Has choosing a new car become more difficult?
Discussion
i understand why this particular forum is so popular. I believe that choosing a new car has become more difficult over the years. I think it's partly due to having more choice, and partly that we have access to much more information and feedback from owners etc. Say, 20 years ago, when I couldn't afford much, there were loads of cars I lusted after. Now that I can afford almost anything within reason, there are almost no cars that appeal to me. The more research I do, the harder the decision seems to be. If car makers strive (and they must) to improve their cars, and listen to adverse comments, you would think that by now, they would all get 5 star reviews. In going through the selection process, I read the reviews, but also comments on forums and every car I can think of comes with issues. Ride comfort does not seem to have improved. many don't even come with space for a spare wheel, taking the decision out of the hands of their customers (an appalling decision in my view). Reliability, in the sense of frequency and cost of repairs, definitely does not seem to have moved on much, if at all. The few that do appeal (Range Rover , Land Rover etc) seem to have appalling reliability records. Buying a diesel car, after years of being encouraged to do so, now puts in the same social category as child molesters (and it will get much worse as time goes on as clueless kids, who should be in school and happy, clappy jobless hippies continue to bleat publicly about climate disaster) I don't mind splashing out on a car, but spending more on costly repairs does not appeal at all. So far I have considered Mondeo, ( too big and has apparently lost class leading handling ability), a Golf, (too small), Mercedes C class ( nowhere for a spare wheel), BMW 3 series GT (runflats, no spare), Mazda 6 or CX5 (ruinous engine problems), Jaguar XF (too big plus I've had one, ir was disappointing). Skoda Octavia (excellent size but built to a budget, insufficient noise insulation, too much road noise etc., plus troublesome 1.5 tsi engine). Subaru Legacy/Forester (petrols a bit too juicy and not enough dealers), Audi A4 avant( undecided, not driven one yet but DSG models much more expensive used), Skoda Superb, promising, but a bit too big. I'm sure I'll get there but to be honest, the best car I've ever had was my 1989 Audi 90 2.2. It was a fantastic car and if they were available today I'd snap one up.
The bit of that I'm going to take issue with is this, "Reliability, in the sense of frequency and cost of repairs, definitely does not seem to have moved on much, if at all."
Seriously?
Ok I might be a bit older, but I recall the cars from the 60s, where on the annual holiday trip to the seaside the car would get a full service beforehand. You'd be relieved it got there and back without issue.
That's before some models would be showing signs of corrosion before the 2nd MOT test sometimes even the first, yes Vauxhall looking at you there.
Nowadays folks in 10 year old cars will set off on a day trip of around 150 miles without even checking levels or tyres, without question they're going to get there and back without a problem. The ones that don't are imo ones where once a year servicing hasn't been kept up to date.
Then you had the first classic Mini with service intervals at 500 miles, yes seriously.
Then we get to starting dramas on wet cold winter mornings with batteries not properly charged by dynamos.
Sorry, sound like Monty Python Yorkshireman.
Perhaps much of today's reliability issues are due to increasingly complicated and extensive electronics foisted on motorists for various reasons.
Seriously?
Ok I might be a bit older, but I recall the cars from the 60s, where on the annual holiday trip to the seaside the car would get a full service beforehand. You'd be relieved it got there and back without issue.
That's before some models would be showing signs of corrosion before the 2nd MOT test sometimes even the first, yes Vauxhall looking at you there.
Nowadays folks in 10 year old cars will set off on a day trip of around 150 miles without even checking levels or tyres, without question they're going to get there and back without a problem. The ones that don't are imo ones where once a year servicing hasn't been kept up to date.
Then you had the first classic Mini with service intervals at 500 miles, yes seriously.
Then we get to starting dramas on wet cold winter mornings with batteries not properly charged by dynamos.
Sorry, sound like Monty Python Yorkshireman.
Perhaps much of today's reliability issues are due to increasingly complicated and extensive electronics foisted on motorists for various reasons.
FiF said:
The bit of that I'm going to take issue with is this, "Reliability, in the sense of frequency and cost of repairs, definitely does not seem to have moved on much, if at all."
Seriously?
Ok I might be a bit older, but I recall the cars from the 60s, where on the annual holiday trip to the seaside the car would get a full service beforehand. You'd be relieved it got there and back without issue.
That's before some models would be showing signs of corrosion before the 2nd MOT test sometimes even the first, yes Vauxhall looking at you there.
Nowadays folks in 10 year old cars will set off on a day trip of around 150 miles without even checking levels or tyres, without question they're going to get there and back without a problem. The ones that don't are imo ones where once a year servicing hasn't been kept up to date.
Then you had the first classic Mini with service intervals at 500 miles, yes seriously.
Then we get to starting dramas on wet cold winter mornings with batteries not properly charged by dynamos.
Sorry, sound like Monty Python Yorkshireman.
Perhaps much of today's reliability issues are due to increasingly complicated and extensive electronics foisted on motorists for various reasons.
That's why I chose my words carefully. We probably have fewer breakdowns, although I passed half a dozen cars broke down the other day on a fairly short journey. In the 1970s I remember the morning chorus of people trying to start their cars, especially Fords, frequently without success. The difference was back then, if you had a fault, it might mean a new set of points, or a new condenser, for pennies, or a new thermostat, easily replaced. Clutches were easily and cheaply replaced and because cars were easy to service, many owners did their own. The difference now is that we have dual mass flywheels that fail (flywheels used to last the lifetime of the car), EGR systems, diesel cars sold that aren't designed for short journeys, with DPFs that will cost the owner over a grand at some point in the car's life, electronics and engine management systems that cost a lot just to get a diagnosis done. Modern cars usually get you home, unless they kill you when they go into limp home mode in the third lane of a motorway. Modern cars are definitely better, but they are definitely not designed to save us money or to be more reliable overall.Seriously?
Ok I might be a bit older, but I recall the cars from the 60s, where on the annual holiday trip to the seaside the car would get a full service beforehand. You'd be relieved it got there and back without issue.
That's before some models would be showing signs of corrosion before the 2nd MOT test sometimes even the first, yes Vauxhall looking at you there.
Nowadays folks in 10 year old cars will set off on a day trip of around 150 miles without even checking levels or tyres, without question they're going to get there and back without a problem. The ones that don't are imo ones where once a year servicing hasn't been kept up to date.
Then you had the first classic Mini with service intervals at 500 miles, yes seriously.
Then we get to starting dramas on wet cold winter mornings with batteries not properly charged by dynamos.
Sorry, sound like Monty Python Yorkshireman.
Perhaps much of today's reliability issues are due to increasingly complicated and extensive electronics foisted on motorists for various reasons.
lornemalvo said:
That's why I chose my words carefully. We probably have fewer breakdowns, although I passed half a dozen cars broke down the other day on a fairly short journey. In the 1970s I remember the morning chorus of people trying to start their cars, especially Fords, frequently without success. The difference was back then, if you had a fault, it might mean a new set of points, or a new condenser, for pennies, or a new thermostat, easily replaced. Clutches were easily and cheaply replaced and because cars were easy to service, many owners did their own. The difference now is that we have dual mass flywheels that fail (flywheels used to last the lifetime of the car), EGR systems, diesel cars sold that aren't designed for short journeys, with DPFs that will cost the owner over a grand at some point in the car's life, electronics and engine management systems that cost a lot just to get a diagnosis done. Modern cars usually get you home, unless they kill you when they go into limp home mode in the third lane of a motorway. Modern cars are definitely better, but they are definitely not designed to save us money or to be more reliable overall.
All good points.It might explain why low mileage older cars are making good money nowadays.
I recently sold my trusty fishing wagon, 1.4cc Peugeot Partner, 2004, 55k, and I couldn't believe how much interest I got.
Some of the repair bills I've seen in recent years for modern cars have been alarming.
when I had a first co car in 1991, an Astra Merit n/a Diesel (high roller me!) service interval was every 6000m. Brake calipers regularly seized and even one time the cambelt snapped. Front tyres lasted 9000m and I covered 55000m per year going round farms with a fair bit of weight in the boot and a reckless 21 yr old rally fan at the wheel..
They were Lex lease cars and were de fleeted at 3 yr old, completely shagged.
Choosing a car possibly has become more difficult , cars are easier to come by with pcp etc, there are more variations of a model. Peoples priorities have also changed now due to social media. They want to chase that celebrity dream, even though they are talentless unemployed people or on min wage, they are just shallow and materialistic and yes basically STUPID.
They were Lex lease cars and were de fleeted at 3 yr old, completely shagged.
Choosing a car possibly has become more difficult , cars are easier to come by with pcp etc, there are more variations of a model. Peoples priorities have also changed now due to social media. They want to chase that celebrity dream, even though they are talentless unemployed people or on min wage, they are just shallow and materialistic and yes basically STUPID.
Edited by loskie on Saturday 13th July 21:32
Trevor555 said:
All good points.
It might explain why low mileage older cars are making good money nowadays.
I recently sold my trusty fishing wagon, 1.4cc Peugeot Partner, 2004, 55k, and I couldn't believe how much interest I got.
Some of the repair bills I've seen in recent years for modern cars have been alarming.
Low mileage older cars put me off for some reason, why are they so low, has it been back at the dealers half its life.It might explain why low mileage older cars are making good money nowadays.
I recently sold my trusty fishing wagon, 1.4cc Peugeot Partner, 2004, 55k, and I couldn't believe how much interest I got.
Some of the repair bills I've seen in recent years for modern cars have been alarming.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff