Is it only worth buying cars at the end of the model cycle?
Discussion
I've gained this impression over the last couple of years that pretty much every model of cars are bought out with a variety of weak points, from minor, to very serious and expensive, which don't come to light until the first batch of them start to do higher mileages i.e. a couple of years or so.
Obviously by this time tens of thousands have been sold who could all have this pretty serious issue (and others)
Obviously when these weak points become well known then improved versions are created and fitted to new ones so by the end of the model range you will have a pretty sorted and reliable car, whereas at the beginning you could have a flawed moneypit.
Anyway, is this nonsense or fact?
Obviously by this time tens of thousands have been sold who could all have this pretty serious issue (and others)
Obviously when these weak points become well known then improved versions are created and fitted to new ones so by the end of the model range you will have a pretty sorted and reliable car, whereas at the beginning you could have a flawed moneypit.
Anyway, is this nonsense or fact?
Well yes, an end of the line car will already be fit with all of the recalls and updates earlier cars may not have. Plus you should, theoretically, get a good bargain as dealers will want the old models shifted.
However, Manufacturers usually do recalls FOC so no reason why an early model wont have been updated, unless the owners just haven't given a s
t.
However, Manufacturers usually do recalls FOC so no reason why an early model wont have been updated, unless the owners just haven't given a s
t.Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 21st November 16:09
The only counterexample I can think of would be the Rover 75, where Project Drive left the later cars with cheaper materials, bits of sound insulation missing and in general a slightly penny-pinched feel compared to ones that had left the factory earlier. A lot of that was down to MGR's financial dire straits at the time, of course.
This thread has also reminded me of the '80s trend for limited edition run-out models like the Cavalier Calibre and Cortina Crusader, where the outgoing cars ended up laden down with kit to assuage potential buyers of any "old shape" phobia. Does anyone do that any more? I can't remember seeing such a thing recently...
This thread has also reminded me of the '80s trend for limited edition run-out models like the Cavalier Calibre and Cortina Crusader, where the outgoing cars ended up laden down with kit to assuage potential buyers of any "old shape" phobia. Does anyone do that any more? I can't remember seeing such a thing recently...
Timberwolf said:
The only counterexample I can think of would be the Rover 75, where Project Drive left the later cars with cheaper materials, bits of sound insulation missing and in general a slightly penny-pinched feel compared to ones that had left the factory earlier. A lot of that was down to MGR's financial dire straits at the time, of course.
This thread has also reminded me of the '80s trend for limited edition run-out models like the Cavalier Calibre and Cortina Crusader, where the outgoing cars ended up laden down with kit to assuage potential buyers of any "old shape" phobia. Does anyone do that any more? I can't remember seeing such a thing recently...
I have a feeling it was also to do with running down stocks of bodyshells, engines etc. What they do now is to shunt the presses for those old models off to Africa or Latin America where they carry on making them, and I guess they send the spares too.This thread has also reminded me of the '80s trend for limited edition run-out models like the Cavalier Calibre and Cortina Crusader, where the outgoing cars ended up laden down with kit to assuage potential buyers of any "old shape" phobia. Does anyone do that any more? I can't remember seeing such a thing recently...
I tend to buy "runout" models of cars with the early problems ironed out. Thinking through my recent car history:Renault Espace (2002 - 2010) - early versions had many reliability issues, mainly electrical. Late/runout versions had the main issues sorted out.
Jaguar XJ40 - early versions had BL build quality; runout versions had Ford build quality (which wasn't perfect, but which was a huge improvement).
Mercedes ML (1999 - 2004) - early versions had really poor build quality. There is a video somewhere of Clarkson's Top Gear review where he literally manages to get his hand in the gap between the rear bumper and the bodywork. There was a massive refresh in 2002 (I think) and the runout versions were all properly sorted.
Honda Insight - 2009 version was noisy and the interior finish and handling were not up to standard. 2012 refresh appears to be much better (too soon for me to say).
The way I see it, a lot of the improvements you get with runout models are not things that you can easily retrofit to the earlier versions. For example with the Espace, the later ones used a better dash cluster that was less likely to go on the blink. But you can't just put the new one in the old car because the wiring is different. Similarly, the XJ40 was effectively re-engineered between 1987 and 1994. You can't really upgrade one to the other.
Also, runout models tend to come fully loaded, often as "special editions". They are often the best bargains IMHO.
GM used to be famous for allowing customers to do their final research. the 4th gen Camaros in the 90s, for example, had a non-vented distributor that caused major issues, only remedied in 94 despite the engine having been in the Corvette a year earlier.
