Build quality of new and old?

[flatline84]

Read this post the other day and it got me thinking:

[i] " W126 S Class. Apogee of Benz, arguably apogee of automotive manufacturing. The Veyron and McLaren F1 might ring a lot of Top Trumps bells, but nothing comes close to the manufacturing/engineering excellence, and real world versatility, of a W126. I reckon it's genuinely peerless.

Nothing before - save, possibly, the W100 - was as advanced (ABS (yeah, I know about Jensen...) and airbags came in on W126s; my W126 has adaptive ride). Nothing since is as reliable.

Worthy of mention:
R107 SL Class - a W126 ...but with scuttle shake.
W124 E Class on a par with W126 engineering, but it's taxi-class with less toys.

Everything sub E-Class has about as much authenticity as H&M Choos or a VW Continental GT. As for the niche stuff it's all garbage.

Modern Mercs might now be able to fight their way out of the warranty period with some reliability (better for M-B) but there's a reason a more than 5yo SL55 is worth a Mars bar. I love the sound/performance of the mental AMGs; what a shame their depreciation is about the only thing as fast as one.

No car company makes a 'car for life' anymore - indeed, few manufacturers of anything build to last anymore. M-B did it better and for longer than anybody else but all modern cars, including Mercs, will take an early recycle bath because of uneconomic repairs to shonky electronics and excess complexity. More's the pity." [/i]

Are new cars built to barely survive their 5y warranty and then pour acres of pounds back into the workshops pockets?

As someone once said, a car that runs forever, is not very profitable to a company in the long run...

Edited by flatline84 on Thursday 22 March 11:42

[obob]

flatline84 said:

Read this post the other day and it got me thinking:

[i] " W126 S Class. Apogee of Benz, arguably apogee of automotive manufacturing. The Veyron and McLaren F1 might ring a lot of Top Trumps bells, but nothing comes close to the manufacturing/engineering excellence, and real world versatility, of a W126. I reckon it's genuinely peerless.

Nothing before - save, possibly, the W100 - was as advanced (ABS (yeah, I know about Jensen...) and airbags came in on W126s; my W126 has adaptive ride). Nothing since is as reliable.

Worthy of mention:
R107 SL Class - a W126 ...but with scuttle shake.
W124 E Class on a par with W126 engineering, but it's taxi-class with less toys.

Everything sub E-Class has about as much authenticity as H&M Choos or a VW Continental GT. As for the niche stuff it's all garbage.

Modern Mercs might now be able to fight their way out of the warranty period with some reliability (better for M-B) but there's a reason a more than 5yo SL55 is worth a Mars bar. I love the sound/performance of the mental AMGs; what a shame their depreciation is about the only thing as fast as one.

No car company makes a 'car for life' anymore - indeed, few manufacturers of anything build to last anymore. M-B did it better and for longer than anybody else but all modern cars, including Mercs, will take an early recycle bath because of uneconomic repairs to shonky electronics and excess complexity. More's the pity." [/i]

Are new cars built to barely survive their 5y warranty and then pour acres of pounds back into the workshops pockets?

As someone once said, a car that runs forever, is not very profitable to a company in the long run...

Edited by flatline84 on Thursday 22 March 11:39

Edited by flatline84 on Thursday 22 March 11:40

Edited by flatline84 on Thursday 22 March 11:41

Loads of cars last for ages.

My Passat TDI is 15 years old and on over 200k. Can probably do the same again if some little niggles were sorted.

Hondas go on for years, a bloke in the US did a million miles in his Accord and Honda rewarded him with a brand new car.

[J4CKO]

Can see why a late nineties Merc would go in the bin due to rust, but I know that if I bought one now, there would be no reason why it wouldnt last indefinitely. I dont think they build in faults, most of the issues are people treating them like crap and then wondering why after ignoring things for several years they have a three grand bill on a two grand car, then it gets scrapped.

People used to keep way worse cars going for years with a bit of ingenuity, time spent and knowledge but now they get a big bill and it gets scrapped, mostly it isnt cars that are the problem.

[flatline84]

Well you can relativise everything in that case, any car getting the proper attention will last forever ( be that welding, engine rebuild or whatever terminal)


But I guess my question is: Were cars more properly screwed together 20-30 years ago? Forget about electronics etc, what Im referring to is the fact that nowadays if you examine many newer cars you will find clips, strips and plastic hinges and holders whereas before things were properly screwed and held together.

[BrewsterBear]

My 968 and 993 are lightyears ahead in build quality compared to the 996 C4S I had. Everything from the satisfying door shut to interior trim to physical nuts, bolts, and components. The old cliché of 80's and early 90's Porsches feeling as if made from granite really holds true. It spoiled the 996 from my perspective - it just didn't feel like a Porsche, let alone a 911.

[Codswallop]

New cars tend to contain more parts, and therefore more parts need to be fitted together. This probably accounts for the more diverse range of fitting methods, and also increases the risk of squeaks and rattles (You can't have a rattle if there isn't anything in the car...).

If anything, I should imagine build quality is better than ever due to far better manufacturing techniques and tolerances. Anything else is merely looking fondly back through rose tinted specs imo.

[flatline84]

The fitting may be optimized, but what about the quality of the parts themselves?
I suspect many an accountant have been tempted cutting corners by using cheaper quality parts, and some went through with it..

[Codswallop]

Cost cutting is a different kettle of fish. Many parts can be cost cut, but look at the mk6 Golf as an example - it's meant to be far cheaper to build than the short lived mk5, but all the magazines say the interior plastics taste just as good as ever and are still well screwed together.

I suppose there may be more cost cutting overall now since we all expect to have airbags, full electrics etc, for a similar price (after adjustiing for inflation) to a car from before which was little more than an enclosed engine and cockpit.

[NateWM]

I think that when comparing cars like for like, you will find that the older ones are much better in terms of build quality.

I have a 6th Gen Accord. While the newest Accord is a VERY nicely designed and a lovely place to sit, but everything feels much more plasticky on the newer Accords imo.

I recently had to strip the entire interior out of my Accord recently, and was amazed at what I found. For a start, the soundproofing is a good 3-4 inches thick in noisy parts like the firewall and footwells, and also has felt underneath that. Any plastic edges that touch other plastic or metal has felt inbetween to stop rattles. The doors are fully insulated, and the speakers are mounted onto thick foam to improve audio quality. Door handles, ashtrays, cubby holes and sun visors have rubber bungs to stop them making noise when closing them.

Honestly, I could go on! It's amazing for a 12 year old car with 160k or so miles to not make any rattles or noises. I did have one rattle once, which was a penny that my nephew stuffed into the heater vents.

Overall, I'm impressed with it especially when comparing it to a brand new Civic Type-R I viewed recently!

Edit: I should add that IMO, it depends on the manufacturer. Compared to 10 years ago, Honda has took a huge downwards leap, where as Kia and Hyundai have came on leaps and bounds.

Edited by NateWM on Thursday 22 March 12:15

[BrewsterBear]

Codswallop said:

Anything else is merely looking fondly back through rose tinted specs imo.

It really, really isn't. My Porsche history in chronological order is 1982 911SC, 1994 993, 2002 996, 1994 968CS. I can categorically say, having worked on all of these cars myself, that the 90s cars were head and shoulders above the later car and even the 82 car was better designed and manufactured than the 996.

All manufacturers have to do it. There comes a price point at which developing a component becomes less economically viable for the price point you wish to sell at. That point for many higher-end manufacturers is now set much lower than it was in the 80s.

[flatline84]

Codswallop said:

Cost cutting is a different kettle of fish. Many parts can be cost cut, but look at the mk6 Golf as an example - it's meant to be far cheaper to build than the short lived mk5, but all the magazines say the interior plastics taste just as good as ever and are still well screwed together.

Is it really a different kettle of fish though? When you cut costs, you inevitably end up with a lower-cost product, dont you? Somethings gotta give..

Now, PERCEIVED build-quality is a different kettle of fish. What Im on about is actual build quality though..

[dave stew]

A mate has an expression about recent Mercs -
"When the accountants took over the factory".

For mass produced, mid priced cars, it's economics why the build quality has been cut, but on more expensive models its pure profit. Are you telling me it costs that much more in manufacturing time (and raw components) to make a Porsche Boxster or a 911S?

The old Mercs were suitably over engineered (I believe the square shaped 90s SLs were the last ones to enjoy such quality). A modern C class is no better than a Mondeo.

