Grant

This is in line with my gut feeling thoughts as well (although I have nothing to substantiate it).

OK. I have thought of a different way of asking the same question, or to get my point across how I meant it (maybe I am difficult to understand, if I am I apologise). Lets say two people who are identical in every way, including their driving habits (they both drive 20,000 kms a year in exactly the same conditions). These people are given a brand new car each (automatics). One is a 2010 BMW 535i and the other is a 1990 535i (but don't focus on the brand or type of car - it could be a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Holden Commodore or whatever). Also for the sake of this example, parts for each car a readily available, and all work is done at the dealer. Each car has everything disabled on it apart from the ability to start and drive (i.e. it can only serve its primary function). Each car cost exactly the same to purchase. Each car comes with no warranty. Each driver keeps the receipt for every single cost that they incurred during a 10 year period (so, 200,000 kms) Which driver will have incurred the highest total costs at the end of the 10 year period? As I said earlier, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel that others are going off on irrelevant tangents, and Apex, I apologise that I picked on a couple of your posts, they were just the newest. And for the record, I have no idea/opinion on what the answer is (which is why I asked the question).

You clearly don't understand the point original question. I'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative, but it is frustrating that the points are irrelevant.Whether or not someone can or cannot afford to maintain the purchase they have made is irrelevant to the question, is as the brand/origin/prestige of the car in question. The reason I have used BMW as an example is because this is a BMW forum, and secondly the thing that got me thinking about the topic was a BMW and a repair required on a late model one.

I agree with this, but it has very little to do with my original post and question.I don't think that anyone will doubt that newer cars are better to drive than older ones (for 99% of their function). My original point was regarding the cost of life ownership cost of the car, and whether the new technology used made the car more economical to own over its useful lifetime.

Agreed.

You missed the point (as have others in this thread). Take for example a new BMW, when a part like the alternator craps itself, you just don't unbolt the old one, put a new one in and off you go, you need to have a software upgrade etc (at least this is the case in the original post that got me thinking about this whole topic). Also even simple things like changing a battery now, you don't pull the old out put the new one in and drive off. You need to have it all synced up with the cars computers. This adds significantly to the cost, and involved a trip to the dealer. Also, what is the cost of an average sensor in a modern car? a couple of hundred dollars? What is the cost of the average sensor in a 20 year old car? nothing (they didn't exist)? Are sensors a common failure point on a modern car? I think so. The key work you used above is new. My question related to the useful life of the car, not its costs over the first 3- 5 years of ownership (which is normally warranted anyway). In fact that was one of my benefits, the fact that cars are more reliable now than before. What about when the car is 7- 10 years old, and expensive parts begin to fail? This is absolutely true. I couldn't agree more. My thoughts with the original question were not that cars were not better than 20 years ago (which I thing everyone will agree they are much better), but whether or not the technology now used to allow the primary function of a car to happen, that is; start, drive, stop, repeat has made these primary functions worth the additional costs that the technology brings with it.

I was thinking abou the discussion that was taking place in the thread about the warranty not being valid for a new alternator because it involved a software update (or the like), and the following discussion about the increased use of techonlogy, and the increase in prices for what used to be basic parts. This got me thinking, have we reached the tipping point in the benefits of the additional technology, when measured against the cost of this technology in the cars? I'm not thinking brand specific, and I am not thinking about additional features that comes with technology, I'm thinking just the basic operation and maintenance of a car (start it up, drive, stop, turn off, repeat). I'm also thinking of the whole cost of ownership of a car as well which includes fuel economy and basic servicing. I'm also thinking about this in terms of a pure internal combustion engine (which has not changed the principal way in which it operates for at least the last 100 years), not a hybrid, electric, hydrogen of fuel cell powered vehicle (althuogh these are the way of the future). I also accept that especially in Europe, and here in the USA, a lot of the technology is pushed onto the car manufaturers so that they meet ever increasing emission standards, and other regulatory requirements. The benefits I can see from the ever increasing use of technology are: 1) Cars are, on the whole much more reliable than they were, say 20 years ago. A well maintained car should now go at least 200,000 + km's without any major mechanical work (just the replacement of general wear and tear items) 2) Cars are much more fuel efficient, and therefore, getting from A - B costs less than it did 20 years ago (notwithstanding inflation/cost of fuel). 3) Many potential failure items can be found earlier, before a complete failure (which may bring on subsequent other issues), due to the more complex monitoring systems within the car itself, that warn you when things are not working within tolerance 4) Cars need to be serviced less frequently (although I am figuring that this has a lot to do with the quality of things like oil etc rather than the cars improving). 5) Cars are significantly safer There may be other benefits as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Here are my thoughts on the disadvantages: 1) The complexity of the systems that run the engine, and the cost of engine components have increased significantly in the last 20 years, therefore the replacement of parts is a costly business 2) The equipment that is needed to diagnose, repair and service cars is expensive, and goes out of date very quickly, meaning that there is a high overhead on garages to keep up to date, and this cost has to be passed on to the customer, therefore technician rates are increasing Again, there may be other disadvantages too. Thius got me thinking, yes all the technological benefits are great and make for a much better product, but is the 'whole of life' cost of owning a car any less (by whole of life, I am thinking useful/ practical life - not when it is a run down 15 year old junkheap owned by a 16 year old high-school kid who barely keeps it running)? Are we getting the bang for our buck with all of this new technology? I am interested in the thoughts of those like Glenn, who will have a great deal of knowledge on this, and will have been heavily involved with cars on both ends of the spectrum, from purely mechanical objects, to computer driven technological marvels.

Nice car, but that interior would be painful with a hangover.

Like 90% of new BMW's. You can't tell me that a run of the mill new 3 series 4 door sedan, or 5 series is either attractive or exciting in any way.

Ahh, very interesting.

I'm sure it is not just the European cars either, I'm sure that Japanese, Korean etc all have the same issues. Also, if you need a lawyer for being honest, then NZ is quickly heading the way of here :-)

Glenn, this is a question for you. How hard/expensive is it for you to keep up with the servicing/repairs of the newer cars (regardless of brand)? I'm not talking about the physical repair work, but the cost of having the right equipment, and having you and your staff kept up to date with using it? Also, what do you personally prefer; the actual 'old fashioned' mechanical work, or the more modern technical approach to repair work?

I appreciate that, and agree fully.It is also the reason that we have a Subaru Outback wagon, that has 172,000 miles on it, and is still 100% mechanically and cosmetically functional, and shows no sign of having any problems.

Ahh, but let me put it this way to you. If you had the choice of two 'premium' brand sedan cars (don't think about particular brands), with the same specs, and with the same purchase price (for arguments sake). The difference being; one comes with a full no-cost service, more comprehensive warranty than the other.Which would you buy? BTW - this is a very good conversation/debate, and what the site has lacked (as the posts are reasoned, and there have been no personal attacks). See kids, it can be done!

Yup, fair call

This is no excuse. I'm sure that when BMW goes out to the third party suppliers, they provide the third party suppliers with a list specifications, and performance requirements that BMW expects the product to meet.If they choose to use a cheaper/generic part that doesn't live up to BMW's perceived quality level, then that is BMW's fault, not the third party supplier. They are just supplying what the client wants. If the product does not meet the specification that BMW requested or paid for, then that is an issue between BMW and the supplier, and the car purchaser should not be impacted at all.

Of course they only class lifetime as the "warranty lifetime". Remember that most first world countries have a much more modern fleet of cars on the road than NZ. However due to how expensive cars are in NZ, a smaller proportion of the population can afford to renew their car with a brand new one every three years, whereas here, nearly everyone I know drives a car that is less than 5 years old.Therefore there in no incentive for manufacturers to build a product that actually lasts any longer than 3 years, or at a stretch 5. The way that companies like Hyundai are able to compete and gain such a huge market share here is that they are actually offering amazing warranties, that basically involve no out of pocket costs for the owner (including servicing) for the first three years of ownership, and then a standard warranty lasting 5 years/100,000 miles.

You just need to drill through the top level of the parcel tray. We had three different baby seats and they all screwed directly into the holes, areas that I assume you are talking about in both our E36's in NZ (a 97 328i sedan and 96 323i sedan). I would assume that the coupes are the same.

Most are falling to bits after 8.2 years

Tony, you of all people should know that you are an exception to the rule. Also, when Josh wrote that I think he figured, like the rest of us, that you couldn't read so it would not impact you. Just keep going as you were, your madness is great. Also, Josh - that was very well put. Great post.

I was driving on the freeway last night back home from a town north of Sac. I was playing with the cruise control to see at what speed I would get exactly 30MPG (I was in the Passat). I was pretty happy that at 69 MPH, I was getting exactly 30 MPG. At 75 MPH I was getting 28.5 MPG.

This is fantastic!

I laughed, that was pretty funny.

It's just the same sh*t, different day.

Good god, why does this site always attract people like this?