Are modern cars just too complicated?
Discussion
I think as many are saying, the 90s/early 00s was the best balance between tech, and not too much tech. My Passat, for example, designed in the mid 90s, yes it does have computer controlled stuff, but things like the indicators still use a proper relay, maintenance is (relatively) straight forward, and it doesn't have canbus so if I wanted to change the radio I wouldn't have to remove the bonnet badge and drive a whole new car under it.
I've often wondered whether there's any scope for crossover between the car and motorbike worlds. Today's motorbikes are not dissimilar to mid-'90s cars - most of the decent ones have fuel injection and disc brakes, and yet it's not really that possible to make a bike any more complicated than that. OK, so you can add the options of things like satnav and heated handlebar grips, but if you want a basic, easy-to-maintain bike most manufacturers will have something that meets your needs perfectly well.
What annoys me about so many modern car firms is the way they've replaced the 'options list' approach with the 'trim level' approach, so the price stated on adverts is never one you can actually pay, and you're effectively bound in to buying a particular configuration of options whether you like them or not as part of a 'pack'.
Funnily enough, Citroën were the first to do this. Rather than having a hierarchical series of letters indicating levels of options and engines, they offered the ZX in three deliberate 'flavours' - Aura, Reflex and Volcane - each offering a combination of options designed to appeal to a particular kind of driver. IIRC the Aura was the luxury one with the best interior and a deep-pile ride, the Reflex was the rugged, practical one with the most adaptive interior, and the Volcane was the hot one with sharper suspension settings and the most powerful engines.
They were all priced not far off each other too. It's odd really, but it marked a real sea-change in the way most cars are sold. Oddly enough it's the Germans who seem to stick to the old 'hierarchy of numbers' game, especially BMW, but as far as everyone else is concerned it's all rather annoying - just a name and a fixed set of 'options' you're having whether you like it or not 'to suit your lifestyle' or somesuch b
ks.
I really wish marketing would stop behaving so self-importantly in situations like this.
What annoys me about so many modern car firms is the way they've replaced the 'options list' approach with the 'trim level' approach, so the price stated on adverts is never one you can actually pay, and you're effectively bound in to buying a particular configuration of options whether you like them or not as part of a 'pack'.
Funnily enough, Citroën were the first to do this. Rather than having a hierarchical series of letters indicating levels of options and engines, they offered the ZX in three deliberate 'flavours' - Aura, Reflex and Volcane - each offering a combination of options designed to appeal to a particular kind of driver. IIRC the Aura was the luxury one with the best interior and a deep-pile ride, the Reflex was the rugged, practical one with the most adaptive interior, and the Volcane was the hot one with sharper suspension settings and the most powerful engines.
They were all priced not far off each other too. It's odd really, but it marked a real sea-change in the way most cars are sold. Oddly enough it's the Germans who seem to stick to the old 'hierarchy of numbers' game, especially BMW, but as far as everyone else is concerned it's all rather annoying - just a name and a fixed set of 'options' you're having whether you like it or not 'to suit your lifestyle' or somesuch b
ks.I really wish marketing would stop behaving so self-importantly in situations like this.
hesnotthemessiah said:
I guess so.....
I once drove my friend's 2CV from London to Sheffield.....the pin which holds the gear leaver in the centre of the dash attached to the gear shifter (?) above the engine block fell out and was lost going up a hill just through Highbury.....I nicked the pin out of the rear glass boot hinge and fixed it. Got all the way home to Sheffield no worries.
Not sure I could do that with a modern car but some people like or have need of a modern car....I don't particularly, so I don't drive them.
But you can drive a modern car from London to Sheffield without the pin in the gear lever breakingI once drove my friend's 2CV from London to Sheffield.....the pin which holds the gear leaver in the centre of the dash attached to the gear shifter (?) above the engine block fell out and was lost going up a hill just through Highbury.....I nicked the pin out of the rear glass boot hinge and fixed it. Got all the way home to Sheffield no worries.
Not sure I could do that with a modern car but some people like or have need of a modern car....I don't particularly, so I don't drive them.
robsa said:
- performance cars - are slowly being killed off and car companies have to invest big bucks in eeking more mpg and lower emissions when you could argue it isn't necessary.
First of all Performance cars are not being killed off by any stretch.Secondly, you could argue it's not necessary, but that doesn't make you right.
EDLT said:
Prof Prolapse said:
This thread is quickly devolving into the "I fear change therefore technology is bad" isn't it?
Yes. There seems to be a least one a week, with the same posters bashing out the same rambling rants about how they don't understand something and it is all a conspiracy. 
Big Fat Fatty said:
Devil2575 said:
Yes but you'd use twice as much fuel, it would be a lot less refined and you'd get bored of the radio. Parking with the unassisted steering would be a ball ache, it would break down at least once and if you had a crash you'd probably die. But appart from that...
You'd use a fraction more fuel, you could feel and hear more of what's going on around you, parking is a doddle even without PAS if you're a man with man sized arms and old Fords were designed to be fixed with just the bare minimum tools required and is actually part of the fun of owning them (same as TVRs). The radio does get boring very quickly though.
Edited by Big Fat Fatty on Thursday 8th November 16:37
A 1970s cortina with a pinto engine would probably get 25 mpg. A modern 2 litre petrol car would probably get 40+ mpg.
So 1.6 times as much fuel. I guess you could express that as a fraction...
T16OLE said:
hesnotthemessiah said:
I guess so.....
I once drove my friend's 2CV from London to Sheffield.....the pin which holds the gear leaver in the centre of the dash attached to the gear shifter (?) above the engine block fell out and was lost going up a hill just through Highbury.....I nicked the pin out of the rear glass boot hinge and fixed it. Got all the way home to Sheffield no worries.
Not sure I could do that with a modern car but some people like or have need of a modern car....I don't particularly, so I don't drive them.
But you can drive a modern car from London to Sheffield without the pin in the gear lever breakingI once drove my friend's 2CV from London to Sheffield.....the pin which holds the gear leaver in the centre of the dash attached to the gear shifter (?) above the engine block fell out and was lost going up a hill just through Highbury.....I nicked the pin out of the rear glass boot hinge and fixed it. Got all the way home to Sheffield no worries.
Not sure I could do that with a modern car but some people like or have need of a modern car....I don't particularly, so I don't drive them.
I find myself agreeing with some of the naysayers here - some cars are getting a bit too complex for home spanner-jockies, but the complexity is driven by the demands of the general public. They want more gadgets, more clever features and less maintenance. That means to compete a manufacturer has to up the complexity massively to keep everyone happy while trying their hardest to keep everything as reliable as before.
It does cause problems, but I would venture that most of the expensive work (e.g. that mentioned by Crafty quoted below) would be carried out under warranty once software problems are identified.
In the end if you want a simpler car, they are out there. Be choosy about your engine and equipment specs and I'm sure you can pick pretty much any car these days and minimise maintenance risks.
It does cause problems, but I would venture that most of the expensive work (e.g. that mentioned by Crafty quoted below) would be carried out under warranty once software problems are identified.
In the end if you want a simpler car, they are out there. Be choosy about your engine and equipment specs and I'm sure you can pick pretty much any car these days and minimise maintenance risks.
Crafty_ said:
Cars that have fibre optic networks for CANBUS are nothing new.. they need the fibre to keep the bandwidth up, because there is so much data flying around. Brake control units will know when wipers are on, wipers know what gear is selected, battery management controller knows when the windows are open.. it just goes on and on.
Citation needed. High-speed CAN Bus can support data rates of 1Mbit/s. Even with 50 modules all going at the same time (not very likely and very tricky on CAN Bus) you would be fine with a copper network - one which has no need of the extra complexities of optical systems.I think some modern cars are complicated. However if you look at the cheap cars in todays market you still get that simplsticness. Take for instance a 107/C1/Aygo , new tech like PAS , ABS , Fuel injection but a fairly simple little thing that anyone could look after without needing diagnostic equipment etc 
Krikkit said:
I find myself agreeing with some of the naysayers here - some cars are getting a bit too complex for home spanner-jockies, but the complexity is driven by the demands of the general public. They want more gadgets, more clever features and less maintenance. That means to compete a manufacturer has to up the complexity massively to keep everyone happy while trying their hardest to keep everything as reliable as before.
I disagree. I think the average punter couldn't care less and would go for a stripped-out base model if they could. People are never asked what they want, they're told. Also, as far as most of these electronic systems are concerned, I bet most people had never heard of them before they encountered them in a car, and even then they're probably totally redundant for most owners.Problem for the manufacturers is, this doesn't make for much added revenue, hence the 'trim pack' approach so many take these days making it essentially impossible to buy a base-model car. There also seems to have been a total slackening of this nation's traditional cynical reserve in the face of hard-sell, which began during the Blair era's deregulation of the credit markets. Marketing has encouraged people not to think any more, and terrifyingly they're doing as marketing says, and end up marching into dealerships like drones and ordering things they don't really understand, let alone want.
I reckon other manufacturers are actually quite worried by the appearance of Dacia in the British market because of this.
Twincam16 said:
Funnily enough, Citroën were the first to do this. Rather than having a hierarchical series of letters indicating levels of options and engines, they offered the ZX in three deliberate 'flavours' - Aura, Reflex and Volcane - each offering a combination of options designed to appeal to a particular kind of driver. IIRC the Aura was the luxury one with the best interior and a deep-pile ride, the Reflex was the rugged, practical one with the most adaptive interior, and the Volcane was the hot one with sharper suspension settings and the most powerful engines.
Well not really, it's no different to L, GL, RS etc pandering to a particular client. Ford have always been masters of this from the first time they did it with the Mustang where you had the Grande, Mach 1, Boss and saloon-wise the LTD. Ford UK offered, for example, the Ghia and the Fiesta 1300 Supersport and Popular and Popular Plus models. Renault, in the 80s used a similar idea with the Monaco tag for their luxury model and Citroen also had their "Ghia" in the Pallas models.Just calling these model levels by a name doesn't alter the fact it's the same beast by a different name.
In America in the 50s they had the same cars in varying levels wearing different names so the Impala had a cheaper model (Biscayne?) and Vauxhall sold the VX4/90 and Ventora as different lines though they only had trim and engine differences. Opel did the same with the Rekord and Commodore in the 70s. BL sold Austin, Morris and Vanden Plas versions of the same car.
When it comes to "flavours", in the 70s, Lancia probably achieved the heights with their Beta, Beta Coupe, HPE and Spyder range.
LuS1fer said:
Twincam16 said:
Funnily enough, Citroën were the first to do this. Rather than having a hierarchical series of letters indicating levels of options and engines, they offered the ZX in three deliberate 'flavours' - Aura, Reflex and Volcane - each offering a combination of options designed to appeal to a particular kind of driver. IIRC the Aura was the luxury one with the best interior and a deep-pile ride, the Reflex was the rugged, practical one with the most adaptive interior, and the Volcane was the hot one with sharper suspension settings and the most powerful engines.
Well not really, it's no different to L, GL, RS etc pandering to a particular client. Ford have always been masters of this from the first time they did it with the Mustang where you had the Grande, Mach 1, Boss and saloon-wise the LTD. Ford UK offered, for example, the Ghia and the Fiesta 1300 Supersport and Popular and Popular Plus models. Renault, in the 80s used a similar idea with the Monaco tag for their luxury model and Citroen also had their "Ghia" in the Pallas models.Just calling these model levels by a name doesn't alter the fact it's the same beast by a different name.
In America in the 50s they had the same cars in varying levels wearing different names so the Impala had a cheaper model (Biscayne?) and Vauxhall sold the VX4/90 and Ventora as different lines though they only had trim and engine differences. Opel did the same with the Rekord and Commodore in the 70s. BL sold Austin, Morris and Vanden Plas versions of the same car.
When it comes to "flavours", in the 70s, Lancia probably achieved the heights with their Beta, Beta Coupe, HPE and Spyder range.
I think the point is, under this system, which seems to have been adopted by everyone sub-BMW, it's impossible to get a proper 'base model', so the manufacturer and dealer always make roughly the same amount of profit out of you.
However, with the arrival of Dacia, I have a feeling things could change.
Twincam16 said:
I've often wondered whether there's any scope for crossover between the car and motorbike worlds. Today's motorbikes are not dissimilar to mid-'90s cars - most of the decent ones have fuel injection and disc brakes, and yet it's not really that possible to make a bike any more complicated than that. OK, so you can add the options of things like satnav and heated handlebar grips, but if you want a basic, easy-to-maintain bike most manufacturers will have something that meets your needs perfectly well.
They already exist and are called trikes. Quite a few 'kit-car' manufacturers in the UK have something on offer. Otherwise most kit or 7-style cars tend to be similarly simple.chris7676 said:
Twincam16 said:
I've often wondered whether there's any scope for crossover between the car and motorbike worlds. Today's motorbikes are not dissimilar to mid-'90s cars - most of the decent ones have fuel injection and disc brakes, and yet it's not really that possible to make a bike any more complicated than that. OK, so you can add the options of things like satnav and heated handlebar grips, but if you want a basic, easy-to-maintain bike most manufacturers will have something that meets your needs perfectly well.
They already exist and are called trikes. Quite a few 'kit-car' manufacturers in the UK have something on offer. Otherwise most kit or 7-style cars tend to be similarly simple.I've bought three bikes now, all new, and found the process very satisfying. You go into the dealership, say 'I'd like to test-ride that', usually followed by 'I want one of these please', and you'll simply be presented with an options list (that you can totally ignore if you want), then asked how you'll be paying for it.
But cars? Half a dozen 'packs', all of which will offer a different set of options, some of which I might want, some of which I won't. Even the cheapest car is far more expensive than cars need to be (bear in mind you can get new bikes OTR for £three-figure sums), and there is rarely any payment option offered other than an unnecessarily complex finance deal. I actually know a guy who offered to pay cash for a new Audi A1, and the dealer wouldn't allow it, simply because I suspect they've been told not to allow anyone to pay for a car without hefty interest payments on top.
There just seems to be an awful lot of unnecessary bullying and coercion involved in buying new cars that the new bike world doesn't seem to bother with. Also contrast the attitude difference between the staff in bike and car showrooms. Bike showroom staff respect their customers as people who generally know what they're on about and what they want, whereas car showroom staff just come across as smarmily forceful salesmen hellbent on selling you stuff you don't want by appearing to play on assumed ignorance on the customer's part.
Also, car salesmen seem to have sown the notion of 'residuals' deep in customers' heads, upselling based on resale value to the point where people feel they have to buy a car specced for the benefit of someone else for more they intended to pay for it, and feel an obligation to offload it not long after they've bought it. People never used to buy cars like that, nor did they used to get into quite so much unnecessary debt.
At a bike showroom, the question of 'residuals' NEVER arises. Your reasons for buying it and speccing it are your own and none of the sales staff's business.
Edited by Twincam16 on Friday 9th November 15:08
Prof Prolapse said:
You can't fix it with some gaffa tape and a hammer anymore. But speaking in generalised terms you get more economy, power and reliability.
You are claiming that modern BMW petrol engines (for example) are more reliable than those of yesteryear?Edited by Prof Prolapse on Thursday 8th November 16:26
D_G said:
If you buy a petrol engined car with just the basics I think new cars are still a good bet.
A modern direct injection petrol? As someone that had the misfortune to buy one of these, I would have to disagree. HPFP, coil packs, injectors, Nox sensors - it went back 8 times in four years for engine issues. And how do you get around the issue of carbon build up on the inlet valves?Matt UK said:
I think the tricky balance of performance / driver involvement / running costs / safety / toys / tech / complication reached a sweet spot in car design in about the late 1990s.
I think this wasn't a sweet spot just the mainstream manufacturers offering the most up to date tech they could at given price points the new car Market could stand. In fact just as they are now - I'm sure a late 90's PH would have had a very similar thread running bemoaning the loss of tech from 15 years previous as well.My current Focus has a number of these packs fitted and I simply switch off the features I don't value such as auto highbeam lights (the normal auto lights remain on as I find this useful) and lane departure warning.
Derek Chevalier said:
D_G said:
If you buy a petrol engined car with just the basics I think new cars are still a good bet.
A modern direct injection petrol? As someone that had the misfortune to buy one of these, I would have to disagree. HPFP, coil packs, injectors, Nox sensors - it went back 8 times in four years for engine issues. And how do you get around the issue of carbon build up on the inlet valves?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff