What's the most over-engineered "mainstream" car ever built?

[scarble]

GravelBen said:

According to PH everything rusts, or maybe its just something about the UK climate/road treatments? MX5s don't have any significant reputation for rust in NZ.
I don't think they're a real contender for this thread, but they are built very tough for a small, light car and its impressive that the engine internals can handle double the original power when you bolt a turbo onto it.

We grit our roads with salt. Salt makes stuff rust. Some cars are better protected for this than others. Particularly cars built for a domestic market with similar practices.
In NZ I don't think roads are salted, not sure it's ever below freezing there..

[Mr Mastodon Farm]

Aston Martin Cygnet

[scarble]

I don't think screwing a differently shaped plastic bumber/grill onto a Toyota Aygo and badly gluing in a leather interior counts as over-engineering. Mechanically it's still an Aygo, which might arguably be a contender. Basic Toyotas do seem to last well. They're the inverse of German/British cars, the bits you do see are cheap c**p, the bits that matter are expensive high quality components

Edited by scarble on Thursday 24th July 13:51

[Sir Fergie]

scarble said:

Sorry but you're wrong, when anyone other than you uses the phrase "over engineered" they mean something built to perform above and beyond the task intended.

Agreed - overengineered means - its better then it needs to be.

For example - a Sierra might last 10 years - and that's seen as okay - a Volvo 240 on the other hand could last for over 20 years with decent maintenance - therefore the Volvo is over engineered - its build stronger to last longer then the Sierra - but the Sierra is still seen as okay - hence the 240 is a lot better then it needed to be - so over engineered.

I think over engineered is a good thing in this regard - I like the idea of having something that will do 300,000 miles or more without issue.

Many manufacturers don't agree however

[aka_kerrly]

80s and early 90s German and late 90s to 00s, Japanese.

If they didn't rust then there is no real reason why these cars aren't still on the road now.

[GreatGranny]

Pickled said:

You can normally tell how well engineered something by how easy it is to take apart 20 years later.

Good point.

I had a E21 315 years ago and it was a pleasuer to work on.
Bolts always came off without any problems, it just felt solid apart from the rust in the boot.
One for the 'Cars I wish I Kept' Thread.

My V70 alwso falls into that catagory.

Took it from 125k to 160k and it felt solid still , especially inside.
Front suspension parts the only wealness.
The 2.5 10v 5 cyclinder engine was very understressed producing 140bhp.

[BGarside]

GravelBen said:

According to PH everything rusts, or maybe its just something about the UK climate/road treatments? MX5s don't have any significant reputation for rust in NZ.

I don't think they're a real contender for this thread, but they are built very tough for a small, light car and its impressive that the engine internals can handle double the original power when you bolt a turbo onto it.

In the UK we have road salt (which is down for 5-6 months of the year here in Scotland), more potholes, lower temperatures, more stop-start driving conditions, higher speeds on the motorways.

UK driving conditions are much tougher on cars than in NZ, unless you drive the gravel roads all the time (yes, I lived in NZ for 4 years....).

[MrMoonyMan]

Had an Audi A1 for a long weekend round the Highlands a few weeks back.

Came away from that really impressed with the design touches and overall fit and finish. Felt leap years ahead of other smaller (and mid size) cars in term of build.

[HarryFlatters]

GravelBen said:

According to PH everything rusts, or maybe its just something about the UK climate/road treatments? MX5s don't have any significant reputation for rust in NZ.

I don't think they're a real contender for this thread, but they are built very tough for a small, light car and its impressive that the engine internals can handle double the original power when you bolt a turbo onto it.

My Mk2.5 rusted after 3 years.

If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have gotten rid. I owned it from 2005 until earlier this year and apart from the rust and a crank sensor, nothing at all went wrong.

[Rammy76]

aka_kerrly said:

80s and early 90s German and late 90s to 00s, Japanese.

If they didn't rust then there is no real reason why these cars aren't still on the road now.

When the turbo blew on my old Passat, a mate loaned me a 1997 Toyota Corolla.

This thing had lived on a farm all it's life and was scruffy, with only enough maintenance to keep it running and passing its MOT. It had covered 118000 miles and I was dreading driving it as I didn't have a clue what to expect.

Although it had been sitting a while the little 1.3 burst into life without any issue and settled into a smooth idle. The clutch/gearbox felt light and smooth to use and it even had power steering (although little else in the way of luxuries!).

I had to do a 320mile trip in this car and it did it without missing a beat, it felt as if it would run forever. It was surprisingly nippy and seemed to like to rev. This is the typical engineering of 90's Japanese cars I remember from owning Honda and Toyota's from that era.

I actually grew really fond of that little car, it had no luxuries or any real appeal as a car yet I loved the honestly of it and am sure it would've gone on for a long time.

Isn't she lovely

[ging84]

scarble said:

Sorry but you're wrong, when anyone other than you uses the phrase "over engineered" they mean something built to perform above and beyond the task intended.

If only engineering was that simple

So anyone other than me would consider using a fairly standard 17mm M12 x 1.5 wheel bolt to be over engineering, when a custom made bolt with a non standard thread, and head would do?

do you also think an engineer is someone who repairs boilers?

[white_goodman]

Sir Fergie said:

Agreed - overengineered means - its better then it needs to be.

For example - a Sierra might last 10 years - and that's seen as okay - a Volvo 240 on the other hand could last for over 20 years with decent maintenance - therefore the Volvo is over engineered - its build stronger to last longer then the Sierra - but the Sierra is still seen as okay - hence the 240 is a lot better then it needed to be - so over engineered.

I think over engineered is a good thing in this regard - I like the idea of having something that will do 300,000 miles or more without issue.

Many manufacturers don't agree however

Thanks. You explained that better and more succintly than I did in the OP!

And yes, I forgot about the Volvo 200/700/850/900 series (in fact any Volvo prior to about 1995 with the exception of anything with a Renault engine - they were crap!)

Pre-GM Saab too (I seem to remember reading about a classic Saab 900 and a Volvo P1800 with 1,000,000 miles+ on the clock).

Defender/Series Landrover - well they should be (simple, the military use them, you see them all around the world and the survival rate is very high but at the same time I hear of some people having lots of problems, so maybe the older ones you see have an element of Trigger's broom about them)!

Pushing the "mainstream" thing a bit but I also hear the pre water-cooled 911s and the Porsche 944/968 were very over-engineered cars.

Would have said more Japanese stuff in terms of mechanical and electrical reliability but many 1980s/1990s Hondas/Toyotas seem to have rusted out by now.

In my experience classic Subaru Imprezas seem to take abuse well with few problems and the 2.0 turbo can achieve some high, reliable power figures without issues.

I'm surprised a few people mentioned the W140 S-Class, as I thought this era (W202, W210, W140) ushered the decline of Mercedes. Wasn't the W126 the last "bulletproof" S-Class?

I buy modern cars for the performance, economy, safety and features but I have still yet to drive a modern post-1995 car (even a premium car) that feels like it would romp past 100,000 miles without major issue in the same way as a 1980s Mercedes/BMW/Audi/Volvo would. Perhaps this was the sweet spot between modern performance, reliability and durability? Bizarrely, if I was going to buy a new car to rack up 100,000 miles at my own expense, I wouldn't buy a VW, BMW, Mercedes or even a Honda or Toyota. I would probably buy a Hyundai or Kia, as they seem to have the confidence to stand by their product when it comes to longevity!

VW/Audi certainly give a good illusion of quality (soft touch plastics, doors that thunk etc) and as an ex-VW salesman, I was very impressed with the new Phaeton and thought that it felt like a better-engineered car than the contemporary 7-Series/S-Class/A8 with the added kudos of sharing some architecture with Bentley but how this worked out long-term I'm not so sure.

The first-generation A-series Audis (A4/A6/A8) still felt like highly over-engineered cars but was this the case in reality?

Edited by white_goodman on Thursday 24th July 16:16

[white_goodman]

skyrover said:

American HD pickups trucks are also pretty over-engineered.

The RAM 3500 is rated to tow 14,000 KG

Edited by skyrover on Thursday 24th July 08:13

That is pretty impressive but transmissions and front suspensions are known weak points on Dodge/Ram pickups.

No, the longest-lasting (most over-enginnered) American pickup is the 1990s Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra.



They do rust but are made from very heavy-gauge steel and seem to last forever. My BIL just sold his 1992 Sierra very much like this one for $7500 with 550,000km on the clock (granted the engine and transmission were newer than that though and it had something pretty special under the bonnet)! Thousands of these still in daily use in USA and Canada!

[white_goodman]

ging84 said:

I think the OP and this thread seem to be confusing over engineering with good design

An over engineered car is not one which 15 years and 200k miles is still going strong as a good car of it's day, and in many of the examples given, only really advances towards greater efficiency and obviously there slightly dated appearances stop them remaining a good car of any day.

An over engineered car is one which solved problems which didn't exist, to the detriment of the car, eg making it too heavy, too expensive or too complicated.

