Cost v Benefit tipping point

[Grant 4]

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.

[*Glenn* 854]

I think the tipping point was reached about year 2000. We now have Technoligy gone mad for the sake of Technoligy. It's like a race now with all the manufacturers to bring out something new every year and alot of it, although nice, is not necessary ie: Do we really need cars that park themslves ? imagine what happens when that goes wrong ?.... Woman crushed in Foodtown car park by (Euro) car parking itself.

My biggest gripe is the use of recycled products ie: Plastics, used internally on engines, running gear and cooling systems. The recycled plastics start breaking down after 4-5 years and fails. The use of these products by the Euro manufacturers is an agreement they have to maintain a high level of recylability with the cars they make. This is detrimental to the life & relibility of the products they now make and is the cause of probably about 70% of the mechanical faults we now have to deal with.

I could end up writting a book here Grant. I wasn't expecting this, this morning

Edited January 21, 2011 by *Glenn*

[BLACK DORIS 9]

I think the tipping point was reached about year 2000. We now have Technoligy gone mad for the sake of Technoligy. It's like a race now with all the manufacturers to bring out something new every year and alot of it, although nice, is not necessary ie: Do we really need cars that park themslves ? imagine what happens when that goes wrong ?.... Woman crushed in Foodtown car park by (Euro) car parking itself.

My biggest gripe is the use of recycled products ie: Plastics, used internally on engines, running gear and cooling systems. The recycled plastics start breaking down after 4-5 years and fails. The use of these products by the Euro manufacturers is an agreement they have to maintain a high level of recylability with the cars they make. This is detrimental to the life & relibility of the products they now make and is the cause of probably about 70% of the mechanical faults we now have to deal with.

I could end up writting a book here Grant. I wasn't expecting this, this morning

Interesting topic. This may explain part of the issue.

Economics of planned obsolescence

Planned obsolescence tends to work best when a producer has at least an oligopoly.[9] Before introducing a planned obsolescence, the producer has to know that the consumer is at least somewhat likely to buy a replacement from them. In these cases of planned obsolescence, there is an information asymmetry between the producer–who knows how long the product was designed to last–and the consumer, who does not. When a market becomes more competitive, product lifespans tend to increase. When Japanese vehicles with longer lifespans entered the American market in the 1960s and 1970s, American carmakers were forced to respond by building more durable products.[10]

Full write up here - (definition of oligopoly is interesting)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Hard to know where or what the tipping point was. I've only owned 80s e30's which I feel have just the right amount of mod cons. Minimal compared to modern vehicles, phenomenal compared to a horse and cart...

[mrad01 0]

I guess the trouble is that new car buyers just don't really care about the car 5-10 years down the track. Car manufacturers don't sell to those car buyers. The last couple of new BMWs I have bought have been amazing (few little hiccups with the M3) and I didn't really even think about the poor buggers who are going to buy it in 10 years time.

Right now, the tech in my M3 is perfect. Everything works perfectly and I use the lot. iPod, Nav, Adaptive Headlights, Comfort access <--awesome BTW, M steering, adaptive suspension.....

Is it going to be working in 10 years? Should do.

In the 1980s when the Mazda 323s and e30s came out with efi and electric windows, my dad said "Woah, lets see if they are still going in 20 years eh son?" Well, they are...

Even in my next car, they can load it up with as much tech as they like and I'll buy it.

[Jacko 2153]

Personally I think technology peaked in the early 90's, ever since its just been BS.

Cars are turning into epic lardass whales, most modern cars weigh 30% more than their older equivalents, packed full of computers and new whizzbang technology too make them safe for munter drivers. I wonder how much better these overweight cars actually are at stopping/going/cornering compared to their physics laws abiding older versions...

[mrad01 0]

Personally I think technology peaked in the early 90's, ever since its just been BS.

Cars are turning into epic lardass whales, most modern cars weigh 30% more than their older equivalents, packed full of computers and new whizzbang technology too make them safe for munter drivers. I wonder how much better these overweight cars actually are at stopping/going/cornering compared to their physics laws abiding older versions...

Disagree. Bad for the second hand market because of reliability probably - but in terms of laps around Nurburgring (good corners/straights mix), the tech models are faster. The CSL version of the e46 is the king - so it does follow your logic for weight loss. Lose weight out of the e9x M3 = super rocket, but generally older=slower looking at these figures. (you would hope so). Good example is looking at the M5 models. The E39 is considered one of the great M5 models and the E60 is considered a tech whale - but the tech whale is 15 seconds faster per lap. (I hated the E60 shape when it came out - now I love it more than the E39!!). Even more interesting is the non-M 335i coupe nipping the E39 M5 - who would have thought!

1. 2003 E46 M3 CSL – 7:50

2. 2007 E90/E92 M3 – 8:05

3. 2007 E63 M6 – 8:09

4. 2011 1 series M coupe – 8:12

5. 2006 E60 M5 – 8:13

6. 2002 E46 M3 – 8:22

7. 2008 335i E92 Coupe – 8:26

8. 2000 E39 M5 - 8:28

9. 1997 E36 M3 - 8:34

10. 1989 E30 M3 - 9:35

[westy 614]

I guess the trouble is that new car buyers just don't really care about the car 5-10 years down the track. Car manufacturers don't sell to those car buyers. The last couple of new BMWs I have bought have been amazing (few little hiccups with the M3) and I didn't really even think about the poor buggers who are going to buy it in 10 years time.

Right now, the tech in my M3 is perfect. Everything works perfectly and I use the lot. iPod, Nav, Adaptive Headlights, Comfort access <--awesome BTW, M steering, adaptive suspension.....

Is it going to be working in 10 years? Should do.

In the 1980s when the Mazda 323s and e30s came out with efi and electric windows, my dad said "Woah, lets see if they are still going in 20 years eh son?" Well, they are...

Even in my next car, they can load it up with as much tech as they like and I'll buy it.

You should care because that's your resale value right there.

Do you really think that everyone jumps straight into brand new BMWs? Most people start of with a second hander.

If a guy buys an E90 when he's 20 and has endless problems, do you think he's going to be much interested in a new car once he turns 40 and can afford it? Reputations are built on history, not the future.

And as for E30s, they are still running.

But not without constant maintainence and they are a simple car. If you double the complexity you double the potential for problems.

I also think they are laying excess layers of tech for the sake of it.

The fastest car in your list was built in 2003!

Edited January 22, 2011 by Westy

[hybrid 1043]

2. 2007 E90/E92 M3 – 8:05

4. 2011 1 series M coupe – 8:12

slight tangent, This time is BS ... a new 1 series M Coupe should wipe the floor of a e90/2 m3 .. The 135i is already just as quick.

[Greg111 13]

M coupe has the same engine as the 135i but they have concentrated on handling and lightness with the M, E92 M3 is still quicker though.

[mrad01 0]

2. 2007 E90/E92 M3 – 8:05

4. 2011 1 series M coupe – 8:12

slight tangent, This time is BS ... a new 1 series M Coupe should wipe the floor of a e90/2 m3 .. The 135i is already just as quick.

Well, I had a (chipped) 335i for 3 years and went directly into the e90 M3 and I can tell you the M3 is quicker - especially on the top end.

My 335i was putting out more HP than the 1 series M coupe too.

[mrad01 0]

You should care because that's your resale value right there.

Do you really think that everyone jumps straight into brand new BMWs? Most people start of with a second hander.

If a guy buys an E90 when he's 20 and has endless problems, do you think he's going to be much interested in a new car once he turns 40 and can afford it? Reputations are built on history, not the future.

And as for E30s, they are still running.

But not without constant maintainence and they are a simple car. If you double the complexity you double the potential for problems.

I also think they are laying excess layers of tech for the sake of it.

The fastest car in your list was built in 2003!

Don't care for resale too much. If you buy cars for investment and resale - you are crazy!

My first BMW was brand new - before that I had Celicas and RX8s etc, so there may be some truth there.

I found the BMW time for the M3 GTS. If we look at the time for the M3 GTS - which is the e92 M3 "CSL" - then it is 7:48

So here is the updated list with the GTS included. So now the fastest car was built in 2010.

0. 2010 E92 M3 GTS - 7:48

1. 2003 E46 M3 CSL – 7:50

2. 2007 E90/E92 M3 – 8:05

3. 2007 E63 M6 – 8:09

4. 2011 1 series M coupe – 8:12

5. 2006 E60 M5 – 8:13

6. 2002 E46 M3 – 8:22

7. 2008 335i E92 Coupe – 8:26

8. 2000 E39 M5 - 8:28

9. 1997 E36 M3 - 8:34

10. 1989 E30 M3 - 9:35

[Greg111 13]

Well, I had a (chipped) 335i for 3 years and went directly into the e90 M3 and I can tell you the M3 is quicker - especially on the top end.

My 335i was putting out more HP than the 1 series M coupe too.

Again same motor, considering yours was chipped you would expect that, if it wasn't the M would leave 335 in it's dust.

[mrad01 0]

Again same motor, considering yours was chipped you would expect that, if it wasn't the M would leave 335 in it's dust.

Yep, true that.

The 1 series M coupe has a slightly uprated engine over the 135i and 335i...more like the 335is engine.

[Greg111 13]

Yep, true that.

The 1 series M coupe has a slightly uprated engine over the 135i and 335i...more like the 335is engine.

Nope, same horsepower, maybe more torque, unsure yet? They're basing this model on handling.

[mrad01 0]

Nope, same horsepower, maybe more torque, unsure yet? They're basing this model on handling.

Sorry, incorrect.

135/335i engine: 225kw 400NM

1 Series M coupe: 250kw 450NM (Figures directly from BMW.com)

Same as the 335is...they both also have a torque overboost feature which will take torque to 500NM if required.

[Greg111 13]

That's very weird, the email we were sent at work (Jeff grey) gave us all the stats, release dates etc, definitely wasn't 250KW, if that is the case your chipped 335 wouldn't have sh*t show beating it!

[mrad01 0]

That's very weird, the email we were sent at work (Jeff grey) gave us all the stats, release dates etc, definitely wasn't 250KW, if that is the case your chipped 335 wouldn't have sh*t show beating it!

Yep, although the 335i was boosted by one of these (see below) - so I was getting around 340hp and the 1 M coupe is rated at 332hp. I just unplugged it out of the engine bay before taking it in for servicing.

The 1 M will kick the crap out of the 335i handling wise and braking....

http://www.splitsec.com/products/turbotuner2.htm

[Greg111 13]

332bhp isn't 250KW?

[mrad01 0]

332bhp isn't 250KW?

Sorry, just did it online: 335hp

[39KiwiTouring 2]

Allot of it has to do with marketing and salesman ship. In particular to excees add on's for new vehicles. typical example would be a niche electronics design company in Norway comes up with a module that tells the steering sensors to align the wheels and make them more asymetyrical when turning. Is that so?, the car manufacturers decide to take the technology and add it onto their vehicles because Audi and VW do it and it's only $69 euro's each corner so doesn't add a great deal two the price. It adds another tick in the feature page of the brochure, where they are all compared and often purchased for features v price. Truth be told we don't actually need half of them, do certian features actually do anything "noticebly" or even be used.

Edited January 22, 2011 by E39KiwiTouring

[mrad01 0]

Allot of it has to do with marketing and salesman ship. In particular to excees add on's for new vehicles. typical example would be a niche electronics design company in Norway comes up with a module that tells the steering sensors to align the wheels and make them more asymetyrical when turning. Is that so?, the car manufacturers decide to take the technology and add it onto their vehicles because Audi and VW do it and it's only $69 euro's each corner so doesn't add a great deal two the price. It adds another tick in the feature page of the brochure, where they are all compared and often purchased for features v price. Truth be told we don't actually need half of them, do certian features actually do anything "noticebly" or even be used.

Yes, back to the point...

My car has adaptive headlights. To most people they are f**king useless. They turn around corners when you steer around corners and they auto-dip.

Around Auckland city? So what...

But, I had to drive 3 hours from up north in the dark/rain. Brilliant. I just drove the car and it dipped for me. I could see where I was going properly for the first time.

Useless tech for some. But I like it.

[Pugcow 0]

What makes you think these manufacturers aren't making these parts expensive for a reason? It's all double-dipping.

Buy a new car and the optional upgrade to heated seats etc... will cost you more, then of course, when they break, costs more to replace, twice the profit!

Have a watch of the documentary "Who killed the electric car" one of the interesting things in there was about just how much money the car companies (in that case GM) makes from things like Oil Filters and such, it's a massive part of their business, so complicating their cars to the point where you can't replace a 50c igniter and you have to replace an entire $1000 airbag is good for business.

There's a reason people are moving towards Japanese cars, and my belief is that it's because they are significantly cheaper to repair due to the typical lack of complexity.

[pureboiracer 0]

as long as traction control has an off switch i couldnt really give a f*#* .... but thats just me...

[Apex 693]

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

Are we getting the bang for our buck with all of this new technology?

New genuine parts are as expensive for a 20 year old car as they are a new car. I am unaware of a significant increase in cost. Was expensive to have a new BMW serviced in 91 and it is expensive in 11.

I have got great bang for my buck out of the last few new cars we have had.

A new 25,000 Ford Feista is better equipped and safer than a what what was a 100,000 BMW less than ten years ago.

As for new cars getting slower and heavier, what a crock of sh*t, even basic modern hatch backs are faster than what were highly ratted performance machines of 90's and on top of that they are much safer and install a lot more confidence when driving fast.

My main grip with new cars is the price.

[Greg111 13]

New genuine parts are as expensive for a 20 year old car as they are a new car. I am unaware of a significant increase in cost. Was expensive to have a new BMW serviced in 91 and it is expensive in 11.

I have got great bang for my buck out of the last few new cars we have had.

A new 25,000 Ford Feista is better equipped and safer than a what what was a 100,000 BMW less than ten years ago.

As for new cars getting slower and heavier, what a crock of sh*t, even basic modern hatch backs are faster than what were highly ratted performance machines of 90's and on top of that they are much safer and install a lot more confidence when driving fast.

My main grip with new cars is the price.

I can back that fully! Performance cars of the 90's are now mundane when compared to family sedans of today, as i previously mentioned, F10 528i would nearly out perform my M3, comfortably.