What car has the best ever build quality?
Discussion
Limpet said:
Hammerhead said:
From an actual build quality POV (over perceived material feel), I'd say the 944/968s were excellent. Solid construction, quality fasterners,
Fasteners are a good shout. I am a Ford fan, but they are terrible in this respect. Every suspension fastener on my 2002 Focus looked like it had spent 15 years at the bottom of the sea, and most needed heat and/or a grinder to remove. I've never worked on a Ford of more than 5-6 years old that was any better. Of course, nobody is going to see or care about this in a showroom, much less base a buying decision on it, so I can see why it's a popular cost saving choice, but it turns simple maintenance tasks into battles every time.
mentioning planes again, but a 17 year old plane, left outside and the exposed fasteners did not have any rust on at all, one engine cowl clip had turned to Aluminium oxide and crumbled but most of it is largely unaffected, would love to see a car built to the same standard as a plane, suspect it would cost 20 times as much but last a lot longer.
I think there isnt really much use of stainless steel on cars, the odd exhaust and Deloreans, bit of trim maybe ?
Would be interesting to hear suggestions as to how quality could be improved.
The thing is, cars are no longer meant to last forever and do galactic miles - like most other things they're almost becoming a 'consumable' and you just throw the old one away and buy a new one. They want you to buy a new one which puffs out slightly fewer carbons and keep the money flowing.
It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
Edited by Funk on Friday 9th November 14:23
Even the e90 feels well made I bought one in 2005 and it’s still in the family and in perfect nick, still an enjoyable drive - I owned a 2018 mini clubman jcw for 6m earlier this year and didn’t like it at all the 2005 manual e90 330i ( the proper one when 330 meant a 3l an 6 pot) felt way better in most ways
Other than that I feel like modern 911s are well made and I think better quality than modern mercs which have become more blingy but less well put together
Other than that I feel like modern 911s are well made and I think better quality than modern mercs which have become more blingy but less well put together
Funk said:
The thing is, cars are no longer meant to last forever and do galactic miles - like most other things they're almost becoming a 'consumable' and you just throw the old one away and buy a new one. They want you to buy a new one puffs out slightly fewer carbons and keep the money flowing.
It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
Disagree, my 1976 Viva was looking decidedly elderly in 1983 with 'only' 40,000 miles. On the other hand my 2001 Volvo V70 on 241,000 miles is still looking fresh as a daisy.It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
For me, the Mercedes R129. I had an early one (1990) for years. Built like a tank, not completely unreasonable on the costs of consumables, and easy to maintain yourself if you keep on top of things (and a real bear if not).
I know others will shout me down, but my 2010 Panamera S is by a country mile the best built car I've owned recently. It feels as solid as rough-hewn granite, no irritating squeaks or rattles, a proper feel to the steering and brakes. The bodywork and interior are holding up well to ageing. I would not, however, claim that this is a DIY spannering type of car.
I know others will shout me down, but my 2010 Panamera S is by a country mile the best built car I've owned recently. It feels as solid as rough-hewn granite, no irritating squeaks or rattles, a proper feel to the steering and brakes. The bodywork and interior are holding up well to ageing. I would not, however, claim that this is a DIY spannering type of car.
Tyre Smoke said:
Funk said:
The thing is, cars are no longer meant to last forever and do galactic miles - like most other things they're almost becoming a 'consumable' and you just throw the old one away and buy a new one. They want you to buy a new one puffs out slightly fewer carbons and keep the money flowing.
It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
Disagree, my 1976 Viva was looking decidedly elderly in 1983 with 'only' 40,000 miles. On the other hand my 2001 Volvo V70 on 241,000 miles is still looking fresh as a daisy.It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
On a plus note, I have to say every Volvo ive ever had (MY2000-2010), being V70s, XC90s, and S60s have been generally extremely good.
The underside on every single one has been spotless, even after 200k miles. Exhausts always looked new, zero rust, very very good underseal from the factory.
My sister owned a V70 AWD 2.5l low pressure turbo from new to 200k+ miles.The underside on every single one has been spotless, even after 200k miles. Exhausts always looked new, zero rust, very very good underseal from the factory.
In many ways, good but the awd transfer box seemed to last 75k and then self destruct. No real off road use. The odd field for a hundred meters or so but that is it.
Engine was solid and still went like a train when sold at 240k miles (I owned it as my run around with a gearshift that jumped out and a awd transfer box that whined like a broken washing machine).
RW
I would have thought some of the 90s premium brands
We’re up there
Audi100, Volvo 850. Merc190 etc etc
I must say though like J4cko, we’ve got a Peugeot 107,
And it’s been great,
No over designed niggles, just basic built to an acceptable level for a certain cost,
It’s designed to be basic and it’s a strength
Love it best car we’ve had
Do a search on auto trader for ones with over 100k on them
We’re up there
Audi100, Volvo 850. Merc190 etc etc
I must say though like J4cko, we’ve got a Peugeot 107,
And it’s been great,
No over designed niggles, just basic built to an acceptable level for a certain cost,
It’s designed to be basic and it’s a strength
Love it best car we’ve had
Do a search on auto trader for ones with over 100k on them
Funk said:
Tyre Smoke said:
Funk said:
The thing is, cars are no longer meant to last forever and do galactic miles - like most other things they're almost becoming a 'consumable' and you just throw the old one away and buy a new one. They want you to buy a new one puffs out slightly fewer carbons and keep the money flowing.
It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
Disagree, my 1976 Viva was looking decidedly elderly in 1983 with 'only' 40,000 miles. On the other hand my 2001 Volvo V70 on 241,000 miles is still looking fresh as a daisy.It's one of the reasons I think the whole scrappage scheme was a travesty - how many perfectly serviceable cars were junked (and not even allowed to use the parts as spares to keep others going...) all in the name of flogging some new cheap cars. Ecologically it's far better to keep the older car on the road for longer as the bulk of its lifetime pollution is in the making, not the driving.
That said, there was definitely a 'sweet spot' for quality of build.
Many will say late 80s /early 90s might have been the peak for 'general' cars. Difficult to compare different eras though due to changes in technology, or a Duesenberg with a Ford Escort, for example.
Mercedes S-Class from 80s/90s, ie W126 and W140 were probably the last of the engineered at no expense Mercedes. The R107 SLs/SLCs were built like tanks but they still rust. Rolls-Royces up and until the VW ones were superb quality cars, the detail in places most owners would never see is probably second-to-none. Japanese cars are actually pretty good, although early 70s/80s experience with rust wasn't good, but the engineering was.
Unfortunately, BL ruined many British makes, eg Rover were known for high quality cars prior to BL and there's little doubt that the models carried on under BL weren't as well made.
Just my experience based on a number of cars I've owned, although excluding a Duesenberg.
Mercedes S-Class from 80s/90s, ie W126 and W140 were probably the last of the engineered at no expense Mercedes. The R107 SLs/SLCs were built like tanks but they still rust. Rolls-Royces up and until the VW ones were superb quality cars, the detail in places most owners would never see is probably second-to-none. Japanese cars are actually pretty good, although early 70s/80s experience with rust wasn't good, but the engineering was.
Unfortunately, BL ruined many British makes, eg Rover were known for high quality cars prior to BL and there's little doubt that the models carried on under BL weren't as well made.
Just my experience based on a number of cars I've owned, although excluding a Duesenberg.
Look, it's the LS400. I've owned 2. They are ridiculously dependable; the only 20 year old car I'd use as a daily driver (without breakdown cover for most of the time). Combined 145000 miles, not anything close to a breakdown, both drove as well when I sold them as when I bought them. Alloys corrode though!
tombar said:
Look, it's the LS400. I've owned 2. They are ridiculously dependable; the only 20 year old car I'd use as a daily driver (without breakdown cover for most of the time). Combined 145000 miles, not anything close to a breakdown, both drove as well when I sold them as when I bought them. Alloys corrode though!
MehThankyou4calling said:
A new car bought now from Audi, BMW, Merc will be built to a far higher standard than an 80’s car surely.
Better materials, rust proofing, closer shutlines, less rattles and niggles.
This leads to cars being way more reliable than previously.
Many look back with rose tinted specs but any decent journey even in a high end car used to involve a gamble as to whether you’d arrive.
It depends what you're doing with it and what you call quality.Better materials, rust proofing, closer shutlines, less rattles and niggles.
This leads to cars being way more reliable than previously.
Many look back with rose tinted specs but any decent journey even in a high end car used to involve a gamble as to whether you’d arrive.
If I was planning an around the world trip I'd bet on an 80 series Land Cruiser than any modern car
I think the 90's / early 2000's was the pinnacle really - enough tech to get decent reliability, economy and power but not so much that simple problems cost a fortune / need a main dealer to fix.
I think the early 90s was in fact the period that most of PH got its first car and started buying car magazines. Your 90s was my late 60s when , of course everything was for the best in all possible worlds ...Except for build quality that is.
But there must be some vintage buffs to nominate some pre war stuff. I'd suggest there are more Bugatti T35s around(for example ) as a percentage of those built than many later nominees
But there must be some vintage buffs to nominate some pre war stuff. I'd suggest there are more Bugatti T35s around(for example ) as a percentage of those built than many later nominees
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff