|
Just wondered other backroomers opinion on this. Were cars such as the mark 2 Cavalier, Golf, Sierra etc, more reliable than their modern day Vectra etc equivalents? Seems that there is too much electronic trickery on cars now, with various sensors packing in frequently, such as vw O2 sensors.
|
No, no, no, a million times no!
New cars (well, Ford at least!) get more reliable all the time. They also get better in all other respects.
(I'm looking for some support here, Adski!)
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
From the mid eighties to a few years ago I had a new car on average every two years, and the improvement in reliability was very marked over the years. It went from breakdowns being the norm to being a rarity in that time. Only downside was that what went wrong on the older cars was often easy to fix youself, whereas in latter years even the simplest jobs meant a visit to a garage.
|
Hmm, I wonder.
1980s diesels were really simple and straightforward affairs, and very reliable, cos they didn't have all the electric guff which gives grief in petrol cars.
Now diesels have tons of fancy electronics, as well as turbos and common rails and whatnot, so I'd be very surprised if they are as reliable.
|
The main difference, as pointed out, was that cars in the 1980s (and the previous two decades) were not necessarily more reliable, but definitely could be simply and quickly fixed in most cases on your driveway or the roadside.
A personal view is that modern cars, despite their complexity, mostly require just the basic servicing and top-up attention and are remarkbly trouble-free for a product made up of many thousands of parts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
I'm not convinced they are 'better in all respects'. For a start they all seem to be getting bigger and in some cases uglier. The new Focus is apparently almost as big as a Sierra despite being in the class size below. It's difficult to see over the high boot when reversing a lot of them too. Also despite the advances in rustproofery they're even more 'throwaway' than before. Reliability often depends on how you treat a vehicle. In 1962-4 I drove home almost every weekend from Germany (700 mile round trip) - in an 848cc Mini! The only interruptions to progress were due to the dreadful crossply tyres and the wretched bypass hose which I got expert at renewing. I did seem to spend several evenings during the week adjusting and renewing things though! When it got to 86K I got £90 for it in PX for an 1100 - Aaaargh!
|
Remembering back to my motoring youth, an engine with 80,000 miles on the clock was considered to be past it's working life, and anything with the magic 100k was looked on a remarkable piece of engineering. If one wore out now at that mileage you would consider you had a Friday afternoon special. It is also easy to forget just how much regular maintenance car's needed then. Gaping and replacing points, renewing rotor arms and condensers, re-setting the timing and adjusting the mixture were the stuff of life for a car owner.
There will alway's be tales of a 19whatever Thingumyjig that got to a million miles without the bonnet being opened, but in general todays cars are fuss free and in real terms cheaper to run than they ever were.
|
|
|
|
Sturt, I ran a Peugeot 305 diesel for 40K miles (from 50k+). Cambelt changed just before I got it, and it never broke down or failed to start. The only replacement parts under my ownership were one new exhaust and one glow plug, plus new front brake pads: I only had to replace a tyre once (after a puncture). Regular oil+filter changes of course, but no other work needed.
I knew several other folks who ran those cars from new up to 150K or 200k, and they were all similarly low maintenance. Not just easily fixed, but didn't need fixing.
By modern standards it was noisy and slow (though a much nicer ride than many newer machines), but I'd be hard-pressed to think of how those cars could have been more reliable. Compare that with the long list of problems with the 307 ...
|
My father became a commercial traveller in the 60s and had four Hillman Minx models over six or seven years, engine capacities ranging from 1300 to the splendid 1,725cc engine that eventually went into the Hillman Hunter (he actually did 67,000 miles in the first year!).
These were followed by the said Hillman Hunter, a Super Mink and both the Austin 1800 and Austin Princess.
He reckoned to average 30mpg in all of them, whether on a long run or in urban areas (no motorways then), used to cross the Snake and Woodhead regularly despite snow and rarely had a breakdown.
One thing that did surprise me was that the Princess actually rusted through in a section of the roof....:-)
I was so impressed by his final Hillman Minx with the 1,725cc engine that I bought one with 34k on the clock for £345 - new price was about £650.
It rarely missed a beat and had well into six figures on the clock when I part-exchanged it for a Vauxhall Magnum 1800. Loved that too...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Although most Peugeot 4-series cars have now disappeared here, I believe there are plenty still running in Africa and other 3rd-world places. Maybe the 5-series will take over from them later - one still sees 405 estates here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My experience was the early eighties were a low point. My 1972 MK 1 Escort was wonderfully simple and reliable but my eighties MKIII had all sorts of reliability problems which the garage seemed incapable of finding or fixing. My cars since the mid eighties have been way better, and still on their first battery,exhaust and clutch after seven or eight years.
|
|
|
I'm too young to contribute to this!!!!
