PDA

View Full Version : Why do cars/trucks last longer these days?



Phil Thien
09-21-2013, 8:00 PM
I'm almost 50. When I was growing up, cars had odometers with 5 point 1 digits. If they did 100k miles, the odometer rolled over and started counting again. It seems people didn't expect much out of their cars, 75k was a high mileage car.

These days 75k is just getting going.

What changed? Something about the design of cars must have changed to allow them to commonly go twice the distance of the cars of my youth. Were there one or two things, or was it a combination of factors?

Mel Fulks
09-21-2013, 8:11 PM
Biggest change was interstate highway system in 50s and 60s. Before that any trip involved sitting at a lot of traffic lights.
people just did not travel anywhere near as much .Believe it or not the whole thing was presented mainly as a defense measure.

Mike Cutler
09-21-2013, 8:25 PM
Even though we, oldish type folks( I'm 54), don't want to admit it, cars are made better today due to world market competition.
Yeah I'd really like to have my 1970 Camaro back, but compared to cars today it had the handling of a supermarket basket, same with my 65 Mustang ( my 1st car ). Of course those cars were very simple in mechanical design and could be fixed easily. Who knows why a new car today won't start until you hook it up to a computer.

That said however; I think the cars of days gone by had better styling. A lot of cars today look very similar, regardless of manufacturer.

Rich Enders
09-21-2013, 8:33 PM
Ralph Nader?

Grant Wilkinson
09-21-2013, 9:09 PM
I'm 64, so I've seen what Phil is talking about - in spades. There are the obvious mechanical improvements, but I don't believe that you can discount the benefit of much better lubricants. Engine oil has come a very long way since the 60's.

Malcolm Schweizer
09-21-2013, 9:13 PM
271416Who says the new ones last longer?

Mac McQuinn
09-21-2013, 9:14 PM
IMO, modern fuel injection systems along with advanced computer controls have been the biggest contributor to increased longevity. The old carburetors used several different types of choke systems for cold starting which worked OK at best and only if properly adjusted and maintained. Typically they allowed a lot more fuel than required, washing down the cylinder walls, minimizing lubrication and increasing friction. This also thinned out your oil, reducing lubrication values over oil change intervals. Fuel injection has optimized fuel delivery and computer controls have provided efficient engine timing, maximizing spark at the plugs and minimizing engine detonation, seriously reducing wear and tear.
Mac

Mel Fulks
09-21-2013, 9:21 PM
Engine oil is better ,but it HAD to be. In early 70 s with fed ordered pollution controls and leaner running engines the existing oils were letting the engines seize up on the test stands. The oils withstanding higher temperatures was a result of necessity .

Scott Shepherd
09-21-2013, 9:25 PM
Dr. Deming happened. Google him.

Rich Enders
09-21-2013, 9:55 PM
In recent news coverage of the fires, we were told that they are still flying tankers built in the 60's. Probably lots of reasons for that, but it seems technically we were capable of building stuff to last way back then.

And what was the lifespan of a US produced automobile?

IMO the reason we have better cars now, is that collectively we slowly began to be drawn to, and to demand better products. Ralph Nader calling the Corvair and GM exactly what they deserved. German imports that were expensive, but lasted providing value. And then Japanese cars taking 25% of the US market.

Certainly there has been innovation, but it would still be rotting in the patent office if we the consumers hadn't stiffened our backs and said we will buy American built cars when they deserve it.

Larry Frank
09-21-2013, 9:59 PM
I think that there are a lot of contributions but the fuel injection and computer controls has gone a long way to improve engine performance and longevity.

The other is the improvement in the materials that the body is made primarily in terms of corrosion resistance. The coatings on the inside of the panels have hugely improved corrosion prevention materials and the paints on the outside are much better. Even in the north, where salt is routinely used, you do not see many vehicles with rust.

As was also mentioned, Dr. Demings work on quality control has gone a long ways to making huge improvements. All of the car companies are using statistical process control as are their suppliers. Where once, it was not uncommon to see part failures expressed in per cents, now it is more typical to see failure rates in the very low parts per million. Even when the failure rate is only 2 parts per million, statistical process control and other associated methods are used to determine what caused a failure and how to prevent it in the future.

I think that this is one example of where the modern car is better than those made in the good old days. But at the same time, I do miss those muscle cars of my youth.

Stephen Cherry
09-21-2013, 10:07 PM
corrosion protection. I read somewhere that porsche in the early 70's began with the zinc. I remember cars rusted out right from the begining.

Rod Sheridan
09-21-2013, 10:33 PM
I remember a Reg Green quote about vehicles "They don't make them like they used to, and those of you who own one know why".

Words of wisdom.

Better design, materials, quality control, better lubricants, and of course competition from foreign manufacturers.

I have a 1976 BMW motorcycle with just under 300,000 miles on it...........There were some quality machines back then, they just cost about twice as much as the competition...Rod.

Jeff Monson
09-21-2013, 11:37 PM
I think that there are a lot of contributions but the fuel injection and computer controls has gone a long way to improve engine performance and longevity.

The other is the improvement in the materials that the body is made primarily in terms of corrosion resistance. The coatings on the inside of the panels have hugely improved corrosion prevention materials and the paints on the outside are much better. Even in the north, where salt is routinely used, you do not see many vehicles with rust.





+1 for sure

Ken Fitzgerald
09-22-2013, 12:10 AM
I would suggest it's better vehicle design, better lubricants, better fuel and a lot of us owners became better educated and do more preventative maintenance than in the past.

When I first began driving in the mid-60's, my father gave me some advice. Check your oil often, change oil every 3,000 miles and when you change oil, change the filter. I have had extremely good luck with engines.

I also change brake fluid every 3-4 years and transmission fluids as often as the manufacturer recommends.

The improvements in gasoline has provided a lot of help in longevity of engines too. For example, my 1986 4-Runner with a 22-RE engine I bought used with 19,000 miles on it. Every 2 years I had to have the injectors cleaned. My then SIL, a mechanic whom I still respect, suggested I change to Chevron gasoline because it had Techron injector cleaner in it. I did and have never had to have injectors cleaned again. Note, now all brands of gasoline have improved their products to the point where they all have similar additives and success.

Anthony Whitesell
09-22-2013, 7:57 AM
I would say that vehicle longevity over the years was a U shaped trend. Built to last high longevity from the 50 and 60s falling through the 70s, bottoming in the 80s, rising in the 90s. My family puts a lot of miles on a vehicle and went through several 80's vehicles (6+) from 1980 through 2000. We are no just starting to replace our Y2K vehicles, some after 9-12 years and 250k+ miles.

Honestly, IMHO, I think manufacturers went for cheap in the 80 and everyone got ticked and looked for more reliable cars which forced the industry to chase the mark the consumer set. 'The industry' being not only car manufacturers but also the component providers (oil, brakes, mechanisms, etc.).

Rich Engelhardt
09-22-2013, 8:13 AM
As the maximum length of time you could finance a vehicle increased, the industry had to respond by making a product that would actually hold together for the extra months of the finance agreement....

Jim Matthews
09-22-2013, 8:14 AM
corrosion protection. I read somewhere that porsche in the early 70's began with the zinc. I remember cars rusted out right from the begining.

+1 on the Zinc dip as being the primary factor in vehicle longevity.
I owned a 1979 Volvo 144 that had lived most of it's life in Montana.

It was spotless. I drove it home in the late 1980's across the country.

In three years, it was perforated like Swiss cheese.

When was the last time someone saw a rusted vehicle on the road?
They're uncommon since the mid 1980's.

Even the Italians learned (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19800410&id=r8BAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2KUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5776,2238512) to handle this, at great expense.

Jason Roehl
09-22-2013, 8:16 AM
While there was certainly the ability for precision machining 50 years ago, it was expensive and time-consuming. It's much cheaper now, so the tolerances in engines are so much better. Some companies even take it to another level. Toyota, known for engine longevity (except for the 22 series interference engines), even measures individual pistons and cylinder bores to get them to match as well as possible. In other words, tolerance on piston size and cylinder bore size is always a range. If a cylinder bore measures at the high side of the tolerance range, then it is fitted with a piston that also measures at the high side of the tolerance range. (On a side note, Apple has its manufacturers do something similar with the Apple logo insert on the back of their phones--they're computer scanned and matched to fit as well as possible.)

I'll agree with the others, though. Fuel is better, oil is better, computer controls warn of minor problems before they become big problems. With a little time learning, too, the computer controls can make diagnosis and repair pretty simple, even for the home wrench-turner. I've owned carbureted vehicles, and while they would start in the dead of winter (accelerator pedal to the floor to set the choke, then hold half-way while cranking), all my fuel-injected vehicles have been "turn the key and go", even at the very rare -20ºF temps we get.

Pat Barry
09-22-2013, 8:39 AM
Engineering, material science, polymer technology, semiconductor technology, world influences, consumer demands, government regulations, etc, etc. Wouldnt it be a sad commentary if the question was "How come vehicles don't last any longer than they used to?"

Curt Fuller
09-22-2013, 9:02 AM
Check your oil often, change oil every 3,000 miles and when you change oil, change the filter. I have had extremely good luck with engines.


Ken, I agree with you on the regular maintenance. I feel it has been a big part of what has made my vehicles last longer. But I just bought a new 2013 Toyota Highlander and the recommended interval on oil and filter changes is 10,000 miles. Mostly due I suppose to the use of synthetic oils. I'm old fashioned I guess because I don't think I'll let it go that long. The way my wife and I drive our cars, that would be less than one oil change per year.

Art Mann
09-22-2013, 10:22 AM
I worked as an electrical engineer in the automotive industry for over 25 years. I was one of very many people who worked to improve the reliability and longevity of US, Canadian and Mexican made vehicles beginning in the mid 1980's. I would have to agree with most of the comments already made. The motivating factor in the drive to improve domestic cars was Japanese competition. Early on, we were acutely aware that they were going to put us out of business if we didn't get competitive. That awareness went all the way up to the CEO. The corporate culture changed almost overnight. I worked on electronic engine controls for much of my career, both in the design and the quality of manufacture. The development of very low cost microprocessors and sensors that would work in an under hood environment made the adoption of computer controlled engines easy. These did indeed improve the reliability of engines. Although I wasn't directly involved, I did witness the development of close tolerance high efficiency engines and they also contributed to the improved reliability. New alloys and other materials were developed that simply lasted longer. I was less involved with interiors and bodies but I am aware their efforts were equally diligent. The company was much more willing to pay for materials that didn't just look better but actually held up longer.

Sadly, in the years just prior to my retirement, it seemed that the company I worked for began to slip back into its old ways of cutting corners to reduce cost. I just hope the trend was temporary.

Bill Stewart
09-22-2013, 10:57 AM
Reliability increased due to improvements in electronic controls and computer control engines. Close tolerances, advanced metals and all the fluids inside the engine and drive train. It's a good thing that we've advance, reduced emissions and the reliability too, you could repair a 1956 Chevy or 65 Mustang yourself back in the day.
Today just try to figure out why you are not getting fuel or fire to the engine today.
Oh this is my first post to date!

Montgomery Scott
09-22-2013, 11:46 AM
In recent news coverage of the fires, we were told that they are still flying tankers built in the 60's. Probably lots of reasons for that, but it seems technically we were capable of building stuff to last way back then.


That isn't the case at all. The planes made then are quite inferior to those made today. Just like an automobile, you can make it last forever, if you are willing to perform endless maintenance to it. Airplanes are the same way. You can keep them flying as long as you replace the engines, landing gear, re-skin them or have myriads of structural splices, etc, etc. Just look at the DSO for planes of the 60's vs today's. Plus the average cycles per year for a military aircraft is much lower than for commercial planes.

Bob Turkovich
09-24-2013, 11:03 PM
An enabler that hasn't been mentioned yet...

Computer technology - when I started in the automotive engineering field in 1972, I worked on the first computer-aided structural analysis of a complete vehicle body-in-white. The process required hand-digitizing drawings and creating stick models to perform a relatively simple analysis and took months to complete. With the introduction of computer aided design and analysis programs (such as Nastran) a designer/engineer can get a complete structural analysis of his/her part (whether it is a hood, piston, ring gear, etc.) in days, not months. Potential improvements can be analyzed in hours.

There is a whole library of tools available now that can perform thermal analysis, fluid dynamics, etc., that years ago could only be crudely estimated. These tools were primarily developed by the aerospace and military industries and are now widely used by the OEM's and most of the supply base.

FYI, Curt - there are engines out there that are now at 10,000 mile oil change intervals that are not synthetic. Anyway, the whole oil change interval story is primarily based on "time at temperature" predictions. Are you sure your recommended oil change interval isn't like "10 months or 10,000 miles, whichever comes first"?

Clarence Martin
09-24-2013, 11:23 PM
The 1972 Pontiac Granville with the 455 Cubic Inch Big Block V8 was a great car. !

David Weaver
09-24-2013, 11:23 PM
Bob, some of that is market driven, isn't it? I saw a video of a mechanic who used to work at acura mention that work was 80/20 service/warranty when he started working, and by the time he got out, it was 20/80 and he was tired of the work. He mentioned the same thing, that some of it is design related, but that a lot of it was also for boasting rights so you could say "car X has to be serviced N times before 100k miles, but our car, car Y needs nothing but oil changes until 100k miles".

I follow the oil change schedules and the air filter schedules for my cars now (and, of course, the timing belt), but I don't get upset about much else with service. Our dealers here are horrible about trying to rope you into unneeded easy money jobs when you take a car in (changing plugs early, changing vacuum lines early, etc). I avoid them to the extent that I can.

I still remember when cars first went to 100K major service intervals near us, might've been 15 or 20 years ago, and the explanation we were given (at the time) was that the OEM plugs in the cars could finally go 100k miles.

Ole Anderson
09-24-2013, 11:36 PM
I'm almost 50. When I was growing up, cars had odometers with 5 point 1 digits. If they did 100k miles, the odometer rolled over and started counting again. It seems people didn't expect much out of their cars, 75k was a high mileage car.

These days 75k is just getting going.

What changed? Something about the design of cars must have changed to allow them to commonly go twice the distance of the cars of my youth. Were there one or two things, or was it a combination of factors?Engineers are getting smarter, they have more information due to research and development as well as feedback from previous failures and of course the competition among manufacturers to have the "best" quality.

Brian Kerley
09-25-2013, 7:08 AM
In recent news coverage of the fires, we were told that they are still flying tankers built in the 60's. Probably lots of reasons for that, but it seems technically we were capable of building stuff to last way back then.


The reason we are still flying tankers from back then instead of commissioning new ones are that money hasn't been appropriated to the fire service. The actual kitting/conversion out of a fire tanker is relatively easy, we've had the knowledge for years, and it is still done on occasion to passenger jets.


Certainly there has been innovation, but it would still be rotting in the patent office if we the consumers hadn't stiffened our backs and said we will buy American built cars when they deserve it.[/COLOR]


It's sad how long the American companies have taken to catch on to this. It's really until quite recently (last 5-10 years). I went on a tour of the GM proving grounds in the late 90's out in Mesa. On the tour one of the engineers was discussing their testing and why they do it. He said that they tested cars out here to see how good they were. If they were too weak they could build the cars up, and if they were too strong they could "build em down". One of the people on the tour asked about that statement and he effectively state that the don't make cars that last 100,000 miles because there is no money in it. That mindset is what killed the American auto companies.

Thankfully, they've decided to change their tune.

David Weaver
09-25-2013, 7:23 AM
I'm not sure if I can think of a an American car that I'd bank on getting more than 100k miles out of trouble free. I'm not sure there is a car out there now that matches the Honda and Toyota sedans of the mid 80s to early 90s, either.

I know from experience that vw cars have come off of the road fast over last 15 years, though.

Brian Kerley
09-25-2013, 9:37 AM
I'm not sure if I can think of a an American car that I'd bank on getting more than 100k miles out of trouble free. I'm not sure there is a car out there now that matches the Honda and Toyota sedans of the mid 80s to early 90s, either.

I know from experience that vw cars have come off of the road fast over last 15 years, though.

My '01 Saturn has 180K and I've only had to do brakes and oil changes.

Mel Fulks
09-25-2013, 11:18 AM
It is a fact, that the Saturns have lasted longer than the company, few cars do that.

David Weaver
09-25-2013, 11:35 AM
Good point on the saturns. They have been lasting a long time since the originals. They were a great brand until they tried to expand the line to include larger cars and SUVs.

paul cottingham
09-25-2013, 5:44 PM
I don't know. I think the slant 6 was probably one of the toughest, most reliable engines ever made. I know folks who had 300,000 miles on theirs with only routine maintenance. There is no modern engine like that, I don't believe. I also owned a Datsun that went 240,000 miles, and my folks had a Toyota with 300,000 miles on it. Without a rebuild.

Art Mann
09-25-2013, 5:53 PM
I started driving back when the Chevy slant 6 was a very common engine. I actually owned two trucks that had them. Most people at the time were extremely happy if the engine lasted 75,000 miles without at least a ring and valve job.

Bob Turkovich
09-25-2013, 11:24 PM
It's sad how long the American companies have taken to catch on to this. It's really until quite recently (last 5-10 years). I went on a tour of the GM proving grounds in the late 90's out in Mesa. On the tour one of the engineers was discussing their testing and why they do it. He said that they tested cars out here to see how good they were. If they were too weak they could build the cars up, and if they were too strong they could "build em down". One of the people on the tour asked about that statement and he effectively state that the don't make cars that last 100,000 miles because there is no money in it. That mindset is what killed the American auto companies.

Thankfully, they've decided to change their tune.

I didn't work for GM but I used GM-built components in that same timeframe (bearing units and driveshafts) in some of our (Chrysler) vehicles and that "no money in it" attitude was certainly not present in their engineering staff that I dealt with.
Their components were more robust than parts I used from their Japanese/European/American competitors. That tour guide would not have lasted long in my organization.

There is some merit, however, in his "build em down" comment. There is no problem in optimizing a design for cost or weight as long as it has no effect to the customer in durability, reliability and function. I have mentioned in previous threads the tremendous focus in reducing weight due to its effect on fuel economy. Back in those days the maxim was we'd add a $1.00 to the cost of a car to save a pound. Now, I'm told it's closer to $10.00.


Bob, some of that is market driven, isn't it? I saw a video of a mechanic who used to work at acura mention that work was 80/20 service/warranty when he started working, and by the time he got out, it was 20/80 and he was tired of the work. He mentioned the same thing, that some of it is design related, but that a lot of it was also for boasting rights so you could say "car X has to be serviced N times before 100k miles, but our car, car Y needs nothing but oil changes until 100k miles".



David, I agree that it's primarily market driven but that's the world we live in.

Before I retired in 2008, my responsibilities briefly included evaporative control systems. A couple of years ago, Ford came out with a capless fuel filler design and marketed it on TV as a cute and smart decision since the customer no longer had to worry about screwing a cap back on when they filled the tank. (Really...how difficult is it to remember to screw a cap back on?) Based on my limited experience, I'm skeptical the capless system is less expensive or equally as robust as the screw-on cap design. Sure enough, capless designs are now creeping into their competitors' vehicles thanks to the TV ad. Nothing more than market driven.

Bob Thomasson
09-26-2013, 7:31 AM
I started driving back when the Chevy slant 6 was a very common engine. I actually owned two trucks that had them. Most people at the time were extremely happy if the engine lasted 75,000 miles without at least a ring and valve job.

Hi Art, this is my first post here, and sorry that it's a dissenting opinion. Chevy never made a slant 6, it was Chrysler. Chevy was maybe a typo in your post. I recall that the Chrysler slant 6's had a plastic distributor drive gear that was pretty troublesome and I don't think they were all that great.

I recall reading an article years ago about how GM could take market share from Ford and Chrysler any time they wanted to, but that would lead to anti-trust charges. So, GM actually held back in order to not bankrupt Ford and GM. That "holding back" attitude led to a very complacent corporate culture and when the Japanese cars came along it took years for Detroit to "get it" and start building good cars. For years Detroit had an attitude that they didn't need to build good cars, all they had to do was advertise that their product was good and we'd believe it and buy them.

I recall an interview with a senior Chrysler executive sometime I think in the late 1980's and he actually said that "Quality is just a fad, we don't worry about it because next year the fad will be something else." Unbelievable.

American cars were built to be sold, the Japanese cars were built to be used. That was the main difference and it was very definitely Japanese competition and leadership that has raised the bar for US car makers. I had an '84 Ford Ranger and it was awful, traded it for an '87 Toyota pickup and the difference was astounding. The Toyota was designed and built more like a military vehicle compared to the Ford and I'm still driving the Toyota today. Fortunately, US made vehicles have gotten a lot better.

Bob

Art Mann
09-26-2013, 11:47 AM
Okay my bad terminology. The engine to which I was referring was the 235ci. in line 6 cylinder engine. At one point, it was the most common engine in the US. It was an easy engine to fix but it was not a long lived engine. There were shade tree mechanics all over the place who made their living strictly on rebuilding that engine. I don't know anything about the Chrysler engine to which I erroneously referred.

I remember Lee Iacocca advertising the new 5 year/ 50,000 mile warranty and thinking "Idon't want a car with a long warranty. I want a car that doesn't need one".

Mac McQuinn
09-26-2013, 7:52 PM
As an addition to my original posting, most auto transmissions back in the day were either 2 or 3 speeds w/ no OD. Final drive gearing, especially in pick-ups was focused on work use, not engine longevity and MPG. The advent of 4, 5, 6 and now 8 speed automatic transmissions with overdrive, were a real asset in lowering RPMs at h/w speed, increasing engine longevity and MPG.
Mac




IMO, modern fuel injection systems along with advanced computer controls have been the biggest contributor to increased longevity. The old carburetors used several different types of choke systems for cold starting which worked OK at best and only if properly adjusted and maintained. Typically they allowed a lot more fuel than required, washing down the cylinder walls, minimizing lubrication and increasing friction. This also thinned out your oil, reducing lubrication values over oil change intervals. Fuel injection has optimized fuel delivery and computer controls have provided efficient engine timing, maximizing spark at the plugs and minimizing engine detonation, seriously reducing wear and tear.
Mac

Myk Rian
09-27-2013, 7:11 AM
Who says cars are made better? Would you try this with your car? Your truck?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/nq2jY1trxqg?rel=0

Rich Engelhardt
09-27-2013, 7:21 AM
LOL!
I love it when @ about 2:20, when the truck is half in the ditch, the guy in the passenger seat sticks his arm out the window to give the truck a shove :D

A friend of mine saw a guy in a VW bug do that when the bug started to roll over @ some kind of a rally.
The guy's arm was all twisted up like a corkscrew when the bug turned turtle & the safety crew dug him out.

Harry Hagan
09-27-2013, 5:01 PM
Your question reminded me of an interview on the Tomorrow with Tom Snyder show back in the 70s when Henry Ford II sheepishly admitted on national TV that his company had been producing garbage for decades.

He also admitted that Japanese imports were forcing Ford to start producing better products.

David Weaver
09-27-2013, 5:23 PM
David, I agree that it's primarily market driven but that's the world we live in.

Before I retired in 2008, my responsibilities briefly included evaporative control systems. A couple of years ago, Ford came out with a capless fuel filler design and marketed it on TV as a cute and smart decision since the customer no longer had to worry about screwing a cap back on when they filled the tank. (Really...how difficult is it to remember to screw a cap back on?) Based on my limited experience, I'm skeptical the capless system is less expensive or equally as robust as the screw-on cap design. Sure enough, capless designs are now creeping into their competitors' vehicles thanks to the TV ad. Nothing more than market driven.

Thanks for the response, Bob. I'm not an expert on cars, but I agree with your comments about the gas cap. Never heard of it before, but it certainly doesn't sound like a "real problem" to me now that most of the caps are tethered and most auto places will give you a free code scan. It creates uncertainty where there wasn't a problem before. there are a lot of marketed solutions that are worse than the problem they solve, or that "solve" something that never was a problem.