I'd say the BMW E39 is a good example, it was much more hightech than the previous generation and now if you look at them now they have something of a reputation for electrical issues, older bmws also had a bit of a reputation for electrical issues, but the e34s are considered a very safe bet, if it wasn't for the very dated appearance and the lack of decent diesel models i suspect e34s would be be far more popular old barges than e39s.
Basically they took a step backwards before they could take the next steps forward

Not sure whether I agree with your definition but it's in interesting point. Would VW creating the ultimate (but fragile) diesel engine, the 5.0 V10 and then quietly dropping it a couple of years later be a good example of this?

[stephen300o]

ging84 said:

scarble said:

Sorry but you're wrong, when anyone other than you uses the phrase "over engineered" they mean something built to perform above and beyond the task intended.

If only engineering was that simple

So anyone other than me would consider using a fairly standard 17mm M12 x 1.5 wheel bolt to be over engineering, when a custom made bolt with a non standard thread, and head would do?

do you also think an engineer is someone who repairs boilers?

My shoe has a hole, I'm going to get it repaired.

[irish boy]

My mum bought a brand new merc w124 estate in 1990 and dad bought a volvo 240 estate the same month, They are both still driving them and they are running/looking so well they see no need to change them. My vote goes to those 2 cars.

[P-Jay]

ging84 said:

I think the OP and this thread seem to be confusing over engineering with good design

An over engineered car is not one which 15 years and 200k miles is still going strong as a good car of it's day, and in many of the examples given, only really advances towards greater efficiency and obviously there slightly dated appearances stop them remaining a good car of any day.

An over engineered car is one which solved problems which didn't exist, to the detriment of the car, eg making it too heavy, too expensive or too complicated.

I'd say the BMW E39 is a good example, it was much more hightech than the previous generation and now if you look at them now they have something of a reputation for electrical issues, older bmws also had a bit of a reputation for electrical issues, but the e34s are considered a very safe bet, if it wasn't for the very dated appearance and the lack of decent diesel models i suspect e34s would be be far more popular old barges than e39s.
Basically they took a step backwards before they could take the next steps forward

Based on that, I'd give a Vote for the 700 series Volvos - we ran one to tow around a golf racer for a couple of years and just abused it - yeah it was tough, but beneath the surface most stuff look crude and agricultural - I suppose you could say it was perhaps under-designed and over-engineered - where as a contemporary Japanese saloon might use a bit of shaped and pressed steel riveted in place to hold some obscure auxiliary pipe / cable in place, Volvo would use some huge bit of bar held on with 12mm bolts or something.

Yeah in the once in it's lifetime, time when you have to remove it, it's easier to unbolt the thing rather than take out the rivets but for 7000 days of it's lifetime it's a too heavy, too expensive solution which just added to the terrible performance and economy and it's naval handling.

If you look about in the dirty bits of older Jap stuff it all looks cheap and flimsy, yet they solder on, year after year never complaining because someone, somewhere tested it and decided exactly how strong it needed to be, rather than just add lots of material until they knew it could never break.

[T0MMY]

scarble said:

Saw one on Tuesday. Broke down right in front of me.
How many Coras Bs are still going? Is that reliability or did they just sell loads?
Seem to be a lot of Mk6 Escorts about too and mine took a lot of punishment, clutch adjuster aside it held up well.

One breakdown does not an unreliable car make Mine is thrashed mercilessly on trackdays, has been crudely DIY turboed to 50% more power than standard and in 3 years and 40,000 miles has only had one breakdown (CAS failed which cost £40 and 30 mins to fix).

And to put it in perspective, many of the mk1s you see around are contemporaries of the Nova and Escort mk4/5, not the Corsa B and the mk6. I don't see many Novas but I see numerous early MX5s every single day.

I do think it's quite impressive, but as I said, they're used differently and looked after better no doubt.

Edited by T0MMY on Thursday 24th July 17:35

[white_goodman]

scarble said:

How many Coras Bs are still going? Is that reliability or did they just sell loads?
Seem to be a lot of Mk6 Escorts about too and mine took a lot of punishment, clutch adjuster aside it held up well.

Actually, I would say you don't see that many Corsa Bs or Mk6 Escorts around any more, bearing in mind how many were sold. Scrappage scheme perhaps? Didn't even Mk6 Escorts rust out to the extent that it wasn't viable to get them through an MOT?

[daveofedinburgh]

Mkiv Supra. Engineered to be tuned to silly power. Only ever seem to rust on the tailgate around the rear window, never see one looking minging underneath. I suspect the only reason were seeing ropey examples now is the type of owner they are attracting. NAs in particular are cropping up looking unloved and abused. For a big, fast coupe of its era, it's right up there engineering wise.

I had an NA with a Getrag 6-speed box, couldn't have broken it if I'd tried.