:-D
The only 80s cars I ran were old bangers by then!
|
|
In 1983 I had a maestro. No more need be said.
|
>>(I'm looking for some support here, Adski!)<<
and you'll get it L'escargot. Reliability wise I would always buy Ford as you know you're getting something that will do the job. I say reliability wise because it they all start going down the NEW Focus looks department, I won't be getting one.
--
Adam
|
>>(I'm looking for some support here, Adski!)<< and you'll get it L'escargot. Reliability wise I would always buy Ford as you know you're getting something that will do the job. I say reliability wise because it they all start going down the NEW Focus looks department, I won't be getting one. -- Adam
>>
So Ford cars have always been paragons of reliability have they? The Great British Public are naturally tuned in to buying Fords and have been for decades.
|
I should have added that I have something that I know will do the job too, it is a 10 year old Xantia 1.9 TD. At the same time that we bought the Xantia (which we have had since new) we had a ZX, which my father then had, and now it is with my sister.
The build quality on the Xantia is excellent, with no rattles or squeaks at all. The paintwork is still good and the upholstery has worn well. Mechanically it has been exemplary and, of course, there isn't much in the way of electronics to go wrong with.
|
|
|
|
Just give me another 2.9 Granada, E reg (88). Sold mine when it appeared the abs pump was about to pack up. Got rid for £150 after many happy years. It went on for another few iirc. Luvverly car.
Regards M.
|
1985 Renault 11GTL,
To date, the best car I have ever had when considering reliability and ease of maintenance.
The current Landrover (1993) Discovery which is an 80s design is so simple under the bonnet. No ECUs etc. Hardened LR fans (or the military FTM) don't like the TD5 as there are too many electronic bits to go wrong. If one of those gets a dunking on an offroad day and it's not properly protected - huge embarrisment at asking a £1000 LR to rescue a £15,000 car from the lake!
H
|
My 1982 2.8 Granada (carb) runs like clockwork and rides so smoothly compared to modern luxury cars that crash their way over bumps due to their over firm suspension!
It's very easy to work on due to space around the engine. If I look under the bonnet of my 2003 Astra 2.0 dti, the engine looks shoehorned in and I wouldn't be able to get a mini socket set anywhere near the engine!!
How many 23 year old Mondeos will we see around in the future I ask??!!
|
I think the amazing thing is that virtually all cars have been incredibly reliable, and have been so for decades.
Just look at other domestic articles. Computers are at about the stage of reliability of cars in 1900. They crash every 100 trips, throw up error messages, have to have software re-loaded, need constant fixes and patches from the manufacturers, and molly-codled against bugs and viruses.
Any car will work reliably for 10 years, and most models always have. Some, like Volvos and Ford Granadas, will work for 20 years. My Triumph has been in daily use without major repair for forty years.
I am sure it is true that today's cars are more reliable in everyday terms than any previously, but how long will they last? I challenge anyone to name a car today they would be happy to rely on for everyday use for the next forty years.
|
I am always amazed by just how reliable cars can be, being kept outside in all weathers and often abused/not serviced etc.
Cars certainly are more reliable than they were 20 odd years ago,but as has been mentioned they were easier to fix- especially at the roadside back then.
I think that by reading the posts in the technical section of sites like this, then you might get the impression that modern cars are electrical breakdowns waiting to happen, and are incredibly difficult to fix. The truth is that the overwhelming majority are more or less totally trouble free.
|
I have had 2 80's cars, a 1982 Buick Regal turbo V6, and a 1989 Ford Mustang GT V8. The 2 90's cars I have/had were a 1993 GMC Sierra V8 and currently a 1995 BMW 520i. The 90's cars were/are far more reliable than the 80's cars were, and the 90's cars have had much more mileage put on them.
Just for the record there was nothing that I could do by the roadside on the 80's cars that I couldn't also do on the 90's cars.
|
I have had 2 80's cars, a 1982 Buick Regal turbo V6, and a 1989 Ford Mustang GT V8. The 2 90's cars I have/had were a 1993 GMC Sierra V8 and currently a 1995 BMW 520i. The 90's cars were/are far more reliable than the 80's cars were,
I'm not surprised, given the 80s cars you had!
Seriously, though, don't we need to compare like for like? What problems used to be more or less unsurprising after, say, 50k miles that are now almost unheard of until 70, 80 ... 100k?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everything in the 1980's was more reliable - including this 1988 vintage keyboa
|
If they were British my experience everything needed repair or replacement at sickeningly early intervals.The body rot was so rapid I could not keep up with repairs.
As for reliable - well if you mean breakdowns- not bad at all.
Points/ignition usually gave some warning of impending doom.
Modern cars are much less troublesome until they go wrong in an incoherent and non DIY way.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
|
|
|
