the previous 12 months. This year we gathered data on over 330,000 vehicles, from the 2000 to 2023 model years, with a few early-introduced 2024 model years.
> We study 20 trouble areas, from nuisances—such as squeaky brakes and broken interior trim—to major bummers, such as potentially expensive out-of-warranty engine, transmission, EV battery, and EV charging problems. We use that information to give reliability ratings for every major mainstream model.
> We weigh the severity of each type of problem to create a predicted reliability score for each vehicle, from 1 to 100. We use that information to give reliability ratings for every major mainstream vehicle. (The reliability rating is then combined with data collected from our track testing, as well as our owner satisfaction survey results and safety data, to calculate each test vehicle’s Overall Score.)
> So expensive cars that cater to fussy people score poorly compared to cars bought by people who only care about reliability and getting from point a to point b and don't pay attention to their car.
That sounds believable, except that Lexus is at the top of the list, and they are definitely a "fussy people" brand. Meanwhile Chevrolet, Ford, and VW are near the bottom.
Yeah OP is confused. This is CR which is a completely separate company from JD Power. Only JD Power measures JD Power metrics and no one else really cares about them.
So? Are you saying that's wrong? Alfas are as reliable as the parts they are made of. One of the biggest weaknesses in many years in Alfas were the manual gearbox in the 159. It was from GM, not Alfa.
Is Alfa reliable? Depends. Compared to a Ford? Maybe, it depends. Compared to a Tesla? Yes, much much better.
They have KIA, Porsche, BMW and Mini in the top 10..hehehe....There are quite a few Youtube channels that are either Car sales guys or Mechanics that will tell you to stay away from all of them and if you buy them your stupid and deserve what's coming. Although I have seen some last a while, many are a horror story.
I really wouldn't turn to consumers reports for advice, Youtube is a better source for what to buy...
I've had a regrettably excellent experience with my 2015 Mazda. Easily the most reliable machine I've owned.
Which is unfortunate because it's a soulless, joyless shitbox and I hate it. It just starts every single time, but it's not fun to drive. I see dozens of the exact same model on the road every day and they're all boring. The interior is fine, the handling is pretty good, the power is fine, fuel economy is fine. It's just okay all around. Except for the *five hundred dollar* alloy wheels, that really sucks. It's fine, it's boring, it gets me from A to B every time.
My prior car was the first one that I really enjoyed driving. It was fun, it had personality, it was a little car with a lot of pep in its step. It truly was a joy to drive. It burned all of the fluids and had plenty of mechanical problems, but I lovingly maintained everything I knew how to.
Honestly I'd take the fun troublesome car over the bland, boring box on wheels I'm stuck with now. At least troublesome is interesting.
This is exactly what I want in a car, unironically. I really dislike car culture. I think it is ruining America. This is like wanting a bus to be fun and exciting. Why are daily driver cars supposed to be fun? We are spending all our infrastructure money building and maintaining massive roads at the expense of everything else.
I think it’s just a matter of preference. Just like you might prefer to spend money and time on some other form of entertainment, some people who have to drive every day prefer to get some enjoyment out of it. Regardless of your judgement on “car culture”, it is enjoyment and happiness for that people nonetheless.
>I think it is ruining America.
This is not an America thing. And it’s not new. Many modern societies, ever since cars have been invented, have had this “car culture” you speak of.
One car (KIA) has electrical problems, probably the CAN bus. Parking shifter has to be overridden with a screwdriver to shift, the ABS sensor is on, and the cruise control doesn't disengage when I press the brake.
This car has a glove box of recalls letters Im going to have done when I finally have an appointment w/ the dealer.
The other one a VW, otherwise the "reliable one", had a radiator light turn on yesterday. Im praying it's just low coolant (it is low) and not a leak. It also has a dash light that wont go off complaining about the headlights (they're fine).
Genuinely never understood why anyone would buy a Kia or Hyundai product. Year after year after year there are constant problems and recalls. What drove you to buy one? (no pun intended)
Id gotten rear ended in a compact car when my newborn daughter was discharged from the hospital. Nothing happened, but I didn't like being the smallest participant in a crash with my little girl.
So I bought the biggest, heaviest car I could afford at the time.
Mechanically the car has been alright. Not great, but nothing big. But the electrical... what a shit show.
That's why I know it's low ;) In fact, after picking up some G12, I can even refill it myself!
But why is it low? Is it because the seals in the cap are getting old and slightly out gassing? Or is it because I have a hairline crack in a gasket that's about to be a catastrophic crack?
There's almost two orders of magnitude difference in price between those two repairs!
Honestly the engine handles the load just fine. It's not nearly as fast as the tiny 5-speed Ford focus I had before, but I wouldn't say it's slow either.
What engine do you have? A lot that I see for sale have 165bhp engines, which doesn’t sound under powered. Compare that with a lot of newer cars which have 1L 100bhp engines
Sounds a lot like my 2013 Subaru Forester. I often fantasize about getting a newer car but then I remember my car is paid off and has never let me down. It doesn't deserve me.
I slapped a sound system well tuned for the music im into into my 2013 civic which I have had since new, and that has given me at least 3 more years out of it after briefly toying with getting something else.
I've never been in one, but I'm sure that some of Mazda's other models are more fun.
It's just that the 6 was designed to be a mass produced commodity with no frills and no personality. It's designed for someone who only cares about getting from A to B every single time. That's not me, I don't find that satisfying, I have other priorities.
My 2016.5 (why did they call it that?) CX-5 is exactly my type of boring: It Just Works. Also, they backported CarPlay to it for a nominal installation charge, it has actual buttons for all essential functions, a nice scroll wheel I can use without looking, and the screen isn't obnoxiously big. Repair costs have been quite low, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop there (around 85k miles).
In a few years I'll start looking at Subarus most likely. The feel on the road is fantastic. I just hope they haven't slipped into the complexity/tech abyss that most manufacturers seem to have.
That is exactly why I bought a Mazda earlier this year. I wanted to upgrade to a larger car (since 2010 I have driven a 2 door Toyota Yaris it was getting to hard to manage without extra doors) wanted something plain, reliable that I could count on to "just work", I was torn between Toyota Corolla and Mazda 3. What ultimately titled the decision was the waiting period. Here in Australia the Toyota had an 8 month wait and the Mazda 3 had 10 week wait.
I could say similar for my mustang gt, it keeps ticking after 12 years and 250k miles, with nothing but maintenance. I do still enjoy driving it though. I am not a harsh driver though, tend to be a "speed-limit, stop for yellow" driver.
I’m absolutely not a car guy, and Mazdas are my perfect car :D We’ve got a 2008 mazda3 that is still running perfectly that we’re hoping to replace with a slightly larger CX-30 or PHEV equivalent once they sort out that product line.
They really do seem to just be super reliable and are taking over the “I’m not a car person” market.
Yeah, I think that's what it is. I was never a 'car guy' before, but my last car changed me. Now I have a 'not a car person' car and it's miserable.
Oh well, at least it will keep running until I can afford an EV. We'll probably still keep it around for long range trips because I really don't expect it to die for a long time. 140k miles and I'm certain I'll get at least another 100k out of it if I cared to.
Sure it does. The way a new car keeps value is a factor in how popular a car is. High demand for 10 year old models will influence how well new models sell.
It's e.g. the main reason why you'll wait months if you want to buy a new Volkswagen van, even though it is tens of thousands of dollars more expensive than similar vans. Much easier justifying buying a T7 when T5s with 100k miles still sell for more than other vans cost new.
This is why you buy both :) You have the fun car for when it's working and the reliable car as a fallback when the trouble starts up at the wrong moment.
'05 Ford Focus with a 5-speed manual. My first, and unfortunately last manual transmission. It had the sporty red trim interior and I replaced the CD changer with an android head unit and gave it a matching red theme.
Then I wrecked it, and the cops stole it by forcibly towing it to one of those scam tow yards that charge $500 a day. I had to bribe the guy at the yard just to get my personal belongings out of it.
huh, my 2014 Mazda 3 (manual 6 speed) I find quite fun to drive. It feels light, it's not some powerhouse but its immensely spritely. It feels like, given the constraints, the engineers were still trying to make something that feels good. Very different from Corollas or Civics that I've owned.
I actually bought the 2014 model rather than 2015 because I wanted the last year made in Japan, though I don't know how much of a difference this makes.
I have the 6 and it's a bit of a boat. Manual transmission would definitely make it more fun, but I got stuck with the 6-speed auto. Yeah it still has manual shifting but it's just not the same.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great ride and a great car. The only thing I don't like about it is that there's nothing to like.
It's the Brother laser printer of cars. It's fine, it's whatever. It does the thing, it'll do it for years and years and never bother you. But it's still a bland boring box with nothing to love except the fact that it works and only needs serviced every fifth year.
I bought CX-3 5 years ago and it's a really fun (and reliable) car to drive and I say that as someone who previously was daily driving a sporty roadster for many years :-) Unfortunately they stopped producing the CX-3 line and replaced it with CX-30 which is very similar, but I prefer the look of CX-3..
I have never understood how the Consumer Reports model of self(reader)-reported reliability can produce can statistically valid results.
There are many biases build in to self-reporting surveys. Longtime Consumer Reports readers who buy a Toyota because they believe it is the most reliable make want their choice to have been correct. Their answers about problems with their car will reflect that.
There was a time when CR regularly rated Buick at the top of the charts. At that time, my mom and all her little old lady friends (I'm not using those adjectives lightly) had Buicks and literally used them to drive to Church on Sundays (and occasionally the grocery store, which was about five blocks away). The cars were terrible, but they were treated well.
CR also uses their own tests and maintenance records.
There are definitely flaws with self reporting but it’s just a data source with its limitations.
Statistical validity is based on what is done with the data, not whether it’s self reported or measured accurately. What you may be thinking of is whether their study or logic is sound.
I wish there was something more objective used like to quantify how many vehicles are still on the road after X number years. I guarantee Toyota/Lexus/Honda/Acura would be at the top if you compared how many vehicles would still be daily drivers after 25+ years and 250,000+ miles.
That, in my opinion, best describes a BMW owner. Is it a more reliable car than Alfa? Well, if you service it at the higher requirement and price that a BMW is most often services at then maybe it is.
Data around cars is notoriously complete bullshit. One example is that one of the main metrics used by a very big name, maybe CR, is “reliability compared to *expectations*”. Obviously cars that people have high expectations for (Teslas) are going to score horribly here even if they are objectively more reliable than other brands. And of course they bury this little fact way down in the info and everyone walks away with “welp teslas just fucking break all the time”
The linked article is pretty explicit about how they calculate it. A detailed explanation is literally the first section.