With the 2005 Mustang, Ford seem to have got it right as it hasn't suffered any major weaknesses.
I would imagine there are always going to be some unforeseen issues and teething problems for production cars, however minor.
With the 2005 Mustang, Ford seem to have got it right as it hasn't suffered any major weaknesses.
I would imagine there are always going to be some unforeseen issues and teething problems for production cars, however minor.
MysteryLemon said:
However, Manufacturers usually do recalls FOC so no reason why an early model wont have been updated, unless the owners just haven't given a st.
Missing the point here a bit - it's not just recalls, but 'revisions' when they make changes.t.Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 21st November 16:09
Take the Mk2 MR2 for example - rev1>2>3 each level is always seen as an improvement, as they learn about things that need fixing and revise the model along the way.
OP - you have a good point really. Buying the original launch versions you are effectively being a 'beta tester' for the manufacturer - something that you shouldn't be paying for the privilege of!
However, some cars are arguably made 'softer' in revisions, or less driver-focused (S2000 I'm thinking here) so sometimes the 'original' model is the best.
Timberwolf said:
The only counterexample I can think of would be the Rover 75, where Project Drive left the later cars with cheaper materials, bits of sound insulation missing and in general a slightly penny-pinched feel compared to ones that had left the factory earlier.
The same can be said often for the mk1 MX-5 vs mk2 debate - the latter having costs cut after being taken over by Ford, and thus has less rustproofing etc.To be honest - I think all manufacturers these days cost cut too much; cars aren't built to last as well as they were.
Edited by Riknos on Thursday 22 November 09:03
As long as you don't mind driving an old shape model, then I think run-out models are a better bet compared to new models in their first year of production.
Not only are there quality issues relating to non-complete development processes, but the people that build the car on the production line have no experience of how to build it. Run-out models are always better screwed together compared to earlier models of the same lifecycle.
Not only are there quality issues relating to non-complete development processes, but the people that build the car on the production line have no experience of how to build it. Run-out models are always better screwed together compared to earlier models of the same lifecycle.
blindswelledrat said:
I've gained this impression over the last couple of years that pretty much every model of cars are bought out with a variety of weak points, from minor, to very serious and expensive, which don't come to light until the first batch of them start to do higher mileages i.e. a couple of years or so.
Obviously by this time tens of thousands have been sold who could all have this pretty serious issue (and others)
Obviously when these weak points become well known then improved versions are created and fitted to new ones so by the end of the model range you will have a pretty sorted and reliable car, whereas at the beginning you could have a flawed moneypit.
Anyway, is this nonsense or fact?
If it's under warranty how will it be a money pit?Obviously by this time tens of thousands have been sold who could all have this pretty serious issue (and others)
Obviously when these weak points become well known then improved versions are created and fitted to new ones so by the end of the model range you will have a pretty sorted and reliable car, whereas at the beginning you could have a flawed moneypit.
Anyway, is this nonsense or fact?
tbh I don't really think it's worth worry about.
Bought a run-out V50 R-Design in July, 20% off the RRP made it a no-brainer compared with 1-2 year old cars on the forecourt, especially when the finance deals on new vehicles were better as well. (Similar spec cars with low mileage are still the same price that I paid in the Classifieds!). Had to choose a pre-specced car, but there were plenty about and that wasn't a problem, just got one option that I wouldn't normally buy.
Now it may well depreciate like a stone in the next few years (less likely as there is no direct replacement and small estates are quite popular), but that's not a problem for me as I tend to keep my cars a fair amount of time.
Now it may well depreciate like a stone in the next few years (less likely as there is no direct replacement and small estates are quite popular), but that's not a problem for me as I tend to keep my cars a fair amount of time.
AmitG said:
Mercedes ML (1999 - 2004) - early versions had really poor build quality. There is a video somewhere of Clarkson's Top Gear review where he literally manages to get his hand in the gap between the rear bumper and the bodywork. There was a massive refresh in 2002 (I think) and the runout versions were all properly sorted.
Youtube provides! What an awful build quality that was, right on par for the US market at the time I suppose.blindswelledrat said:
Anyway, is this nonsense or fact?
There's a great deal of truth to it IMO, which can make buying new quite a gamble. Things like the XC90, early 2000 Mercs and early Discovery 3s (Although that's less surprising, tbh 
) were shockingly bad, and then there are horror stories about some Mazda and VW diesel engines.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff