Wino;134628 wroteOh no doubt. Guy at work has 500,000km’s in a Kia Rio, like a 2005 model. Imagine that... so much mundanity
That's like being poked in the eye with a razor 500 000 times. Human adaptation is amazing!
Everything is relative. New cars don't rust anything like old ones did, and the engines don't wear out as quickly either. Shit, even dashboards don't crack anywhere near as easily either.

On the flip side, lots of newer cars eat suspension bushes, have electrical problems and/or are less reliable (particularly cars from early in the "small capacity turbo motor" era).

New cars overall ARE better in terms of crash-worthiness, fuel economy, performance, braking, comfort and handling. If you took a stock XR6 turbo back to the early 70s, people would be setting fire to GTHOs... And yet in 2018 the GTHO is worth like 100x what the XR6 is worth...
My issue with new cars is the fact manufacturing and metalurgy has become too good - We’re at the point where cars can be designed to fail on purpose at a specific point in time to ensure a new car sale.

If any manufacturers actually implement such things or not is another question... I’m dubious.
Wino;134754 wroteIf any manufacturers actually implement such things or not is another question... I’m dubious.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn the majority of the market is building to quite specific longevity targets. If, for example, you're in the small appliance-y car business, being able to outprice your competition is a big deal, and that means trimming fat everywhere you can, and one of those areas would be longevity. So you might use a crappy strut design that relies much more heavily on a big flexible strut top bushing to get a soft ride, but the tradeoff is that they fail after maybe 4 or 5 years.

jamesinc;134760 wrote
Wino;134754 wroteIf any manufacturers actually implement such things or not is another question... I’m dubious.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn the majority of the market is building to quite specific longevity targets. If, for example, you're in the small appliance-y car business, being able to outprice your competition is a big deal, and that means trimming fat everywhere you can, and one of those areas would be longevity. So you might use a crappy strut design that relies much more heavily on a big flexible strut top bushing to get a soft ride, but the tradeoff is that they fail after maybe 4 or 5 years.
Exhibit A - Barina spark
They all build to a lifespan, Volvo included. Used to be 5 years for the 144 then they decided to increase it for the 244, can't remember to what, lost in the mists of time. Seeing how robust the 140s were, they had a very pessimistic view of lifespan.
Chris;134765 wroteThey all build to a lifespan, Volvo included. Used to be 5 years for the 144 then they decided to increase it for the 244, can't remember to what, lost in the mists of time. Seeing how robust the 140s were, they had a very pessimistic view of lifespan.
5 Years! Where does that leave oddballs like me that hope to keep a few dozen Volvo's, one Porsche, one Renault, one Saab and Two Ford's alive for all of time? Maybe I'm insane.
Just about every car part is developed to longevity targets. In my work I use the same statistical modelling techniques (time-to-failure modelling). The goal is usually to try to produce components that are extremely reliable over a short period, but that don't cost a penny more than they minimally need to. I believe in cars they are aiming for about 7 years. An old Volvo, designed without these statistical approaches, has lots of 'over design' -- they just made the part as reliable as possible given a set cost constraint. Good news for us! In the 1990s I worked alongside some Intel engineers -- at the time they were just trying to get any powerful computer processor to last a decent amount of time. They weren't at the point where they could make a very powerful processor for a home computer at all reliable. It all seemed so innocent back then...
Wino;134754 wroteMy issue with new cars is the fact manufacturing and metalurgy has become too good - We’re at the point where cars can be designed to fail on purpose at a specific point in time to ensure a new car sale.

If any manufacturers actually implement such things or not is another question... I’m dubious.
You make it sound like a 60s built car doesn't wear out in 5 years, they had engineering teams back then etc, but basic designs to work with. Of course the basic suspension bush would flog out as well as the steering box, but it wasn't a big bush so it would be ignored. McPherson struts changed that. Volvo strut top rubbers don't exactly last a long time either.

But you will find of course vehicle strength is higher than ever, as is paint quality and corrosion warranty in Australia.

A video of a rusty 2014 car in the rust belt of the USA or snowy England with salt in the roads is not a great example for cars rusting.

I have two 90s Japanese cars that have scratches that are no worries than on my s40. In fact the paint is worse on my s40. As is the ride quality and handling. One of them was kind of a class competitor to the s40 as well.
The catch in the ad is that they say Volvo's 'lasted about 11 years in Sweden'. That's when they got roadworthied off the road (usually due to rust from the salt), not how long they designed them to last.

I wish I knew where my original reference to 5 years came from. It's one of those random factoids of no real value that just float around in your head while you forget your name, what you had for breakfast and all the rest of it. I remember being quite taken aback that it was so short, especially given they had a reputation for lasting. It made me wonder what other manufacturers were planning for - 3 years?

I do recall it was in reference to lifting the designed in life of the 200 series, but like I said before I couldn't recall that bit of it - what the 200 lifespan was planned to be.
I think most carmakers design for something like 10 years and 100000 miles (160000 km) abusive life...so that's worst-case salted roads, harsh gravel roads, rough roads etc. That's why for the typical customer you can easily get 20 years plus out of a car by keeping up the maintenance and replacing the wear items as you go. Obviously things like bushes and shocks are considered wear items post-warranty period, but fatigue cracking in the body structure metal and spot welds that was not minor and in non-critical areas was designed out with computer simulations and redesigns (adding welds, increasing panel thickness, adding local reinforcements etc if found during testing). I worked in the automotive engineering industry for 25 years and from what we saw in terms of benchmarking competitor vehicles the corrosion and durability targets were similar from manufacturer to manufacturer...with some exceptions of course! I heard anecdotally that the 240s didn't hold up too well when initially tested on Australian roads hence Volvo adding the strut tower braces, the boxed front lower control arms and doubler plates in the front strut towers. There may be other structural changes made for AUS but those are the only ones I'm aware of.
Vee_Que;134822 wrote
Wino;134754 wroteMy issue with new cars is the fact manufacturing and metalurgy has become too good - We’re at the point where cars can be designed to fail on purpose at a specific point in time to ensure a new car sale.

If any manufacturers actually implement such things or not is another question... I’m dubious.
You make it sound like a 60s built car doesn't wear out in 5 years, they had engineering teams back then etc, but basic designs to work with. Of course the basic suspension bush would flog out as well as the steering box, but it wasn't a big bush so it would be ignored. McPherson struts changed that. Volvo strut top rubbers don't exactly last a long time either.

But you will find of course vehicle strength is higher than ever, as is paint quality and corrosion warranty in Australia.

A video of a rusty 2014 car in the rust belt of the USA or snowy England with salt in the roads is not a great example for cars rusting.

I have two 90s Japanese cars that have scratches that are no worries than on my s40. In fact the paint is worse on my s40. As is the ride quality and handling. One of them was kind of a class competitor to the s40 as well.
?

No, the fact they wore out quick is why manufacturers who wanted longevity had to overengineer everything, reliability ensued... to the point where it became too good, like SV21 Camries where Toyota started losing Camry sales because the Camry market was saturated with people who never replaced their cars
Toyota have Good resale, based on the fact they don't break though?

And Greg, in gms case. The vb commodore was based on the opel Rekord with a senator nose, but the strut front end fell apart and cracks everywhere, the German engineers had never seen such bad roads commonly like they were in 70s Australia. Vb-vl commodores still popped b pillars out on stock cars a few years down the track. And also at the drag strip with 5-600hp and the body flex.

Yuh, they don't break.... which sucks if you're in the business of selling new cars, as people will buy second hand ones instead!
But they do buy new ones, Toyota is the biggest selling car manufacturer in aus. It's the fact the owner can sell it for 20% less than they paid after 3 years, unlike most makes. Also lease markets etc. Plenty of people think a car will fall apart by five years old. Or they just want a new one with Android auto for maps.
Anti Toyota Rant deleted, couldn't help myself.
This thread has run its useful length now I think.
© 2013-2025 Oz Volvo. All rights reserved. | Forum Rules | Privacy Policy