[Devil2575]

flatline84 said:

Everything sub E-Class has about as much authenticity as H&M Choos or a VW Continental GT

That's a little bit harsh.

Isn't the point that the prices of many premium cars including Mercs have actualy come down in price relatively speaking. More than likely through necessity to enable them to sell more cars and survive in a competetive market place.

Back in 1996 a BMW 328i SE base price was £26k. 17 years of inflation would lead you to believe that the equivalent car would be almost £40k

However a the list price for an equivalent car is closer to £30k.

There is no benefit to the original purchaser to make cars that last for ever, esepcialy if it means you can't sell enough of them to remain vaible.

[flatline84]

At some point the standards for what was deemed " good enough" began to slip it seems, with the accountants rubbing their hands together at the prospect of expected profit for each model sold.

[Codswallop]

flatline84 said:

Codswallop said:

Cost cutting is a different kettle of fish. Many parts can be cost cut, but look at the mk6 Golf as an example - it's meant to be far cheaper to build than the short lived mk5, but all the magazines say the interior plastics taste just as good as ever and are still well screwed together.

Is it really a different kettle of fish though? When you cut costs, you inevitably end up with a lower-cost product, dont you? Somethings gotta give..

Now, PERCEIVED build-quality is a different kettle of fish. What Im on about is actual build quality though..

I thought you were talking about perceived quality all along That's why I used the Golf as an example, they ensured that what the public cared about (soft touch plastics and dampened switches) were good, and to hell with the rest of it.

Actual overall build quality, I am still of the opinion that like for like (i.e. without the bean counters getting involved, a modern car will be higher quality than an older car due to better manufacturing tolerances and materials.

Granted, bean counters appear to be more common place than in the past based on people's experiences in this thread.

[Major Fallout]

I have a front wing off a model T ford leaning against the workshop outside.

I has no paint and a little surface rust, its been outside like that for over 80 years. Its not rusted through yet, and its good enough to use!

[chris182]

I don't think that modern cars are badly put together with relation to older cars, they are just so complex that it is beyond most DIY mechanics to fix them when they go wrong. This means that they reach a point in their lives where a bill comes which exceeds the value of the car, and it is scrapped. Modern cars are phenomenally reliable really when you consider their complexity and the abuse they suffer. 100k miles with minimal problems is now considered normal, and rust is almost a thing of the past.

In contrast, the W126 was probably the most technically advanced car in the world when it was launched yet it is actually rather simple. Everything is easily accessible and designed for ease of maintenance. The electronics are also amusingly basic compared with modern cars, the circuit boards look like someone's school project compared to modern boards. All this means that a competent DIY mechanic can mend and maintain the car themselves, thus avoiding the point where an unavoidable bill comes that is more than the value of the car.

[flatline84]

Codswallop said:

I thought you were talking about perceived quality all along That's why I used the Golf as an example, they ensured that what the public cared about (soft touch plastics and dampened switches) were good, and to hell with the rest of it.

Actual overall build quality, I am still of the opinion that like for like (i.e. without the bean counters getting involved, a modern car will be higher quality than an older car due to better manufacturing tolerances and materials.

Granted, bean counters appear to be more common place than in the past based on people's experiences in this thread.

Well I Guess everything is "perceived" quality as our eyes are the looking glass, but its getting a bit META now

I agree with you that given no budget a newer car of will be better, the question I guess is are beancounters influencing the quality and selection of parts to an excessive degree..

[Scoobman]

You are right
Actual build quality WAS better in the late 80s early 90s.
It was the peak of car manufacturing...as cars has enough basic electrics in but nothing too complex.

Most solid Golf you will sit MK2
Overengineered reliable MK1 MX5
The most reliable take you to the moon and back Volvo - 940series

It wasnt just Merc during this period that made things that were built to last

[230TE]

Manufacturers seem to be relying a lot more these days on plastic bits that clip together, rather than using nuts and bolts. Much quicker and hence cheaper to assemble, but the plastic seems to go brittle quite quickly (especially with underbonnet stuff). So any significant mechanical work on, say, a six year old Vauxhall ends up with the workshop floor littered with bits of broken plastic and the whole thing put back together with cable ties and duct tape.

On the plus side, rustproofing seems much better than it used to be. Lots of totally rust free cars in the local breakers yards now.