And as they explain, they ask people about the actual problems they've had in the last 12 months with their car; nothing soft or fuzzy or relative to expectations at all.
If I ask you about your experience with a Rolls Royce you'd probably mention in the door rattles a little bit between the speeds of 55 and 60mph. If I ask the same question about an entry level Toyota I doubt people would think anything of it or mention it. This is especially impacted if you're used to buying cars that cost $75k (a lot of Tesla owners) versus used to owning preowned cars bought for $10k
I remember watching friends buying cars a couple years ago – some were buying Teslas for about $50k USD, and one bought a 1996 Toyota Rav-4 for $2.5k USD. It was so, so fun to ride/drive in that Rav-4 – you could see everything, the driver awareness was phenomenal, the mechanical/tactile solidity was satisfying. The ultimate goal (going from one place to another) 100% matched the Tesla's capability.
Is the Tesla better? It is safer and quieter, and it doesn't require gas stations. So yes, it is better. Is it 2,000% better (following the price difference)? No – it is maybe 5-10% better.
(If I were to buy a car right now, I would choose the Rav-4.)
The fact that BMW and Mini are at the top of this list should make you ignore this data.
First off, the Mini is just a smaller BMW, second the BMWs are complicated and designed to be maintained a certain way because that is how german cars are designed. You don't accidentally go 10k over an oil change on a higher mileage BMW and expect nothing bad to happen, but that would probably be okay on a Honda/Toyota/some American cars.
But if you do maintain them in that certain way, they can be brilliantly reliable. Problem is, many people (especially in America) don't. And getting the proper fluids for them can be a pain in the ass in America, since BMW LL oil is basically impossible to get anywhere except dealerships and specialty websites.
I'm surprised Mercedes is so low in the list. They've traditionally been one of the more reliable German brands, that's why they're used as taxis in many countries.
Chrysler has had some of the least reliable for most of my entire lifetime and Mercedes shares a parent company and presumably a lot of parts with them.
Both of my WK2 Jeep grand Cherokee’s have been reliable and they share parts with the old MLs. The parts they share are pretty silly to consider reliability, control arms, 5-speed transmission (until 2014), and some other random parts with Mercedes stamped on it. Considering Chrysler transmissions were terrible I’m glad they used Benz then ZFs.
> I'm surprised Mercedes is so low in the list. They've traditionally been one of the more reliable German brands, that's why they're used as taxis in many countries.
Oh, my sweet summer child. I can tell you still have fond memories of the pre-2010 Mercedes era ...
2010 was when they started using motors from other (cheap) brands like Renault for a lot of models on big scale. Before that you could drive your Mercedes up to like 400,000 km and more and still get money for it or at least sell it to development countries to be used as a - mostly reliable - taxi for example. Been there, done that. Nowadays getting a newer model to 200,000 km before its "end" is the exception rather than the norm. And that's just their cost-down strategy on the motors ...
The Renault engines are used in the entry level cars like the A, CLA and B class. The kind of Mercedes used as taxis (E and S class) will not be impacted by that change.
It's less that I have fond memories and more that I know little about M-B other than general sentiment of other car enthusiasts. I'm a big BMW fan myself, and I'm perfectly fine with seeing BMW taking M-B's place as the "reliable" German brand, I just didn't know that was happening to this extent.
Of couse you shouldn't just ignore it. What you should do is think a bit deeper than "X > Y so X = better". Included in the data is the fact that a BMW needs the maintenance it does, to rank where it ranks here, as its average owner maintain it as they do. The maintenance schedule and how the BMWs included in the statistics were maintained is likely different than on a Toyota, but following the maintenance schedule or not is up to you to decide. However, those who do not follow the maintenance schedule are included here as well as are those who service their BMW more than required.
If you are not average, expect results that are not average. That goes both ways.
It is not only how they are maintained, but also how they are driven.
BMW's are sport enthusiast vehicles. They are probably used and abused and higher levels than typical Toyotas and Lexus. You won't see many Toyotas and Lexus in race tracks, however they are usually populated by all type of BMWs, specially M performance and full M models.
So I expect that under normal usage, BMWs are even more reliable that the ranking shows.
I the 2nd point maybe I didn't get across well is more that the initial three years does not tell as much or are very useful. In 2023 people are not buying new cars with the high interest rates we have now, taking that depreciation hit, only to sell three years later.
Also:
> If you are not average, expect results that are not average. That goes both ways.
I still have trouble believing BMW has 3x the reliability in the first three years than practically all the American manufacturers.
Well, it is a list of new cars, but yes, I agree it isn't that useful.
>I still have trouble believing BMW has 3x the reliability in the first three years than practically all the American manufacturers.
I do not know it 3 times is the correct number, but I do not doubt that it is a significant difference. I'd also argue that if we had the graphs, we would be able to see it getting worse after Tesla became a success.
>that's pretty much what the list is for.
I have no idea what the list if for. IMO it is a mess and maybe even clickbait.
Newer BMWs are some of the most reliable cars that you can buy. Minis and BMWs are essentially the same cars, just Minis are limited to the low segment, with less luxury features and smaller motors. That means that, as expected, the higher complexity of luxury segments and their big V8 or V12 engines have more chances of failing.
That’s completely not true at all. BMWs have come around in the past years. The 2000 e46 I had was as reliable as my 2002 4Runner. I replaced the same things at similar intervals, water pump, belt tensioner, wheel bearing, plugs, coils etc.
BMWs B58 engines is so nice Toyota put it in a Supra.
>We weigh the severity of each type of problem to create a predicted reliability score for each vehicle, from 1 to 100.
It bothers me to see a 1 to 100 scale for this - what does the number actually mean in practice? Comparing a score of 80 and a score of 20, does that mean the lower score is likely to need 4x as many trips to the mechanic? 4x as much spent on repairs in a year?
In other words - how big is the gap between first and last place in real-world terms? Presenting the scores this way suggests a huge difference, is that actually the case?
Either way, surprised to see Mini near the top and Mercedes-Benz all the way at the bottom!
> ...what does the number actually mean in practice?
Seemingly very little:
We study 20 trouble areas, from nuisances—such as squeaky brakes and broken interior trim—to major bummers, such as potentially expensive out-of-warranty engine, transmission, EV battery, and EV charging problems. We use that information to give reliability ratings for every major mainstream model.
We weigh the severity of each type of problem to create a predicted reliability score for each vehicle, from 1 to 100. We use that information to give reliability ratings for every major mainstream vehicle. (The reliability rating is then combined with data collected from our track testing, as well as our owner satisfaction survey results and safety data, to calculate each test vehicle’s Overall Score.)
You should be asking "What do terrorists and militants use?". Seriously. Look anywhere at any established militant or terrorist group and you'll see common tools. Some examples spring to mind:
1. Toyota Hilux trucks. Interestingly, for a combination of legislative reasons, you can't buy these in the US; But they are incredibly reliable.
2. AK-47 rifles. These are perhaps one of the most influential weapon systems in history. Again, incredibly reliable.
3. Casio digital watches. These are used as timers for improvised explosives but again, they're incredibly reliable. And cheap.
Back to cars, reliability is an interesting metric for cars because the manufacturers have made it incredibly difficult to maintain such cars yourself. You need to go to an authorized reapir shop that'll have the equip to access the computer systems.
Is this more reliable? If you break down in the middle of nowhere, it can be less than ideal. A simpler vehicle can be easier to get going again.
Top Gear once tried to intentionally kill a Toyota Hilux, ramming it, parking it in the sea, dropping a trailer on it, and literally setting it on fire. Nothing worked. It still drove.
I'm convinced that whatever remains of the charred Earth after WW3, somebody will still be driving a Hilux.
> 3. Casio digital watches. These are used as timers for improvised explosives but again, they're incredibly reliable. And cheap.
While the watches themselves last forever I find that the strap or loop breaks pretty quickly at which point the cheapest option seem to be buying a whole new watch.
Interestingly a similar study from Germany for 2022 has some very different results and I need to say I prefer their way of measuring things, as the ADAC (the equivalent of AAA) has looked at how many cars needed actual help on the road in comparison to registered cars, so minor problems don’t count and you can say things about the longtime reliability of manufacturers.
However some differences probably stem from different driving patterns and services offered by the brands.
There are very few Toyotas on that list. Isn’t that a good thing? The ANWB in neighboring NL has a similar report and Toyota scores extremely high on their lists (as in, they very rarely need any sort of roadside assistance).
You need to consider that Toyota sells a lot less models in Germany when compared to the US, but a lot of those listed like the Rav4 or C-HR got some of the worst scores of all cars, so I don't think that is a good sign.
The ADAC list works by listing how often a model needed roadside assistance per 1000 registered vehicles, so if they didn't need any assistant, they would just appear as a 0.5 or something along those lines, but the Rav4 has a values between 16-20 and even the best performing model, the Toyota Yaris, doesn't have the best scores.
Does this account for driving habits? I’ve just purchased a Subaru WRX, and I can’t fight the feeling that the reliability score is in some way influenced by the hoards of idiots that flock to this car for its tuning and hooning potential.
Yeah there’s certainly a temptation there if you’re into working in cars. Alongside your tuning/hooning remark - some cars certainly attract a particular kind of audience, although if it was really hoards, they would have probably released an STI variant for the new body :(
> they would have probably released an STI variant for the new body :(
Pow, right in the feels :’)
But in reality, I suspect this has more to do with the following two things:
1. The STi package has always had abysmal fuel economy, and I believe there are regulations that enforce an average fuel economy across an entire manufacturers fleet
2. Many (most?) of the modders and hooners are put off by the price. In fact, most aren’t really interested in a track car, but rather in a cheap, fast box to drag race between traffic lights.
P.s. the new BRZ might also be stealing a bit of the market, despite the reverse-Zoolander issue it faces with oil pressure…
Yeah the fuel economy is definitely not a selling point even on the standard WRX. Couple that with a strange urge to engage in spirited driving and you’ll be getting your mpgs down to the teens or low twenties.
Re 1: I really hope they bring out a refreshed version, but I have a feeling that may not happen for a while… at least while batteries weigh what they do. Maybe a full EV version some day?
Re 2: yeah the STi was hardly affordable to (my guess) the majority of the crowd that’s into them.
I should have snagged an STi instead of the standard WRX when I had the chance. I love my wrx though, so much fun to drive.
Are you modded or tuned at all? I've admittedly fallen into that rabbit hole, and been steadily getting drawn into mechanical engineering. The WRX is such an easy platform to hack on, it's crazy. It's right up there with the Miata, it seems.
I haven’t added any mods to this car just yet. Wanted to pay it off and not worry about voiding any warranties, but I’m itching to get to it. My previous car was an ‘86 e28 (528e) and I spent many hours working on restoring it, I even chipped it haha. I also had a 2016 fiesta st (fwd isn’t all that bad after all!) I can’t tell you how many hours I spent looking for a good 70s 2002, for a nice e30, for a clean Miata, before deciding to get the WRX. I just wish factory FA20F had the same purr as the EJ models did.
After they fixed the head gasket issues of the 2000s or so, they seem to be fine? My partner, myself, most of my friends, and may of my coworkers, and much of my town drives them. They're insanely popular in outdoorsy and snowy areas. The article scores them decently high in reliability too.
I'd never get a WRX though.
Build quality and ride comfort though, not so much. They're rough and tumble machines, not luxury sedans (well, the Legacy is nice enough, not seems silly to get that over a Toyota).
Speaking of Toyota, they own part of Subaru anyway and have collaborated with them on a few dual-branded vehicles.
I've had a half dozen or so Subaru's and have had little trouble with any of them. Currently we have a '17 Forester we bought new currently with 120k miles on it and just last week I picked up a used '21 Ascent.
The Forester has been though two batteries and just last week I had a wheel bearing in the rear replaced. No other trouble and still runs fine.
I got the Ascent to keep out in Seattle and that'll be my car there -- it'll fit right in -- Subaru seems to make up about 30% of cars in the Seattle area.
It's worth noting that as of 2020, Subaru is running an entirely new platform for their cars, and it has been remarkably solid. The FA24 engine, in particular, appears to be running unusually generous tolerances for things like cylinder pressure, oil pressure, manifold pressure/temps, etc.
For tuners it's been a box of wonders. For ordinary consumers, that maps directly to reliability.
If you google around, you'll see mention of head gasket problems in association with Subaru. This issue has been resolved for the better part of 20 years. Today, the intersection of people who blow up Subaru engines and people who drive like drunk, teenage morons is effectively a perfect circle.
It's certainly related when you consider Pickup Trucks and the more "sporty" or "outdoorsy" SUV's. People that drive pickups, at least a substantial lot, do manual labor for a living. They're rough on their vehicles. And people doing outdoorsy stuff with SUV's are putting them in harsher conditions than just driving to work and the grocery store.
That said - if my assertion is true, the Tacoma is truly a wonder with its reliability and so on. No surprise given it is the mobility platform of choice in Mid-East and Africa for militias and local armies (i.e. Toyota Hilux).
I had a WRX into the late 2000s before it got totaled parked in front of the house. At the time, it had 130,000+ miles (mostly highway miles) and it felt like it had *at least* 2 or 3 more solid years in it. Even the clutch feel fine. What I got from the insurance company didn't come close to the value of that car to me.
I replaced it with a KIA Soul. At the time, the price / value made sense. It was an unplanned expense and I just didn't have time to shop around. It's was buy or die! :) The Soul is still going but it's been it the shop for various issues much more than the WRX ever was.
This article seems quite similar to the one posted two days ago on HN about Brother printers - they're great because they have very low innovation.
The top car brands - Lexus/Toyota, Acura/Honda, Subaru, and Mazda - have been widely scolded for not trying very hard to build EVs and would rather refine the same exact ICE cars for decades.
Subaru and Mazda are fairly small so I wouldn't expect a lot of R&D from them. Toyota has been really successful with hybrid which to me, seem like the best solution until EV range cost, and infrastructure improve.
Mazda engine R&D is seemingly quite impressive: the SkyActive X engine is an unusual ICE gasoline engine that takes ideas from diesel, with greater fuel efficiency and horsepower.
Those two are weird; they use to have a lot of out-there designs (boxers & rotaries respectively) but seem to have slowed down on the innovation since then.
Subaru finally made an EV (the Solterra). I love the way it drives, but it's more expensive (at least at my dealer) than an entry level Tesla. I'd trust Subaru way more than Tesla though.
Mostly because they have a history of dishonesty (like with self driving) and poor build quality. Also I hate their UX, especially that touch screen (I'm old and prefer physical dials and buttons and doorknobs). Don't really want a cool car, just a stable (mechanical) platform for an everyday electric driver with AWD and good clearance.
But Musk doesn't help matters either. I used to really respect him (and still grudingly do, mostly for SpaceX and Starlink), but he seems more and more unhinged over the years. Maybe if he were more hands off Tesla like he was with Starlink? To me Tesla just feels like an edgy image company rather than an old fashioned car company like Subaru. I don't want that whole baggage or culture, I just want a car.
Kudos to Tesla for jumpstarting EVs, but I'd much rather go with the stale Japanese option.
From my years at a major car supplier I know that Toyota was never interested in our latest developments, even if we offered them at a cheaper prize. They only purchased components that had been in use for other cars.
I own a Toyota Avensis. It is the most boring car in the world, but I never ever had any issues with it. Mine is the second facelift, built in 2015, based on a chassis that had been in production since 2009. So any early problems have been resolved long time ago.
Maybe this explains a bit why Toyota is on top in the reliability ranking. They are very reasonable cars. Would I buy one if I had more money? Hell, no!
I've been asked a few times "what car would you buy?" and my answer is always something along the lines of "if you need to ask, you shouldn't buy a car that I'd buy".
Why don't I own a Toyota? Because they're boring. Boring is actually what most people are looking for in a car.
I need a little excitement in my commute. Maybe something starts spraying. Maybe something starts smoking. Maybe something falls off.
> Maybe this explains a bit why Toyota is on top in the reliability ranking. They are very reasonable cars. Would I buy one if I had more money? Hell, no!
Maybe if you pay enough for the car that dealer service drops off a loaner, picks up your car, then drops off your car and picks up the loaner with minimal interaction, a less reliable car is fine. Or if you have a useful car and a fun car, the fun car doesn't have to work all the time. Otherwise, having a car that just works is worth a lot.
What the hell happened to Mercedes? 29th out of 30 on the list. Truly awful. I've never driven one (let alone owned one) but by the marketing (and price) you'd think it was the greatest vehicle on earth.
CR poll asks about any problems faced. Phone didn’t connect to the multimedia unit? That’s a problem.
Not saying MB quality hasn’t changed but given the large feature set the problem surface area is also very large. More opportunities for owners to find issues.
By comparison, Lexus uses tried and tested old technology to the point it’s boring to own. But it’s super reliable.
2nd thing not captured here: not all car models are equal. The lower end Mercs and other premium manufacturers models aren’t built to the same standards by my experience. There’s a difference in quality of a German car made in Germany and a German car made in Mexico. The higher end models used to be made in Germany (not sure if that’s still the case).
All of this affects this rating. You might be fine buying an E class but the experience of owning a CLA might be shit.
They built that reputation on merit. But for the past 10 years they focused a lot on profits. Ask any mechanic and no one in his right mind would recommend getting one. Unless you don't mind paying frequent high fees for repairs.
A few months ago I ordered an Uber Black in Bangkok and the driver showed up in a C300 AMG. I know it's not a high-end model (~50k USD), but I was shocked at how cheap the entire car felt. The leather is worse than the one used in base VW models, the armrests are pathetically small, visibility is bad. I'd 100% prefer to be a passenger in a Corolla or Camry.
Nothing happened. They have always had a terrible reputation for quality, and the results show it. People buy it for the brand name, and that's about it.
They're (were?) a popular choice in very poor countries due to their reliability. They did used to be built to a higher standard. The story I heard which I have no idea about the truth of, is that competition from lexus coming along in the 2000s made merc more price conscious, and reliability suffered as a result.
My old W126 was an amazingly well built car. Very durable and reliable, extremely long lasting, very comfy, interesting to drive, and amazingly safe compared to other cars of that era. Mine was previously owned by a couple who just did bare-minimum maintenance and drove it 120k km over their 6 years of ownership. The car was 24 years old when they got it, and 30 years old when I bought it. I drove it many more years, and the only repairs I needed to do were fixing age related leaks, and replacing one relay.
The W126 was a fairly simple car though, compared to their modern offerings, and it was built under a philosophy of building the best car regardless of cost.
My W140 was a also a well made car, great quality in materials and mechanical fundamentals, but it was too complicated and quite a bit more problematic for me.
Modern Mercedes-Benz cars don't seem as distinguished or well built as their offerings from the 1980s. With that said, my C216 CL-class is a very well built car in terms of materials and general attention to detail; it's just too complicated with hurts its overall reliability (though the powertrain is decently solid).
That's terribly untrue (or relates to particular market). Mercedes of 80-20x were one of most reliable on market, but unfortunately quality tumbled sharply.
I have driven lots of them in 90s-20s and thought it were the best cars. And it were.
I had an older one (W210) for a while and have to say the driving experience is amazing - the words tank and vault come to mind. I also mostly worked on it myself and this older model was very maintainable and well thought generally - the only exceptions were the pusher cables on the sunroof and the insanely-buried evaporator coil. I've also driven the Car2Go Mercedes models and even though they were the cheapest Mercedes, they still drove very well imo. I miss driving Mercedes cars.
It's well-known that the better a manufacturer's Formula 1 racecars do, the worse their road cars. And Mercedes were the dominant team from 2014 to 2020.
BMW got much better since the switch to B series engines, N series era was horrible. Timing chains between the engine and gearbox are a pain point though, they need to be replaced with mileage.
Not all N series engines are awful. The N52, while not as amazing as the previous M52/M54 engines, is a fantastic, reliable engine. However, the 4 cylinder N20 used between 2011-2017 is the worst. Faulty timing chain guides often fail and immediately grenade the engine. They were so bad there was even a class action lawsuit
The N53 is notably one of bmw's less reliable engines. Everything that goes wrong with it is tedious to debug and ends up hugely expensive to fix because you always end up needing to replace several pricey injectors. Then it breaks again later.
The N52 seems rather better, as all its common faults are relatively cheap to fix.
The B58 and B48 are quite impeccably good engines, both in terms of reliability and also performance/response. I had an excellent experience with my B58-powered M240i. I've also never heard anyone needing to do anything in practice with timing chains on these engines, even at high mileage. It seems the whole car would be worn out before the timing chain wears out, provided you use decent quality oil and don't neglect oil changes.
The older N52 engine is also very solid and reliable, my high mileage 2006 330i (E90) has been rock solid reliable in its powertrain.
My mechanic told me the N20 engine is terrible though, he has encountered an absurd number of them failing. The N54 is solid enough mechanically, though they get HPFP issues and need occasional cleaning of soot/gunk from valves.
It's incredible how the Japanese carmakers were able to perfect the auto manufacturing process and then proceed to hold that advantage for what, 30+ years now? It's not a secret how they did it, it's been studied to death, every manner of technology/expertise/management transfer has been tried, and still no one comes quite close enough to threaten their position.
The first time the U.S. tried to study this, they asked for a sample of parts, specifying a precision range, noting that it was acceptable for up to 10% of the parts to be at the extremes of said range.
The Japanese company sent them 3 bags of parts noting: The bag with the full quantity is made to match the provided blueprint, the other two bags contain 1/10th as many parts which are either larger or smaller as requested. May we ask what the purpose of these other parts is?
When they started measuring the parts, they were all identical --- part-way through, they decided that their micrometer must be broken and sent for another --- it revealed that all parts where _exactly_ the right size per the specifications of the drawing.
I've heard this story ever since I was a kid, but never been able to find a credible source. I'm compelled to believe it's no more than a story, at this point.
It was in an audiobook narrated by Pat Morita that I heard it.
The context was auto transmissions --- it was found that one source of premature failures was when all parts in a transmission were at the extreme of too small or too large --- on average, the large/small would balance out, but when it didn't that was when there were early (and catastrophic) failures.
I assume it’s because the other nations’ automakers would rather compete along other lines. The Japanese already locked onto reliability/quality, so rather than try to fight them on something they are already good at, they try to optimize for style/status/performance/patriotism/etc.
Because it requires a populace who culturally fixates on quality.
It doesn’t mean a thing to have a “stop everything” lever if your workforce doesn’t want to pull it because they don’t give a flying fuck if they ship a shoddy car.
It’s a story told again and again with tons of Japanese products.
Yes... a lot of people (Americans I guess since I'm American and that's where my anecdotal evidence comes from) think the Japanese are very efficient. They might be in somethings, but their true love is perfection. They love doing things right. Big things, little things... it's a country-wide obsession.
I live in Japan and let me tell you that the Japanese being perfectionists is also a myth. What Japanese people are really good at is following instructions and procedures, to the point that you see their minds crashing when something goes out of script. Now, whether the procedure makes sense and will result in a good outcome or not is a completely different matter...
hmmm.. I think we're both right here. I lived in a Japan for several years and saw a similar thing that you're pointing out, but I don't think the obsession with perfectionism is a myth.
<bad timing to post this given the current thing> but isreal seems to match japan's singlethreadedness in a single area. Some very high tech startups came out of isreal (waze etc) especially along the maps/routing domain.
To be fair, exactly that level of investment in process and conservatism around change is arguably what led them all (literally every single Japanese manufacturer) to miss the boat on EVs.
Basically, getting to your last sentence: you have the wrong threat model. Making "cars better" is great if what a "car" is doesn't change. But what the market wants is "better cars".
I'd hold off on declaring that the EV boat has departed. It remains to be seen at what level EV uptake will plateau, without major advances in battery tech and EV practicality. Coming from a rather nippy Canadian city which bought a bunch of electric buses, fucked up badly[0] and probably made purchasing more electric buses an untenable proposition for (conservatively) 5-7 years, and having heard from multiple EV owners about the less glamorous aspects of EV ownership in Canada (charging cost/duration/convenience, battery performance in cold weather, skyrocketing insurance and repair costs)... The boat, far from being missed, is still in the dry dock.
Not interested in EV flamery. My point was economic: clearly EVs are a very large new market segment, and Japanese brands aren't competing there at all. That's bad, if your business is to sell cars.
It's really bad if you have a sub-brand, like "Hybrids", which has been completely decimated by the (again very real, even if you don't think anyone in Edmonton should buy them) move to electric devices in the market.
Basically: 8 years ago Toyota owned the "ecologically sensitive car buyer" market. And now you might as well flush the Prius brand in the toilet, no one wants them and selling them as "green" relative to a Tesla is a joke.
I think I’m going with this as a car owner and buyer I would be very reluctant to switch back from an EV. It’s just for me so much nicer and more convenient. I have a few friends who share the same sentiment. It’s a category change and the Japanese automakers (to which I have great affinity) aren’t in the category so there’s nothing for me to buy from them.
A quick google tells me Prius family sales were down 37% YoY in 2022. In point of fact that's a little over three "decimations". Not sure what you're citing, but I stand by what I wrote. The Prius brand went from market-leading to trash in the space of a few years as EVs, and Tesla in particular, took over mindshare.
"Sales of Toyota’s conventional hybrids rose 41% from a year ago, to about 888,000, and sales of its plug-in hybrids were up nearly 90% year-over-year to roughly 39,000."
I said "Prius", and was correct. Toyota as a company is doing fine. Toyota is matching up very poorly with Tesla (and frankly even VW or Ford) in the markets where they compete with EVs.
Sure, but none that compete with an EV. Can you name a hybrid vehicle from any manufacturer that matches up with a Model 3 or Y that isn't shrinking rapidly in market share? I'm amazed that people are trying to argue this point. It seems extraordinarily clear just anecdotally (count all the new Teslas around you!), and the data backs it up.
I'm amazed that you're trying to argue the point contrary to actual sales data. The Toyota RAV4 hybrid is growing market share for one. You can find plenty of other examples if you bother to look.
Which Tesla model does the RAV4 compete with? No one sells an EV jeep. Can you cite me even one crossover or sedan hybrid that is growing in sales? Even one? You can't, because EVs are destroying that sector.
The Toyota RAV4 hybrid is a crossover which is growing in sales and competes against the Tesla Model Y. As for Jeep, the Wrangler 4xe hybrid is also growing in sales.
Instead of making up nonsense you could just look at the actual sales numbers. Most manufacturers issue news releases with sales volumes broken down by model.
Every single Japanese manufacturer? Nissan has been and is doing great with the Leaf. They discontinued recently, but only to replace it with a new EV, not because it was doing badly.
If you look at numbers from a couple years ago compared to now, most of the other manufacturers are way up, whereas Nissan almost looks like they've already plateaued.
I'll admit that "doing great" is open to interpretation, but my point is that Nissan hasn't "missed the boat" due to conservatism. They've had a nice, reliable EV available for a decade now, and you can go out and buy one today. Maybe they'll fall off the boat due to mistakes made now, but they've been on the boat for quite some time.
Having a nice reliable product available for sale while your competition rolls out superior products and not doing anything about it is pretty much the definition of "missing the boat due to conservatism", no?
I just don't like any model of Japanese cars... they don't drive, look, or feel as good as a high end European car. But man do I wish European cars were half as reliable as Japanese cars. Driving European cars is a hobby for me, but spending every weekend to keep them working gets old sometimes.
What's especially annoying is that the high end European cars are ostensibly better made... much more expensive materials, more attention to detail (better rustproofing, cable organization, etc.). They probably actually last longer on average if you maintain them well, but they just have unexpected parts failures extremely often.
Looking at how big a problem with rust Mercedes have I'm not sure the "better rust proofing" is based in reality. Definitely doubt it when compared to a Toyota.
Mercedes are not, but many high end European cars dip galvanize the entire chassis, making them virtually rustproof. Volvo started doing this on the 700 series in the 80s and those cars are still driving around in the rust belt fully functional 40 years later! VW, Audi, and Porsche also fully galvanized a lot of cars, but you need to research to figure out what specific years and models.
Mercedes was a global leader in quality until about the early 90s, but the quality really dropped off, and is markedly lower than other German cars nowadays.
Drive and inspect an expensive early 2000s Mercedes, and then a cheap VW Jetta from the same time period… there is no doubt about it, the cheap VW is a higher quality car in every way. Every bolt and fastener is high grade steel, plated with a corrosion preventative , and then also coated with threadlocker that also protects from corrosion. VW then cut quality also around 2011 or so.
So it’s not really cut and dry, you have to look at how each specific car was actually made.
Maybe they are too stubborn to succumb to 'the race to the bottom' cost (and correspondingly quality) wise, since these things do bite back after longer time than current year exec bonuses materialize.
Or maybe they have different approach to beta testing, see say Zelda come out basically flawless and how say Betshesda or many others can deliver their stuff (beta testing months after release with fixes have 1000+ rather basic items).
As a person who is both tall and fat, I've been astounded by Japanese cars. By "tall" I don't mean basketball player tall. I just mean around maybe 85 or 90th percentile tall for US men, about 6'1" (73 inches or 185 cm).
When my Nissan Sentra got totaled by a drunk driver I looked at all the similar cars from both American and Japanese companies. The first thing I noticed was that the Japanese cars were comfortable--I had plenty of leg room, by head didn't hit the roof, the seats weren't too narrow, and the steering wheel wasn't too close.
The American cars were all more cramped. And I don't mean cramped just in ways that I could fix if I would have just got my act together and lost weight. No, they were also cramped because I was too tall for them.
I even took a look at American mid-sized cars and they too were apparently not meant for people over 6 ft.
It was kind of funny. The Japanese are a relatively small people. I'd be around 97th percentile on height there. So how come they are so much better at making cars that accommodate tall people?
Anyway, I ended up with a Honda Civic. 11 years later it developed a problem that my local dealer (Seattle Honda) just could not reproduce or diagnose from my description and it was again time for a new car. (From later discussion on a car forum on the net, it seems like the problem was a bad ECU).
That was around when SUVs were getting really popular, and I decided to have a look. Again, Japan for the win. Even though the American SUVs I looked at were overall much bigger cars than the Honda CR-V, only the CR-V had the head and leg room I needed.
I ended up with a CR-V. That worked so well that when that lease was up I leased another, and then another when that lease was up. Then I remembered that I had only leased that first one so that if I didn't like the form factor it would be easy to switch back to a sedan, and so when that third lease was up bought a new 2006 CR-V and still drive that now.
It's nice and slightly surprising to see something somewhat made in Britain up there in reliability. I know BMW own it but a lot are still made outside Oxford.
Yes, but mini cars only cover the lower and cheapest segment of the market, that is the UKL platform that BMW only uses for the X1, X2, 1 series and 2 series GC.
So probably the highest complexity of the more premium platforms and features is bringing the reliability down for BMW, unsurprisingly (a v8 engine probably would fail earlier than a simple 3-cylinder engine)
There is also the Crosstrek and there are talks to intensify the collaboration even further. The obvious difference in size is possibly going to cause some problems, and Daihatsu, another one of those collaborations is a guide to how that could play out.
Subaru has a ton of engine and 4WD knowledge that would benefit Toyota, the other way around, Toyota has economies of scale and hybrid knowledge that Subaru will likely never have so both come out ahead of a partnership like this and the signs are that they are drawing closer to each other. Toyota has steadily expanded their stake in Subaru which today stands at 20%, and Subaru is now officially a part of the Toyota group.
Just one data point, someone I know sells cars and told me that the old Renault duster was based on a Nissan car but the new model is based on a Dacia car and it sucks.
In Europe it has always been known as Dacia Duster.
Dacia in Europe is the "low cost brand" of Renault and to keep cost low they reuse components and parts already developed for previous Nissan and Renault models.
Other manufacturers do the same or share components, for example
the 1500cc Renault diesel engine used in the previous generation of Dacia Duster was also the same used in the Mercedes Class A.
I’d love to see a comparison / breakdown of models made in Japan vs made in USA/Mexico/Canada (for the NA market). Some of the most common Lexus models are not made in Japan
No. They certainly have partnerships on specific models (Subaru BRZ / Scion FR-S / Toyota 86, Subaru Solterra EV / Toyota bZ4X), but they are not exclusive, and each have their own platforms and powertrains for most of their models.
Toyota has partnered with Mazda as well - for example, there was Mazda 2 rebadged as a Toyota Yaris for a few years.
I’ve been driving my Toyota Tacoma for 22 years now and currently at 245k miles (with some off-roading thrown in there). With regular upkeep, it’s amazing how much abuse these can take and still run fine. I haven’t had any major problems. My next car will definitely be a Toyota.
I'll be disappointed if I don't get half-a-million miles out of my '01 Tacoma. The major-est piece of equipment I've had to replace was the power steering pump, and the biggest PITA was the timing belt, which didn't need to be replaced at the time, but I did it for preventative maintenance. 326k miles.
Anecdotally, my wife has owned her Toyota Celica since new in 2002. In that time, other than oil changes / tires / brake pads, the only thing that has failed is an air conditioning relay, twice. The second time around there was a new improved replacement part number, which has worked fine for 10 years now.
I also have an Audi A4 and S4. Something is always breaking on them, but they are very enjoyable to drive compared to the Celica. It has such terrible torque steer that we avoid driving it in any kind of rain. With an open diff, it's essentially a one wheel drive vehicle on any kind of low traction surface. Specifically, the front left wheel.
Horizontally opposed engines are inherently less reliable due to the increase in components, an H-4 has two heads and all that entails, an I-4 has one.
CVTs are inherently more fragile than a geared transmission, they simply cannot hold as much torque.
Almost all Subarus sold in the last 3 years have these engines and transmissions and they still hang.
This era (and even older) mercedes are all over the place in southern california. They look mostly in mint shape with the lack of rust from no road salting and quality paintjobs that have lasted 40 years or more compared to modern cars that seem to peel after 10 years.
There's also whether people ignore warning signs or not.
I previously had a long-term rented Ford Focus via Canvas (which is no longer around). There were lots of issues with it. A bumper valence that had some screw holes that had expanded and would fall off if only 1 additional screw failed. They were unwilling to fix it, and it did in fact fall off on the highway later due to their unwillingness. Tire treads had almost worn bald, they were also unwilling to fix it until a flat actually happened. Car idled at high RPM, I told them about it, they were unwilling to do anything about it, and the engine started stalling on the highway a few months later.
Almost every single problem with the car had a warning sign that I had told them well in advance, but they were always unwilling to do anything about it.
If you do your due diligence by taking action at every warning sign (strange noise, RPMs not the usual value, etc.) a LOT of "reliability" issues would not happen in the first place. A car is a fast-moving piece of mechanical equipment and needs regular servicing.
Don't do what doctors do and "wait till shit happens" to diagnose you so that they can make a buck off of you in the hospital. Prevent shit.
I always wondered how "self-fulfilling" that is with Toyotas/Lexus. If you buy a Toyota for reliability, and intend to keep it, you're probably taking better care of it (both in terms of service and driving habits) than if you were to lease a "fun vehicle" for 3 years.
That said, Toyota does often decide to go for reliability over other measures like fuel economy or power in eg their engines. Some of the older Toyota engines used twice as many bearings as other engines for example, downside being extra drag and lower fuel economy.
True, but the people who ignore warnings on VWs also ignore them on Toyotas, and yet Toyota still consistently comes in ahead.
I do think there are cultural issues though with the US vs Europe. It's very common that cars that are known for quality and reliability in Europe are regarded as exceptionally temperamental in the US. When I first moved to the US I couldn't understand why German cars had such a bad reputation for reliability here. Most of them are traditionally considered more or less bulletproof in Europe.
But after while I noticed that many American owners don't pay any attention to maintenance schedules, and just wait until something breaks. Some cars are forgiving of that, and some aren't.
Nowadays I rank cars into roughly 3 categories: those that hardly ever break no matter what you do, those that are fine if you do what you're told, and those that break no matter what you do.
My girlfriend bought her Toyota corolla for 5000 bucks some time ago, old, used, and soon started showing engine warn sign. Pretty bad if you ask me. Yet that light never manifested into anything real, 80k+ km down the road, still works reliably (technician couldn't find anything and just resetting it soon brought it back).
I don't have to read the article to know it's Toyota. That's the kind of brand awareness only years of great track record can buy. If you're playing the long game, money invested in reliability gain you more than marketing.
I would hazard a guess that Toyota and Lexus have very similar real-world reliability - most of them share platforms. However this article shows that Lexus owners perceive their cars to be more reliable than Toyota owners.
>However this article shows that Lexus owners perceive their cars to be more reliable than Toyota owners.
Maybe they get better maintenance than their Toyota cousins on average?
BMW often ranks high but there's a bias when asking a BMW owner -who often likes cars- how good their car is, compared to a Dacia owner who often just needs to get from A to B and see a car as strictly transport.
Lexus is Toyota’s up brand, like Acura is for Honda and Audi is for VW. They share parts, designs, often factories, but just better interiors, higher end engines, exterior trims, etc…
I've owned many car brands, and I can't say I'm at all surprised to continue to see Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura continue at the top. The thing I find so fascinating about that is that most of the cars they sell in the US, they also built in the US. So even though it is a Japanese company, it is US labor.
I appreciate data like this because it helps counter the super strongly held opinions most car enthusiasts have about car brands, which generally seem to be based on hearsay and conjecture.
Would love to see this scattered against maintenance cost.
Having to take my Subaru in for an oil change every six months is annoying, even if it means I’ve only ever had one serious issue. (Computer flipped out because someone didn’t close the gas cap tightly enough, leading to a service visit requirement, which is absurd.)
I have done my oil changes in the past, and for the recommended oil and filter on my 8 year old Toyota, $50 would cover 5 quarts of oil and a cheap filter. Add in disposal + labor, it's sometimes just easier to pay my local mechanic the $75 for the oil change.
I always get my oil at Costco at 6 quarts for less than $30. I figured mechanic shops are surely buying for less. And oil filters are usually less than $10 for the cheap ones, and maybe $15 for the high end ones. I assume auto shops probably use the cheaper ones. Actually, the reason I do my own oil change is because I can trust Costco/Autozone to sell me good quality oil and oil filter, whereas I don't know what a mechanic would put in, and it only takes me 30min.
I just looked up a local mechanic's website, and they advertise $35 for synthetic blend oil change, and $65 for full synthetic blend oil change (most non european cars). I wonder if they price it to be at cost or even a loss leader.
I don't know about Mini, but I hope the new VWs are better than my experience.
My VW is admittedly 10 years old, and still under the Dieselgate warranty, but I've averaged 2 warranty repairs per oil change interval for 3 years now.
They haven't been able to figure out the cranks forever but does not start for those 3 years, two dealerships have tried now.
They are fairly expensive trips I'm glad to have warranty on. EGR, DPF, 4 sensors in one trip, etc. I'm almost to a new exhaust system and the CEL is on again.
Wish me luck! I went back and forth to the dealership 7 times before they put it back together right last time.
If that's the experience, count me out. It's the last one.
Maybe something changed? Subarus used to suffer head gasket failures, and still suffer from this reputation despite the fact that it’s been fixed for nearly two decades.
My understanding is that the initial Mini models were made with Peugeot engines, which were underpowered and pretty unreliable. At some point BMW switched Minis over to use a Beemer engine, at which point quality improved dramatically. Mini has been on an upward trend since (as has BMW).
Anecdotally, someone in my family has a Mini with the BMW engine, and it’s been ticking along just fine. Maintenance is expensive though.
It's almost like the methodology is borderline pseudo-science. Many choices are irrational and unexplained. Several key models are missing from each brand's lineup. Tacoma? Ranger? They have Tundra and F-150...
Notice that with the higher ranked car brands you usually get two years or more of "special service" on purchase. Something along the lines of "for any problem just call this number and we will help you immediately!". That's how they don't show up in the statistics because the brand itself will handle it and not - like in this example - the ADAC. My company even has a compliance form you have to sign before getting a car from the pool to agree to not call ADAC or similar at any circumstance, no matter the problem. Always call the given brand number. Reason is to keep their statistics low (and in exchange our leasing prices ...)
I'd read that hybrids had better reliability than ICE cars, but from a glance at this data it might just be an artefact of high reliability manufacturers being overrepresented in this market.
I'm in the market for a used vehicle, and I am looking at mid 2010's Toyota 4runner's and Tacoma's, maybe even Tundra. It's just hard to go wrong with a Toyota.
There are only 4 cars: Tundra, Tacoma, 4runner, prius. The rest are mere toys. Don't get a Tundra if you live in a big city though. Seriously just get a 4runner unless you regularly need to haul stuff.
I don't live in the city. I also have an old '88 Suburban for the hauling stuff. A 4runner would be perfect for 99% of what I want.
As for the rest being toys, I have to disagree. Toyota makes fantastic cars too. A friend has a 2010 Matrix that's just great. And his 20+ year old Camry is very good too.
Very weird that Volvo Cars, from the land of Spotify and all the other unicorns, has such huge problems with reliability (they consistently rank one of the lowest in the reliability due to infotainment/computer problems). They must be doing something really wrong. All that talent in Sweden and they can't make it stable? The stock has been tanking massively for a while now. Anyone knows whats up? Did they outsource their software/platform to third world countries?
It takes 1 lead architect to make bad long term decisions and you have easily 10+ years of clusterfucks in that area, and we know infotainment was at the bottom of priorities list of conservative manufacturers for a very long time.
I have BMW 5 series F11, not the newest model but TBH given current design I am better off that way. It has tons of tiny or bigger than tiny software bugs in behavior. Seems like some sensors in the car also start to die, giving some rather crazy warnings (ie chassis integrity check when a very good car mechanic went through and didn't find any sign of damage, sometimes big collision flash on screen that is never going to happen, 10+C temperature change and I get tire pressure warnings and so on). The stuff that should be helping you ends up annoying much more and is often disabled, which is outright fail of engineering.
With that software quality, going to newer more integrated and stupidly designed (less physical buttons) version would be a step back, and I very confident they just made it shinier, not better tested. Maybe my next car will be one model earlier than our current one, the problem is with old enough cars even basic things like wires and tubes start to fail.
I really like Volvo's for their safety record (XC90 has never had a fatal crash I believe), but the reliability scares me away... I wish car companies just offered a "dumb" version without the infotainment package.
What is the most reliable isnt really the right question. Reliability vs cost is the correct question. I.e
In my case the kia carnival was 12k cheaper than the sienna or the odyssey so going with tenth place vs second place was a no brainer for me, especially when i am not limely to need that extra repair money for 5 to ten years and can invest it so it is really more like 15 to 19k by the time i need it if invested at 5% return.
I have had 5 Toyota trucks and only replace them because I get antsy every few years for the newest thing. Never had a single problem with one and my current 19 taco at 70k miles just feels like a break in period. Each time the trade is is quite close to what I paid for it. Have been looking at getting a late 80's 4runner as a fun second rig and don't anticipate any issues with that either.
If you had a torn cv boot, it was a 4x4. The cv doesn't actually transmit any power when you're in 2 wheel drive mode. So unless you did many miles in 4x4 after the torn cv boot, you wouldn't really ever experience a problem with it. That's very different than a FWD car with a torn boot.
The point is, yes his grease flew out. And dirt got in. But his CV joints aren't being used, they are just free spinning around all day not moving any torque. So yes his torn cv boot didn't give him trouble in a Toyota 4x4. It wouldn't have given him trouble in a dodge 4x4 either..
Yours will not/did not click or grind because it is not being used. You owned effectively a rear wheel drive truck with a switch/lever to make it 4x4. 99.9% of the time those trucks are in RWD mode, which means your cv shaft is not being used. It just free spins at most, transmitting no torque.
How long can it last like that? Basically forever.
I should add that I live in an area where ~40% of my driving is not on pavement, I am in 4wd at least half of my driving time and I have a second set of wheels w studs that I run from Nov to early Apr.
I have a Model 3 (2018) and a Model Y (2022) and both are largely without issues.
I think people meme hard on Tesla to make them sound like the most unreliable car out there for some reason, when in reality you occasionally have fit and finish issues and a normal amount of unreliability.
Stats dont lie and you are right, but it feels brittle somehow. Thin metal and cheap rubber. Also that centre console gets really boring after a while, although it looks good.
Interesting results. Toyota at the top is no surprise. But Mini at #3?!?! WTF??
And Mercedes Benz second to last?!?! Porsche at 8 and Tesla at 14 are both surprising to me as well. But on thing to note about consumer reports methodology is they only poll consumers about the first year of ownership. Following for a longer time span (5 years?) would be better.
As a toyota driver, and owner of among other toyotas an early 201x 4.6L tundra, the fact that the tundra is the worst Toyota surprised me. Considering mine is probably the best toyota I've owned, it is literally at 170K+ Miles with little more than standard maintenance (tires, brakes, oil, air filters, a belt and plug change, and a couple of fluid flushes) and having all 4 of the $.50 DC motors in the electric locks replaced.
But, I guess that is in part because toyota just redesigned the tundra with a lot of fancy junk, while mine is a near base model that was produced for more than a decade and had most of the "bugs" worked out by the time I purchased it new.
But that happened with the tachoma/4runner, too right? A couple of years back, the redesign had drivetrain problems, which presumably have been worked out now.
What a disaster for VW and Mercedes, but it pretty much confirms what everyone here in Germany is saying: reliability has gone downhill, with exception of BMW and Porsche (but it'll cost you), whereas Japan is at the top for ages, with South Korea (Kia, Hyundai) providing a good, cheaper alternative.
After your 3/5-year warranty at BMW you can maintain your BMW at your local workshop, and the costs are similar to other cars. They are not expensive cars to maintain, specially the latest models (F-series, G-series).
Also, you go for Audi (standard models) mainly for how chassis is modeled (aka looks), internals of VW conglomerate are almost identical to cheaper VW or sometimes also Skoda or Seat.
Interestingly, one of my colleague's worst car experience was Audi, not sure if A1 or A2, but he was very disappointed how unreliable it was. Case point 1.
5 year old A5 here and it's an excellent car. didn't go for any bigger engine etc. Close friends have a Q5 and it's got bugs galore. Seems kind of random.
Something that not a lot of people are mentioning is that north american made VAG (vw, audi, etc) cars are made in factories that have shown much less reliability. Everybody in Europe praises VW for how affordable and reliable they are (since they're made in-house in Germany for the most part) - excluding the 2009-2014 years since they had quite a bad Golf line in terms of reliability
You can't buy an 'average' Mazda, or an 'average' Mercedes. Each manufacturer has models up and down the reliability curve.
I guess this is interesting, but only actionable info is if you pay for a subscription and look up not just a particular model, but of a particular year and trim
First thing I did was searching for the car brand (Volkswagen) of my car in the list. I was surprised to find it way down in the yellow area of medium reliability. After all, I choosed that brand specifically because I wanted to have a reliable car. It should at least last 20 years.
After reading into the details of the rank and some comments here I came up with the following explanation for me:
- Reliability is only related to the first 2-3 years of the car
- Long term reliability of engine and gears or chassis is not related to some minor issues of other parts in the first years of life of a car
I'm currently in year 3 and so far only had 2 issues caused by external factors:
- Electric cables damaged by animal bite (marten)
- Rear drive shaft gear broken because workshop forgot to refill oil after change
I think this is more likely to be the case that Hybrids are dominated by Toyota/Lexus. See:
> Overall, hybrids have 26 percent fewer problems than cars powered by internal combustion engines (ICE). Some standouts include the Lexus UX and NX Hybrid and the Toyota Camry Hybrid, Highlander Hybrid, and RAV4 Hybrid.
and:
> Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)... have 146 percent more problems than ICE vehicles. Still, there are PHEVs that buck that trend, including standouts such as the Toyota RAV4 Prime
> The paradox is that hybrids have MORE potential trouble areas than ICE but less reported trouble.
> All hail McLuhan.
That doesn't seem paradoxical, I'd never expect that just counting potential trouble areas is the right thing, things can be made more reliable by addition. Make a laptop without a battery and I'm gonna report a lot of problems stemming from sudden power loss. Put a battery in, that's a new potential trouble area, but even if I still use it plugged in exclusively, I'm gonna report fewer problems since I'll never have sudden power loss and have no problems downstream of that.
Maybe that's not the case with hybrids? I don't know, but it seems like it could be - any time some of the load is taken off some of the most physical components, the ICE and the brakes, it could improve reliability even though the systems taking the load off can then also have problems.
I spent some time looking at this and it depends which hybrid, there is quite a bit of variation in drivetrains even within manufacturers. As sibling comment [1] describes the planetary gear arrangement in most Toyotas is quite simple compared to a normal automatic transmission, and the traction motor/generator replaces both the starter motor and alternator that a plain ICE engine would have. At the same time the hybrid system makes gentler use of the gas engine and brakes so even though they are mechanically near identical to the ICE model they will probably last a lot longer.
I would expect vastly different results across different drivetrains, and probably even more differences across shape/size platforms (compact, sedan, truck, van, etc.).
There's a chart "How Electrified Powertrains Compare" which shows "Problems compared to gasoline-powered vehicles." You might be surprised to see that in fact EVs fare significantly worse than ICEs. I'd wager that they're mostly newer designs that naturally have bugs but instead of making modest changes to the car design in a new model, they're making significant/sweeping changes.
Oddly enough they don't state what the problems are. Meanwhile the ADAC (German car club) find that EVs have similar defect rates in components they share with ICE while having less engine issues. Overall, they conclude there is insufficient data for a meaningful statistic at this time:
For example the Mach-e has had issues with contactors welding open during heavy usage and charging as the same part was used between the standard and higher performance model.
I agree with you in principle but I think if you're Consumer Reports and you know much of your audience is very nontechnical (ie, will only have a very surface-level understanding of electric vs hybrid vs ICE) it makes some sense to attempt to distill an entire brand down to a single datapoint.
Many readers aren't savvy and just want to know what dealership to show up at to start asking what they can afford. If brand XYZ has amazing ICE reliability but their EVs are trash, you suddenly need to be a more informed consumer when you get to that dealership. Easier to just rank the companies with a long history of reliability across multiple product segments higher.
> Cars, including sedans, hatchbacks, and wagons, remain the most reliable vehicle type, with an average reliability rating of 57 (on a scale of 0 to 100), followed by SUVs (50) and minivans (45). “Sedans have fallen out of favor with consumers, but as a class they are very reliable,” says Jake Fisher, senior director of auto testing at Consumer Reports. “They often have less of the latest technology and features that can cause problems before the bugs are worked out.” Pickup trucks come in last, with an average reliability rating of 41.
> Pickup trucks come in last, with an average reliability rating of 41
That surprises me because I've browsed a lot of use vehicles and it seems to me like pickups can go to way higher miles than cars. I see a lot of them still run fine with 150,000+ miles
Maybe the owners are more willing to pay for major repairs though since getting a new one is so expensive?
This CR report is about the reliability of new cars over the first year of ownership. The correlation to how many issues there will be 10, 15, 20 years down the line is rather tenuous.
Well, yes but then also newcomers to car design world make tons of design mistakes that seems clever at the start but do bite back later.
For most folks buying a car these days, if they choose EV its not due to environmental concerns, not primarily or secondarily, at least I don't know single one person among EV owners. They just want a reliable car, and 130 years of fine tuning combustion engines can end up more reliable in say 15 years than shiny unproven electric design (single case 1 but I can provide such - my previous bmw e46 vs tesla model s of my colleague, or model 3 of another colleague).
i don't think it's weird, reputation is one of the whole reasons for the existence of brands. If an ICE brand is willing to put their reputation on the line to bring an EV to market, that means something different than if they were to market their EVs under a new brand name.
Is ranking by brand necessarily the most useful ranking?
How does the Toyota Prius (with 19 potential trouble areas, per the article) compare with a non-hybrid (say a Mazda 3)?
The first graph indicates that Toyotas are, on the whole, more reliable than Mazdas, and the second graph indicates that hybrid drivetrains (despite having more trouble points) are marginally more reliable than purely gas powered vehicles.
Taken together, this suggests that a recent Prius would be more reliable than a recent Mazda 3, but it would be nice to have a model-wise reliability score, no?
Here is a similar ranking from Germany where you can sort by class of car and than compare car models instead of manufacturers (just scroll down a bit to get to that part and have it translated by your browser): https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/unfall-schaden-panne/a...
This is really good. "Number of breakdowns per 1,000 registered vehicles per first registration year:"
Funny how the order is almost the opposite of the rather opaque consumerreports one. While looking at actual breakdowns is more telling of major issues, looking at only the first year isn't going to reveal much beyond glaring manufacturing defects. I'd be interested in more long term issues (although understandably this would be more of a past performance based on previous models metric). Although long term all cars reliability (especially ICE) is an AND operation with maintenance and care, but with a large enough sample size there's a hope this noise should average out.. ignoring the annoying issue of buyer bias.
The article also points out the vast majority of breakdowns are from dead batteries - Whether that's user error or parasitical leaks, or bad batteries is not clear, but sticking in a bigger battery with high cold cranking amps is a very cheap fix for that. Parasitical leaks are more of a pain to solve, especially since fitting a kill switch tends to make the computers in modern cars very upset.
Not sure if you noticed, but you can see the issues for each car by the year it was first registered in, so if a model is out for a few years you will be able to say more about long term reliability.
If I had to guess it is partially due to user error, but the majority probably stems from people not replacing them when they should and being one of the few things in newer cars where you need to actually call help and can’t wait a few days to have it repaired.
ConsumerReports just covers the American market, so in addition to Renault (which doesn't sell in the US [1]) it excludes all cars that the listed makes sell outside the US.
I had exactly this experience with Toyota. Their cars don't contain the fanciest and most complex technology, instead they seem to focus on simplicity and reliability, without compromising on the product too much.
This approach is a serious problem now though. They have big issues producing competitive EVs.
It would've been great to have the reliability score for EVs as a separate statistic. I'm sure they don't always match up with the overall reliability of a manufacturer.
My parents bought a new Chrysler because "It's american". Transmission failure a few months in, and out of commission for 6 months. Not surprised to see them in last.
Not understanding the haterade with Minis. I’ve owned mine since 2015 and I’ve had no major issues. The engine is snappy, it handles great in cornering, easy to park, etc etc.
Aren't Lexus and Toyota basically the same thing? Lexus is Toyota's luxury brand, and Lexus cars are built in Toyota factories [0]. Why are they considered two different brands for this? (and, more interesting, why do they have different reliability scores, apparently swapped from last year?)
"Same factory" is used with a lot of things as an argument that things are the same. Industrial processes have a lot more to do with decisions made for the specific product. A luxury product could involve a longer more in depth QA cycle, tighter tolerance for rejection, etc. A commodity product could have more reliable parts because they simply made more of them and had more experience with problems and fixes. The building a thing is made in or using the same machines does not result equivalent products.
Because they're different brands. Volkswagen own Porsche and Audi, but they're listed separately and presumably they have different reliability levels. There are also different reliability levels across different models, but they drew the line at brands.
I've had pretty good success with my Nissan, but it has some problems. Sunroof leaks are notoriously bad on Nissans. My Honda... no problems at 250K miles.
my 2001 honda accord stared getting on (took a few too many hits) - i installed a very good after market system in it - with hefty subs/amps.
the replacement 2013 accord euro...absolutely impractical to do the same DIY...the dash computer integrated console with A/C controls is a nightmare to replace with fascia which has space for double DIN...
i wonder if i should downgrade again to a classic Honda integra, or pre-smart Civic...
Still running a 2005 Toyota right here ... I wanted to get rid of it a few years ago, but it's turning into a classic before my very eyes (in my heart anyway).
Has never let me down ... even once ... * knock on wood *
Also enjoying maintaining a 69 Beetle... no Wifi, no tracking, hardly any electronics at all ... LOVE IT.
And though I love driving, I don't drive that often, so my emissions are low.
Nissan has been the General Motors (i.e. a manufacturer of mediocre cars) of Japan for a long time. Its low ranking doesn't surprise me. Likewise Volkswagen has been the GM of Germany for a while too. No surprise there either.
But Mercedes coming in 29/30? That surprises me. I've never owned a Mercedes but I thought they had a reputation for reliability.
I've owned two and my parents have also owned two. There appears to be a boom and bust cycle of reliability with them.
We still own one - a GLC300 from its first model year (2017) and it's basically been perfect. Zero problems beyond some cosmetic stuff w/ a seat rip but that's wear and tear. I care more about mechanical.
On the other hand, the E-class sedan we owned was nothing but trouble. I remember looking at some of the reported reliability data and it seemed like every 3-4 years, you'd have this cycle where the first year had great reliability and then it degraded over the next 2-3 years. When they released a new trim, reliability was back up.
Note - this is heavily anecdata, but having talked w/ other folks that owned multiple MB's, they felt it was similar.
My theory is it has something to do with the models manufactured in Germany versus the ones eventually offshore. Something doesn't translate as they offshore manufacture.
German Tüv recently released their annual car inspection statistics report. This is of course backwards-looking, but I suspect manufacturers preferred trade-offs and culture don't change that fast. Volkswagen did a clear sweep, and on the other end of the scale were Tesla and Dacia. The discrepancy with this report makes me wonder what to believe.
Only for the first 3 years... and I wonder if these stats are being padded by BMW's warranty/maintenance program for the first few years. How many 30 year old BMWs with 300,000 miles do you see? Not as many as you do Toyota or Honda.
That doesn’t make sense. If it’s covered or not you still had to bring it in so that’s a mark against its reliability. BMW also sells fewer cars in the first place and most to an audience who’s less likely to hold on to them for a long time.
You're not taking into account the type of usage that BMW have to Toyotas. Toyotas are usually driven by non-car-enthusiasts, and people that do care about reliability.
BMWs on the other hand are enthusiast cars, driven quicker, modified more, raced in tracks, etc. Obviously the reliability is going to suffer. I'm pretty sure that under normal usage, they will endure as much if not more than a Toyota.
But I'm dubious because Mini is near the top. And are Porsche and BMW known to be reliable? You can't even get your oil changed except at slecialized centers. I assume they're reliable in the same way airplanes are: lots of maintenance intervals.
BMW has had some reliability misses in the past (especially with past V8 engines), though their current B48/B58 engines are very reliable. Porsche has a very extensive vehicle testing process before their models come to market, and they have always been known for good reliability (though they have had some misses in the past, like M96 engine IMS bearings and bore scoring from the early-mid 2000s, and 991.1 GT3 engine failures).
I've a 2021 Kia Proceed and I've had 0 problems with it. I don't know much about cars but I was advised by a mechanic friend to go for a Kia or Hyundai.
Maybe I don't understand something but where is Renault? It's not even mentioned AFAICT.
Also, VW data does not encompass Golf, which seems to me to be by far the most sold VW car in Europe (based on what I see on the streets, not actual data). Seems a bit strange to omit these.
...would be very interesting to see who makes the most reliable 2nd hand car.
Everything i see points to Toyota (been studying the market for a few years, my current VW, though, is still hanging on in there).
The most reliable cars come from the end of a production series right before a facelift. Yeah, the car won’t look as new but a lot of the engineering challenges of the new design don’t get worked out until later
This list is likely mainly for ICE cars. EVs are much more reliable in general due to a lot less moving parts. The main issue is that in about a decade you’ll have to replace your battery
My 2008 Rav-4 has 327k miles on it and is showing no signs of quitting. I was planning on giving it up at 300k, but now it’s (by far) my longest relationship, and I’m getting sentimental about it…
Do they still count over-the-air software updates as "recalls" that negatively impact the reliability? I don't have the CR subscription so I can't see the detailed breakdown...
Is there a problem with counting software updates as recalls?
I like the idea of penalizing manufacturers for frequent software updates: they either mean that there are frequent safety issues addressed after manufacturing (so calling them recalls is 100% appropriate) or they mean that the manufacturer is constantly fiddling with the infotainment system. Neither of those are traits I want in a car manufacturer.
You are right, research involving millions of data points gathered from 330K vehicles over the course of a year is completely wrong because you saw a couple of broken BMWs on the road on your way to work.
Think of how terrible life would be if we couldn't share our anecdotes, if we couldn't talk about things we've seen that go against what the experts have told us to believe.
People doing the research are the ones rolling the dice millions of times. The above commenter rolled it twice, got 6 both times, and concluded that it was flawed.
You have the data in front of you. As someone else too mentioned, the B58 engine is considered pretty reliable by BMW mechanics and on various Reddit forums where car enthusiasts hangout.
AFAICT certain models have been highly problematic but overall they're very reliable things as shown by these numbers in TFA!?
Wife's BMW 3-series: it only started having electrical issues once it got very old and it was nothing too bad (heck, some I even fixed myself). Then she got a Toyota CHR hybrid: great car, but not for highway driving (at least not at speeds on european highways). She now bought a 4-series, used, five years old. One year and absolutely zero issue. A friend of mine at the same time bought a used 5-series (24 months old): zero issues.
I don't hear many people around me complaining about reliability issues on their BMWs (in the country where I used to live, Belgium, it's literally the brand the most sold, before Volkswagen and then Mercedes [1] and in the country where I live now it's the 3rd most sold brand).
> I remember because I was joking yesterday with my partner that we should never buy a Beamer.
They're good cars however I'm not sure I'd buy a german car if I was living in the US again. I did it and, well, it's my experience that german cars are easier to service/fix in europe (especially when you live in germany or close to germany) than in the US.
What I've seen with friends who drive BMW and with the Mini that the business leased for an employee: the engines are reliable, bodywork and interior is ok, electronics gizmos are unreliable and required multiple updates for various problems. One friend's very fancy 5 series was more in the shop than that he drove it to the point that he got attached to the loaner.
There's no IQ test to afford a Beemer. The things I did to my 323i I would never dream of doing to my Toyota (and guess which one has lasted 20 years).
Agree, but I wonder if it has something to do with BMW's maintenance program for the first few years that covers most issues? So maybe certain issues aren't really being reported in the stats.
Given the relative simplicity of the drive train for EVs, it's a shame that the dedicated electric manufacturers like Rivian and Tesla aren't much higher on this list...
My understanding is that US-made Teslas are kind of poorly put together, while the Chinese-made ones are excellent, which would explain the middling rank. (And why US-made Rivians are near the bottom.) I'm not sure Chinese Teslas are sold in the US though?
(Rivian owner) It's painfully obvious rivian is stuck playing the american capitalism game where if they don't meet certain numbers of sales each quarter the stock goes down so nothing else matters. I'm sure they would rather invest in service, reliability or something but they can't stop for a second on trying to move new vehicles out the door. The future doesn't matter, only next quarter matters.
Toyota. Though, a lot of that is how good their internal combustion engines are. I wonder if their reliability will go down when they start moving to new engines (electric).
what no one ever tells you is when you try buy a used lexus & premium toyota's you gonna pay a premium for it. since they're so reliable. the used values never really go down.
whereas a used bmw or benz after 5 years the value is in the gutter. even though there might be a good car to go on.
On engine reliability they are on par. On electronics and auxiliaries both can't hold a candle to the Japanese in terms of reliability, but all car manufacturers have problems in that domain.
So reviewing this more closely. This is a joke. What is reliability? I would say, that the car starts in the morning, that it gets you from point A to B, that it isn't in the shop. But that only appears to be half the equation here. While annoying is a panel gap or interior trim issue affect reliability? That's rather weird.
Looking at the data, in terms of true reliability EVs appear to be about on par with ICE cars which is quite the feat considering they have a 120+ year lead. Hammer out the manufacturing defects and the lead seems easy to achieve.
It's also a little weird to not give any nod to the almost complete lack of maintenance for EVs. Is it not a reliability win that you are able to gas up at home and have no maintenance to do other than tires?
How come Tesla is not on top? It has only a handfull of models compared to legacy automakers and it's mechanicaly more simple. Fanboys allways tout about it and now the facts...
As a Tesla owner I was surprised they're that low. I know probably 30 owners and haven't heard of any maintenance outside of tires and a few panel gaps at delivery.
To pick a random example, I just saw one saying tesla touch screens overheat, leading glue to leak inwards into the screen and making them unresponsive. Are you saying this isn't true then?
Even Uncle Bob is correct some of the time. My point being that media over sensationalizes issues and that basing your view on reality through their port window is risky.
I think Ram makes a pretty good truck these days. The ride is unbelievable. City driving kinda sucks due to the obnoxious size, but if you need to drive 2+ hours across Texas it's unmatched in comfort.
Was this ever contested? Yes, making a comfortable boat is not rocket science.
The list is about reliability. Having soft shocks doesn’t play much into that unless you’re forgetting that the motor mounts need to be replaced way sooner than you would expect because the suspension is absorbing a lot of the rough ride in the cab.
Dodge has taken their trucks into competition with Cadillac and GMC instead of Ford and Toyota in years past.
I’m perennially baffled by CR’s ratings. They are a lagging indicator at best, and skewed/biased at worst. Does anyone actually use this information any more?
It's a lagging indicator - based on past manufacturing, past purchases, past support practices. This is unescapable, but when I buy cars (and stocks) the past is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
It's flawed/biased - the rankings are based on "member" surveys, which makes the sample biased (likely not representative of all car buyers, CR has never attempted to prove it is as far as I know), which is a flaw if you're using it to make (large financial) decisions. Using surveys rather than evidence is perhaps a more fundamental problem. Essentially this "ranking" is of the perception of quality among a subset of people rather than a serious, quantitative ranking.
Hard to answer the question because "reliable" means different things to different people. Infotainment system keeps dropping Bluetooth connections? "Unreliable." Engine seizes at 70 MPH? "Unreliable." Car only has minor mechanical problems, but dealers can't get parts for months? "Unreliable."
A car is too complex a thing to be characterized with a single scalar value.
From TFA: "We study 20 trouble areas, from nuisances—such as squeaky brakes and broken interior trim—to major bummers, such as potentially expensive out-of-warranty engine, transmission, EV battery, and EV charging problems. [...] We weigh the severity of each type of problem to create a predicted reliability score for each vehicle, from 1 to 100."
The article explicitly accounts for the severity of different issues, and assigns them different point values.
You absolutely can reduce it to a single scalar value. You might personally disagree with the weights, but then your calculation is just a little bit different.
And you have to be able to reduce it to a scalar value at the end of the day, or else you'd never be able to make a decision about which car to buy, because you'd be entirely paralyzed when it came to cost/benefit assessments.
Technically a resolute agent can handle a utility function that messed up, but I'm not sure if people in general would be able to self-commit well enough.
Surely Toyota didn't win "most avoided", but rather most recommended?
But same re. infotainment. I have a suction cup MagSafe charging mount for my 2004 4Runner and I patched a bluetooth receiver into the stock head unit. Nothing better than that glorious amber glow when driving late at night. LCD's are blinding by comparison.
Plus this way I don't ever have to enter the iPhone's crippled CarPlay navigation mode, or really deal with CarPlay ever. I just use the phone the same as any other time, no new UI or "safe driving" features to obstruct me.
Yes, they won most recommended, sorry. I spent a while looking for the thread, but can't find it. Here's a very similar one, though, which was in AskReddit vs AskMechanics.
Part of the reason is that Toyota uses really conservative, classic engineering. They sell things that have worked well for decades, and they're hesitant to introduce new features.
That's also why their infotainment systems are notoriously terrible and they lagged years behind everyone else on selling electric cars. Gotta take the good with the bad.
after learning about how conservative Toyota is in general, their interest in hydrogen seems blown out of proportion solely because every other manufacture was so quick to move to electric. Toyota is still in the "figure out what works best long term" phase
I am more of a bike guy, so it was just something I recall reading. I don't have any deep insights into the car industry. I do have a Toyota though and it seems to run pretty well and gets me from place to place when needed.
I don't see how 'Tesla' is not top of the list here. For the 'Trouble Areas' I suspected they're normalizing over the 'length of ownership' which would bias the scores towards older car companies.
Tesla's reliability scores have always been pure and utter trash. This is the best result they have ever had. While other companies have a higher failure rate of major drivetrain components, Tesla is stuck somewhere between reinventing everything (thus lacking legacy knowledge) and not fixing things because they don't have the time/manpower for it. A great example of this is Model 3 Suspension failures. The Model 3 upper control arms are known to fail prematurely and seemingly, there is no fix. By all means, this is an extremely dangerous failure that can cause loss of vehicle control.
Germany has a far more serious inspection process than the US and the result for Tesla is truly a disaster:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-model-3-is-the-car-...
> Tesla's reliability scores have always been pure and utter trash.
Linked article is literally reliability score that puts them dead center in the middle of the pack.
I'm amazed at the investment people have on arguments about Tesla, and this particular canard especially. I mean, they're cars? Sometimes they break? But not often? Some other brands are better. But some are worse!
It's a boring story about boring facts. Why is it so important to you (and so many other people) that this be a hyperbolic affront to all humanity and not just... a car company?
Or... that they're improving rapidly and we should celebrate that? Does that spin not work for you?
Look, again: they make cars. Cars are complicated devices and sometimes break. There's some, but not a lot, of variation between individual manufacturers in the frequency with which they break. And that's not very interesting, and doesn't justify the kind of outrage I'm seeing in threads like this.
Whatever has you guys all puffed up about this, it's not genuine concern for poor Tesla owners who spend 15% more time in the shop, or whatever.
I don't own a Tesla, but just from observing them on the road and in the neighbourhood I can tell there are many reliability issues just with the easily observable features:
* Model S third brake light has single LEDs failing one by one
* Model X doors don't open in sub-zero weather, friends of us had an ICE rental car for weeks last winter
* All models, automatic activation of rear driving lights at night does not work
* All models, cruise control or something will sometimes suddenly slam the brakes on wide open road, so you need to keep good distance
* Model 3 and Y automatic high beams / matrix LED don't function correctly at night if the car is dirty, they blind everyone on the road - I will be very surprised if this doesn't trigger a recall soon
* Model X front driving light clusters failing, I've seen several, all on the passenger side
* Model 3 and Y, rear lights plastic cracking like it's a 1980s Hyundai
> Model 3 and Y automatic high beams / matrix LED don't function correctly at night if the car is dirty, they blind everyone on the road - I will be very surprised if this doesn't trigger a recall soon
Is that what that is? I thought it was my eyes getting older when thinking car headlights are brighter at night than they used to be. We live in an area with a high % of Teslas on the road and this could explain a lot.
Well, yes and no. The first development which is more than ten years old at this point, was to have projector xenon lights that are veery bright below a sharp line. That line is supposed to be kept below eye level of oncoming traffic, and there is a sensor that adjusts the line height. In Europe there is also a requirement to have washers on the headlights if you have this. The system kind of works fine, except when it doesn't, for instance when driving over a curved hill where it cannot work due to geometry, or when a sensor fails.
Then in the past 3-4 years, matrix LED lights became popular, where you have an array of LEDs with narrow beam optics that are aimed in a slight spread, so that each LED covers a specific area of the road ahead. Then there is a sensor that detects oncoming traffic, and dims the one or two LEDs that point towards those cars.
On the Model 3 and Y there seems to be a particularly frequent failure mode with the matrix LED where the lights, or sometimes just one of them, doesn't detect oncoming traffic at all. It also occurs when they are driving behind someone.
Couple of weeks ago I was behind such a Tesla at night, and I had to just let him get far in front of me, because he kept getting blinked at with the ultra-powered high beams of every oncoming semi trailer. Of course the poor driver couldn't do a thing about it.
Well, - frozen doors, LEDs failing, misaligned headlights, radar/camera cruise control suddenly braking for no reason - there are all pretty common and happen to all cars, not just Teslas.
> don't see how 'Tesla' is not top of the list here
Tesla owners love their cars. This means they tend to overlook issues others might find unacceptable. If my car just refused to drive until I restarted it a few times, that would be a catastrophic fuckup. But I’ve seen Tesla owners shrug that away.
Which is fine! There have always been legendary cars with notorious maintenance issues. But base reliability matters to most, and it matters to track that neutrally.
Is it fine though? For people to use machines that are known to put others in danger? I'm referring to "FSD" doing absolutely bullshit things like not detecting objects in the way.
On the contrary, I'm impressed by how much Tesla has improved. They used to be second last, and the effort they've put into improving quality - especially on the Model 3 - is clearly paying off.
Often times "Reliability" is calculated as "fraction of cars that have a recall or other unscheduled maintenance during the initial N months of ownership" and I believe Tesla is actually quite high in this regard?
My Tesla has been much less costly to own over the last three years than my Honda Odyssey: I have had several mobile repair visits for cosmetic issues and some OTA “recalls” but I find it hard to believe that any ICE car is more “reliable” than a Model 3 that didn’t gave obvious QC issues at delivery.
I mean, much less maintenance in absolute terms: no oil changes, transmission trouble, etc. Mostly just replacing windshield wipers and tires. The mobile service issues were all basically cosmetic issues that wouldn’t really impact reliability.
"It's time to get a new car" given that car safety has drastically improved and I have two younger kids in that thing a few times a week but I'm honestly having a really hard time giving it up, something so reliable and plainly functional.
New cars with all their computers and smart technology only look like expensive repairs to me, whereas if something breaks (again, rare!) on my extremely mechanical 4Runner, it's almost always something simple and relatively cheap.
Glad to see Yodas at the top of this list though, when mine finally kicks the bucket, will confidently get another one I suppose.
One of my favorite Onion articles: "Toyota Recalls 1993 Camry Due To Fact That Owners Really Should Have Bought Something New By Now"
https://www.theonion.com/toyota-recalls-1993-camry-due-to-fa...