What's the most over-engineered "mainstream" car ever built?
Discussion
As above, you would hope your money no object cars: Rolls Royce, Bentley, Veyron, McLaren were built to last but how about more normal "mainstream" cars?
I can't say I have driven anything post-1995 that felt built to last. 1980s VW Polos and Golfs felt pretty bombproof and many still survive but my 2000 Golf was a basket case at 7 years old and my dad's 2006 Golf was starting to feel a bit ropey at 4 years old (but it had done a lot of miles). Toyota has a good reputation for making tough, durable cars but we've just bought a new Toyota and I can't see it still being around in 20 years time. It's not really in the manufacturer's best interests to over-engineer their new cars now, as they want you to buy a new one in 3-5 years time.
I suppose by over-engineered, I mean feels built to last, reliable, durable, needs few replacement parts or the ones they have last a long time and cope with a lot of abuse. A few suggestions:
Toyota Hilux/Landcruiser
Lexus LS400
1980s Polo/Golf
pre-1990s BMW/Mercedes/Audi (although Audi were potentially still over-engineering cars right through the 1990s before they became rebodied VWs, ahem, Audi TT)
Peugeot 504/505 (my 205 GTi was still going strong after 11 years and 170,000 hard-driven miles, so mechanically very strong but electrics/trim not so. Lots still survive though and you can't say that of many small cars of that age).
I can't say I have driven anything post-1995 that felt built to last. 1980s VW Polos and Golfs felt pretty bombproof and many still survive but my 2000 Golf was a basket case at 7 years old and my dad's 2006 Golf was starting to feel a bit ropey at 4 years old (but it had done a lot of miles). Toyota has a good reputation for making tough, durable cars but we've just bought a new Toyota and I can't see it still being around in 20 years time. It's not really in the manufacturer's best interests to over-engineer their new cars now, as they want you to buy a new one in 3-5 years time.
I suppose by over-engineered, I mean feels built to last, reliable, durable, needs few replacement parts or the ones they have last a long time and cope with a lot of abuse. A few suggestions:
Toyota Hilux/Landcruiser
Lexus LS400
1980s Polo/Golf
pre-1990s BMW/Mercedes/Audi (although Audi were potentially still over-engineering cars right through the 1990s before they became rebodied VWs, ahem, Audi TT)
Peugeot 504/505 (my 205 GTi was still going strong after 11 years and 170,000 hard-driven miles, so mechanically very strong but electrics/trim not so. Lots still survive though and you can't say that of many small cars of that age).
white_goodman said:
I suppose by over-engineered, I mean feels built to last, reliable, durable, needs few replacement parts or the ones they have last a long time and cope with a lot of abuse. A few suggestions:
Toyota Hilux/Landcruiser
Its not that the car is over engineered, it is down to the design and manufacturing philosophy of Toyota in this instance. a 1998 land cruiser has the same switch gear as my dads 59 plate hilux etcToyota Hilux/Landcruiser
The Benz 190 was the last Mercedes built to a standard instead of a price. 80's vw were as reliable as anything ever built. An xud engine is virtually guaranteed to outlast every other component of the car, including the driver. If I had to choose one car that carried on far, far longer than anyone expected, or indeed wanted, it would probably be the Nissan Bluebird.
Edited by johnny fotze on Wednesday 23 July 21:18
I was going to say the early to mid-nineties Corolla, I never processed a claim in 5 years on them when I worked for Toyota. I did one claim on as LS400 in that time, for a waterpump, one of the few Toyota occasional failings. Toyota dealers have, or had, one of the smallest parts departments I've ever seen, they only stock service stuff, it's all they ever sold!
W123 Merc.
Volvo 240
I know someone alluded to the fact that the 190 was the last Merc built to a standard not a price - but I was in a 1986 W124 230 E - which frankly felt f
king amazing - way back in 96/97 - it was the worst possible colour combination too - white with a black interior - still felt amazing. Been in a number of W124 taxis here in Ireland down the years since - and they've always felt awesome. I realise the post facelift W124 - ie at the time they started calling them E class isn't quite so good. But pre facelift - yes I think it qualifies
Can't overlook the Audi 80 1.9 tdi either I would say - old school Audi build quality with the 1.9 tdi powering it like a boss into the next century
.
Volvo 240
I know someone alluded to the fact that the 190 was the last Merc built to a standard not a price - but I was in a 1986 W124 230 E - which frankly felt f
king amazing - way back in 96/97 - it was the worst possible colour combination too - white with a black interior - still felt amazing. Been in a number of W124 taxis here in Ireland down the years since - and they've always felt awesome. I realise the post facelift W124 - ie at the time they started calling them E class isn't quite so good. But pre facelift - yes I think it qualifiesCan't overlook the Audi 80 1.9 tdi either I would say - old school Audi build quality with the 1.9 tdi powering it like a boss into the next century
.Edited by Sir Fergie on Wednesday 23 July 21:30
In my experience of working with modern vehicle manufacturers, car parts and subsequentially car systems are engineered to not fail within their warranty period and reasonable vehicle life cycle i.e 100,000 miles. Vehicle durability tests will take this into account and anything that fails is modified to cope. With higher performance vehicles the tests can also include track abuse tests to make sure that the vehicle does not suffer failures that would be seen from being constantly used on track.
Obviously because car parts and systems are tested to not fail within say 5 years and or 100,000 miles that doesn't mean that as soon as the car is over 5 years old or does more than 100,000 miles that the vehicle will definitely suffer failures it just means that there won't be a cost impact to the manufacturer if there is because of warranty replacements etc.
So in some cases even though the part or system doesn't fail in it's warranty period, the engineering that has been done to make sure that is the case could also mean the part will not fail after 15 years or 200,000 miles. You have to remember though that with any product if it is totally bomb proof and never needs replacing that the manufacturer isn't doing themselves favours for the future when they want to sell more.
Obviously because car parts and systems are tested to not fail within say 5 years and or 100,000 miles that doesn't mean that as soon as the car is over 5 years old or does more than 100,000 miles that the vehicle will definitely suffer failures it just means that there won't be a cost impact to the manufacturer if there is because of warranty replacements etc.
So in some cases even though the part or system doesn't fail in it's warranty period, the engineering that has been done to make sure that is the case could also mean the part will not fail after 15 years or 200,000 miles. You have to remember though that with any product if it is totally bomb proof and never needs replacing that the manufacturer isn't doing themselves favours for the future when they want to sell more.
Edited by Al U on Wednesday 23 July 21:34
Edited by Al U on Wednesday 23 July 21:35
Al U said:
In my experience of working with modern vehicle manufacturers, car parts and subsequentially car systems are engineered to not fail within their warranty period and reasonable vehicle life cycle i.e 100,000 miles. Vehicle durability tests will take this into account and anything that fails is modified to cope. With higher performance vehicles the tests can also include track abuse tests to make sure that the vehicle does not suffer failures that would be seen from being constantly used on track. Obviously because car parts and systems are tested to not fail within say 5 years and or 100,000 miles that doesn't mean that as soon as the car is over 5 years old or does more than 100,000 miles that the vehicle will definitely suffer failures it just means that there won't be a cost impact to the manufacturer if there is because of warranty replacements etc. So in some cases even though the part or system doesn't fail in it's warranty period, the engineering that has been done to make sure that is the case could also mean the part will not fail after 15 years or 200,000 miles. You have to remember though that with any product if it is totally bomb proof and never needs replacing that the manufacturer isn't doing themselves favours for the future when they want to sell more.
I might agree with some of that, but................paragraphs fella, it's the way ahead!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff