I am really starting to believe this, and am just too worried about changing my mk3 golf TDI..
It's as tough as old boots, and still looks much better than new cars these days (looks wise).
Everytime I go and post things like " thinking of buying a mk5 golf, or mk4 or a new audi a3" people tell me not to bother..
Don't do it they say, you'll regret it.
Regret it?? On a car worth on average 15k???!!
So here I am, putting off the purchase of a new car. I've got my old R reg golf, No air con, no ABS, no sat nav, in act not very much but the essential: a good strong engine.
So what do you folks thing?
|
Inherent reliabilty resulting from improvements in design and manufacture increases all the time. So in general a more up-to-date car should be more reliable. I just can't believe how reliable cars are these days compared with those in the past. If anybody says to me that they don't make cars like they used to, my reply is "Thank goodness for that"!
--
L\'escargot.
|
i think with some older cars theyre so basic and simple that theres simply less to go wrong
ive had great service from older vw's that are maintained properly, and i must admint id be cheesed off if i got a brand new one that had problems
|
Looking back over 35 years of Fords (Corsair, Zephyr, Cortinas, Capris), VWs (4llLE Variant, VR6), Volvos (144, 244), Audi (100) and MBs (W124 Coupés, W126 300 SE), and probably over half a million miles of driving, I honestly can't recall any failures worse than a noisy wheel bearing (Audi), flat batteries and flat tyres. The other exception was the LSD on my Capri 2.8i, but that was noisy only because Ford had installed the wrong lubricant, and it didn't fail.
Do I put all that down to luck or proper servicing?
|
The thing is that cars were so much easier for the DIYer years ago. The answer to most electrical problems could be found under the distributer cap and a quick adjust of the points (remember those) got you going again. I remember that the thickness of the cardboard in a cig packet was 25thou. Routine DIY maintenance was just part of car ownership then. Never did use the stockings as a fan belt routine. I do think we tend to look back through rose tinted glasses to those endless summers of driving on quiet roads with no speed cameras to a little country pub...sorry about that I just went into a little dream world.
Because cars are more complex now we take them into dealers for servicing. The dealer plugs our car into HAL and out comes a report saying that the off side widget flange needs replacing. So, the car never has a chance to break down as the item has been replaced before it fails.
|
Of course cars are much more reliable these days, and in real terms much much cheaper.
In the old days it was expected to go on a touring holiday with a bag full of spanners and spares, to fettle the car one a week to keep it going.
Wouldnt dream of it now. It never even enters my head now that a car will let me donw and refuse to go.
The reason you hear people complain about cars going wrong these days is because its not expected and people are outraged when it does.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
TVM what do you mean by "these days". Are we talking 10. 20. 30 years?
When I say old cars, I mean up to 15 years old! I agree older cars built in the 60s and 70s could prove to be unreliable.
But when I think of a 1980's to mid 1990's golf this is what I call reliabilty. I mean there is just too much gadgetry in cars nowadays. The only luxury worth having in a car is Air con.
|
I seem to remember HJ himself saying not long ago that people shouldn't expect the latest cars to be as reliable as older ones because they have so many more systems that might give trouble.
A Honda dealer told me back along that they regard early 90s models as better put together and more dependable than later ones. Certainly the difference in build quality between my 92 Accord (American) and 98 Prelude (Japanese) is staggering.
|
I seem to remember HJ himself saying not long ago that people shouldn't expect the latest cars to be as reliable as older ones because they have so many more systems that might give trouble.
They're also designed better, and made with higher quality materials. At one time an engine was completely worn out after 30,000 miles.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
If it's going well. hang on to it. It's 8 years old and is worth more to you (as it's doing the job) than if you sold it. Wait till it starts to get expensive to repair.
It was built in the Fatherland: I had a Y-reg Golf Mark IV TDI estate also built there, which was totally reliable; many Mark IV hatchbacks were manufactured in South Africa where it seems that standards of assembly may not be as high. I'm not sure where the Mark V is built.
Aprilia has explained in another recent thread why the reliability of Japanese cars is not just a perception.
|
I think new cars are more reliable over the first 1-3 or 1-5 years and then you can get lots of complex problems with very expensive subsystems.
In the old days 70s-80s-90s, you could buy an 8-10 year old car and it would be about as reliable/unreliable as it was when under warranty.
|
Going to the pub last night with an Iraqi friend, in his wife's L reg Golf automatic. A mile up the road it started missing and lost all power and the engine coughed a few times, then stalled. Churning the starter caused it to catch, almost, and cough for a few revs. Eventually even this stopped.
My instant diagnosis was fuel starvation, probably a blocked inline filter as the fuel level was very low. In fact once again an instant diagnosis proved wrong: the breakdown man who turned up inside an hour discovered that there was no spark, and blamed the coil pack before towing the thing away.
My friend said the car had just had a 'full service' from his local independent in another part of town. In fact when his wife first bough a Golf (a previous example) I had recommended them to an independent VW specialist whom I knew to be very good, but they stopped going there as it was too far away and 'too expensive'. Every time he sent the car for servicing these days, my friend grumbled, it broke down two days later. I asked him if he drew any conclusion from that.
|
|
|
Ive owned new cars and old cars and the only difference ive noticed is that newer cars generally cost more to fix when they go wrong or need servicing and I dont think they go wrong any less either.
An example: My Mk2 Cavalier needed a cambelt change - cost: £60
My 1995 Escort needs the same - cost: £170
The exhaust failed on my Reliant Rialto - cost: £40 inc VAT
Same happened on the Escort - two sections cost: £271 inc VAT
So what do I drive now? A 1987 Mazda 323 - yes it has a few rusty bits, but they are in hand - mechanically though, most parts are now the second generation having already been replaced as it has a full service history at main dealers and these old jap cars just go on and on if you look after them.
And 1980's cars dont require constant fettling every weekend - mine just starts and goes, for £200.
On the subject of rust - I bought a new suzuki which developed rust within three weeks of me taking delivery and it took four months for suzuki to inspect the car and sort it out, by which time the area affected had doubled - so is that likely to convert me to new cars? Doubtful.
I bought a Volvo 460, not a car known for reliability it has to be said, and in three years of ownership, it never gave me any problems whatsoever, yet I had several new cars over the last five years and not one of them has been fault free.
If I could have any car, id have a 1970's Mercedes, Saab or Volvo, you sure dont get cars made like them anymore. Ok so you need to service them carefully, but you do with modern cars too as theres alot more to be serviced what with the electrics needing a chat with a laptop so often ( usually more often than routine servicing aswell ).
Anyway, back you your original question - id personally, if the car was a good one, spend money on it if it needs tidying up, even get air con retro fitted, have the interior re-trimmed and have the whole car rustproofed professionally - then you will have a car that will last another 8 years and you get a chance to do some tailoring to the cars spec so you get some of the new car buying choices!
Just my ten pence worth, but new cars are poor value even when they are reliable, let alone when they arent.
My dad said to me that I could have bought a new car instead of a Jaguar XJ6 I bought for £1000 - thing is to get a car anywhere near as good, id have needed to spend about £15,000 and there was no way, no matter what went wrong with the Jag, that it would cost me anywhere near 15 grand, especially if you factor in the depreciation too.
|
In 35 years of driving a variety of different cars only two have ever let me down on the road - my 1993 Rover 220 when its battery died and my 1984 Mazda 626 which developed a faulty HT connector when a couple of months old.
All my other cars have had minor faults from time to time, but nothing serious and certainly I have not noticed a marked improvement in this over the years.
Back in the seventies I ran an Audi 80 which had absolutely no faults in almost 3 years, not even a blown bulb.
|
|
.... I forgot the snapped clutch cable on my Fiat 128 3P!
|
Are older cars more reliable?
Depends on the makers imo.
I ran company Ford Granadas (Mk 4?) in the 1980s over some 5 years with not one fault. All the Fords I have run since then : Sierras, Fiesta have been very reliable and 100% fault free.
I had a Mercedes 260E (W124) and altho a great car, it leaked oil from cylinder head gasket and broke a steering column lock. So by my standards very unreliable.
Rovers? Pants. Absolutely dire. I could write a book.
BMWs: owned/drove 3. Faults in my 5 years? Nil.
SWMBO has a Peugeot 106: occasional faults appearing at random. (broken clutch release lever. Accelerator cable)
So my conclusions are: since the 1980s the good manufacturers have achieved very high standards. Occasionally they slip (VAG coils). The best have probably got as good as they are likely to.
The bad are still bad. Or bust.
Go back before 1980 and old cars were reliably unreliable. Dodgy electrics/poor bodywork and indifferent build quality.
I've just bought my first Japanese car: the design and build quality appear streets ahead of Ford. I expect the reliability to be the same: no faults.
madf
|
Depends on the makers imo.
It depends on the quality of the particular car manufacturer's employees (in all disciplines and at all levels) in the relevant era.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
A wise young man, steeped in his family's vehicle-hire company experience, once said to me "Oh, I wouldn't have one of those: too many things to go wrong". I've never forgotten that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
