>>no timing belts,
I don't se your problem with these, I prefer them to Nissan timing chains.
|
>>no timing belts I don't se your problem with these I prefer them to Nissan timing chains.
They only became a problem when a certain French outfit took them over!!
Everyone seems to have a go at Nissan timing chains, but the fact is that this was a problem affecting one engine, and over a period of 18 months. Like engines from a number of other manufacturers, the issue was caused by poor quality plastic tensioners.
Unlike GM, however, Nissan didn't take five years to finally admit there was a problem.
|
|
|
|
Sorry I didn't understand your earlier cryptic comment...... ;-)
I don't believe a word of it. You gnu exactly what I meant. :-)
(I don't believe the bit about Chrysler 300C engines, either.)
|
|
Engines (..and all the other bits) are made by highly skilled designers & engineers & produced by the most up-to-date mthods & processes. They have service & consumable item schedules planned to maximise their economical life. Oil companies make products to protect & prolong their life & fuel to produce power - but, hey - guess what - it's all down to luck how long the simplest or most complicated or most expensive will last, no science whatsoever. A lottery in other words.
|
Engines (..and all the other bits) are made by highly skilled designers & engineers
Unfortunately my experience of 40 years automotive development tells me this is not always true. Nowadays some companies recruit their staff straight out of university, with no practical experience whatsoever. They often have no knowledge of custom and practice, and no sense of proportion. In this respect, computer aided design has a lot to answer for. It enables small details to be drawn to a large scale and this give a false impression of what the details will look like in practice. The diaphragm in the carburettor of my mower is a classic example. The sealing lands are so narrow that you're lucky if they meet up properly with the mating surfaces of the adjacent metal parts. The service agent who rectified my mower told me that he often had to fit new diaphragms to brand new mowers.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I had a 1996 Nissan Maxima 3-litre V6 which was utterly reliable for the 125k miles that I had it. Didn't even need oil or water top-ups between services. Can't say what it was like to work on, as I had it serviced by the Nissan agent from whom I bought it, at the times stipulated in the manual. They seem to have done the work thoroughly { or I have been outrageously lucky!!}
The 4-litre Fords that I had in Australia in the 1990's were likewise totally reliable, although, as they were company lease cars, turned over at 60k miles, I can't comment on their longer-term reliability. Being straight 6 N-S, there seemed to be plenty of access space under the bonnet for ease of maintenance {although some Australians who have worked on the Falcons may wish to comment.}
It appears to me that the old design adage of "Now add simplicity" has now perforce gone out the window, leaving an apparent reduction in reliability and simplicity of maintenance. By today's requirements, both the above engines are relatively agricultural, and it will be interesting to see how my more modern Toyota engine behaves. It looks so jammed in that anything other than routine servicing looks to be a nightmare.
|
My partner's Peugeot 106 diesel engine (TUD5) has been completely trouble free and remains so at 132k miles. The only work done has been 2 cambelts with tensioner kit/water pump second time, and a few glowplugs.
The cam cover has never been off the engine which still runs as well as it did when new. It needs no oil between changes and gives 65 mpg mixed running. The (Bosch) fuel system has not been touched other than for filter changes.
5k oil and filter changes have probably helped - The exposed cams visible through the oil filler hole look like mirrors with no apparent wear.
659.
|
|
The SOHC 1.8 Vauxhall petrol engine was pretty robust, simple and easy to work on.
|
Properly maintained and used properly modern car engines are more reliable than we have any right to expect.
We look back with our rose tinted specs inplace at some car we had decades ago. It's the cost of labour that dictates when our cars are worn out not weather or not they can be repared
|
ive just got back from ordering a c4 piccasso 7str in vtr+ spec.
i hope all is rosy but i beleive that citroen will be just as reliable as ford, vw etc.
only time will tell
|
I remember "simple" engines of the 1960s and 1970s.
They were carp, wore easily, burned fuel, and oil and were worn out by 80,000 miles if they staggered on that far. And usually peed oil over the road. Ditto clutches etc.
Most modern engines are superb: just service them and avoid Renault diesels , top of the range French electrics and anything made by a maker who is losing money bigtime (cos they will cut corners in design and production).
I note all the horror stories about Toyota engines on both the Toyoat car clubs and this site... as opposed to frequent silence of Renault and Ford diesels. :-)
Finding reliable cars is not rocket science. There are literally tens of car sites which give free advice: - HJ is one of the best. A 20 minute scroll through popular models in a size range tells almost all you need.
I am , however, unsurprised by people doing no research before they buy and then finding they have bought a poc. Most people choose cars on functional things like colour and shape..and cup holders.
:-)
I find a simple A3 sheet laying out key wants and a spreadsheet of plus/minus points does it all...Take a week to be thorough
madf
Edited by madf on 27/10/2007 at 17:20
|
|
I had concerns about French electrics, but my 407 coupe with electric/automatic everything has been utterly faultless.
|
My concerns aboiut French electrics relate not to new cars but 4 years and over when age and damp affect badly designed or cheap or misplaced components .
Even the French seem to be able to get new cars to work for most of 3 years from new: it's what happens after that is key..
My experience is compared to Ford or Toyota the French design things in the least user /maintenance way possible. See their Diesel EOLSYS (sp?) system.
madf
|
remember "simple" engines of the 1960s and 1970s.
>>They were carp, wore easily, burned fuel, and oil and were worn out by 80,000 miles
I think one of the main reasons they wore out so quickly was the quality of the fuel and oils available then. I've run cars from this era for years and engine wear has not been a problem, for the same reason de-coking is no longer needed. They still leak oil though!
|
I remember "simple" engines of the 1960s and 1970s. They were carp wore easily burned fuel and oil and were worn out by 80 000 miles if they staggered on that far. And usually peed oil over the road. Ditto clutches etc.
Yep, I remember most cars having a thick black oil patch under them and many people having an assortment of worn engine parts in their shed/garage.
Neil
|
The old Ford 1.8 Endura diesel must take some beating as well. Yes it's slow, noisy, old fashioned etc, but utterly dependable and tough as old boots. Mine's done 135k now, starts in two or three revolutions in all weathers, and it still doesn't need oil top ups between services or smoke excessively. I was told by a mechanic once that he only ever knew these to "die" through timing belt failure.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
I remember "simple" engines of the 1960s and 1970s. They were carp wore easily burned fuel and oil and were worn out by 80 000 miles if they staggered on that far. And usually peed oil over the road.
Quite true.I remember taking a friend to a breakers yard during the seventies. We were allowed to wander about in those days and remove the part he wanted ourselves.
Most cars had only 60-70K on the clock.
Imagine the fuss we would make if a modern car was washed out at this mileage- and that`s not mentioning the rust problem we had then.
-------------------------------------
hurrying on- to a receding future
|
I daresay any modern CR diesel is about 10 times more reliable than any petrol engine ten years ago, and probably more reliable than petrol engines of today. Do we have any hard statistics, or is it all rumour?
I'll grant you that the shiny CR diesel might be rather a lot more to fix if it goes wrong.
|
I daresay any modern CR diesel is about 10 times more reliable than any petrol engine ten years ago
Definitely not. Try reversing the figures.
>>and probably more reliable than petrol engines of today.
They wish! I wouldn't like Ford or Renault warranty payouts!
>>Do wehave any hard statistics or is it all rumour?
Friend of mine is currently fixing CR's (mainly still under warranty) for local main dealers. It is virtually unknown to see a petrol engine with major fuel system fault; sensor faults yes, but not catastrophic failure. OTOH he is getting at least one Ford TDCI a week from the main dealer, and this is the 'overspill' they are not fixing themselves - not to mention steady work doing DMF's. CRD's just introduce a whole genre of faults that you simply don't get with petrol engines.
|
|
To answer the original question I would say something Japanese, with a petrol engine, and no turbo. Standard transmission. That should be hassle free.
|
|
Well that's going to be something like a Mitsubishi one then, plenty around including all those dirivitives in Malaysia etc.
|
I daresay any modern CR diesel is about 10 times more reliable than any petrol engine ten years ago, and probably more reliable than petrol engines of today. Do we have any hard statistics, or is it all rumour?
-------
Is it not the other way round? CRDs are very prone to engine failure: BMWs, Hondas, et al.
Older petrol engines are relatively simple in comparison, possibly because their design was not based on meeting Euro emission standards, combined with a demand for power.
|
I daresay any modern CR diesel is about 10 times more reliable than any petrol engine ten years ago and probably more reliable than petrol engines of today.
I don't think you work in the motor trade or you would have a very different view.
Petrol engines have changed very little in the last ten years. They've reached a plateau and have been been honed rather than evolved.
The few "revolutionary new ideas" have crashed and burned and in the every-day environment that they find themselves, they just work. Problems are very rare.
Diesels have had a much harder time. Inherently dirty; the attempts to clean them up have forced them to get so horrendously complex that any engineer worth his salt would have dropped the whole idea as impractical and simply started again.
They are only suited to the development lab; they just don't work in the real world. Everything has to be perfect - or it's total disaster. Real-world operating conditions of heat, vibration, salt and dust exact a terrible toll on all their complex and fragile componentry. Very few garage techs can even understand them - let alone fix them.
They're now so laden with emissions clutter for Euro 4 that they're not significantly more economical that the equivalent petrol - and, at the first serious problem, they die - "beyond economic repair."
Who in their right mind would want to buy a tired six-year-old HDi?
Edited by Screwloose on 28/10/2007 at 22:18
|
Who in their right mind would want to buy a tired six-year-old HDi?
Someone that's prepared to take a risk. If its going to have an even chance of giving 30k miles before something too complex goes wrong to make it worthwhile fixing then there'll always be people that will be prepared to spend some money on them If there's still some scrap value in it once the fuel pump or injector system has failed then that's a bonus.
30,000 miles at 50mpg means 600 gallons of fuel
30,000 miles at 30mpg means 1000 gallons of fuel
That's about a £400 saving, so it'd be worth at least £400 to someone prepared to take a punt. Most likely to be a natural gambler that would buy one.
I can see that the current premiums for diesel cars will reduce and soon we'll be paying premiums for a petrol over a diesel.
However I still see a large number of high mileage tdci's going through the block having done 100k miles without any real problems. I've got no idea how many cars did 100k miles in their first three years 20 years ago, sometimes I think that we look back at the past with rose tinted glasses.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
Quote:-
"They are only suited to the development lab; they just don't work in the real world. Everything has to be perfect - or it's total disaster.
at the first serious problem, they die - "beyond economic repair.
Who in their right mind would want to buy a tired six-year-old HDi?"
Well, I dunno - I don't often contrib on here and it usually seems to be to defend HDis. We have 3 in the family - a 95k Xantia Exclusive, a 40k 1.4 C2 and a 12k Berlingo which followed a 40k Berlingo. Let's discount all but the Xantia as "low mileage" but none have had an engine problem. Xantia is a 2000W reg and has towed a caravan round Europe each year as well as its UK mileage. Engine has never been touched apart from routine servicing -oil, filters and a cambelt. It doesn't use a drop of oil between services, still on original glowplugs etc, and nomally does about 50mpg (even though SWMBO's favourite saying is "blimey, I'm doing 90, you'd never believe it would you?) and about 35- 38mpg with a van on the back.
I'd buy another without any hesitation - good performance, good economy and totally reliable.
It has followed other totally reliable Cit XUD engines with 170k, 140k and 100k - none of which required more than a few glowplugs (6 between them), cambelt, and oil changes at specified intervals.
I expect my next post will be to ask Aprilia for the name of his mate who repairs HDis, but after 5 years (bought second hand) of faultless motoring, I don't think our Xantia HDi owes us much.
--
Phil
|
30 000 miles at 50mpg means 600 gallons of fuel 30 000 miles at 30mpg means 1000 gallons of fuel That's about a £400 saving
At £1 per gallon? I think you mean more like £1800 saving.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Comment for Piggy :-
I must have been outrageously lucky even then. First new vehicle bought with my own hard-earned was a 1965 Singer Vogue estate, 1600cc Rootes alloy-head engine 4-speed manual with Laycock overdrive on 3 & 4. Ran it for 125,000 miles until I required something with better towing capacity. { See clutch replacement below }.
Non-routine events were :- one decoke, one clutch, one set rear wheel bearing replacement, one piston replacement, one radiator core. Otherwise routine servicing. Did all the work myself, which may explain why it was always reliable. [ Garages were no more reliable then than now.] Fuel consumption good for its time. No oil deposition or excessive use.
Sold it in favour of a Datsun 260C. Big hulking thing, but a piece of cake to work on.
|
As one of the poor unfortunates who has had a Ford diesel fail in a big way my view is that diesels are too technically complicated for their own good. I shall not be buying another. The garage technicians seems totally confounded by the technology. I have sought second opinion from an independent diesel repairer and even he is telling me that these engines are prone to be unreliable and difficult to repair. Had I known all of this at the time of purchase then I would have opted for a petrol engine instead. Much is made of the potential 50mpg economy, which I have never actually achieved, but little is said of the astronomical repair costs associated with this claimed economy. I am surprised that motoring journalists are not highlighting this issue because I am sure many buyers are ignorant of the potential costs and like me they see diesels as "economy cars".
I have no doubt that many owners have a good long-term relationship with a trouble-free example of the breed, but please spare a thought for those few percent of us who find themselves with a nightmare on four wheels.
|
|
|
