Cost v Benefit tipping point

[Grant 4]

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

[Grant 4]

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!

Agreed.

[Grant 4]

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.

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.

[westy 614]

I cant put my finger on any particular time when the tech outwayed the price we have to pay to own but, the most fun I ever had in a car, was when I owned the 1971 XA Falcon station wagon. And that thing was completely without tech.

If you cant replace something as simple as an alternator without an IT dept there is something seriously wrong.

[antil33t 90]

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 bet an alternator for an E30/E34/E38 isn't 2,500.

if it its, lol.

[Jamex316 1]

Going back to the main point, I agree after year 2000 tech has started to get a bit out of balance in relation to costs.

Maybe for Jap cars its not so bad, perhaps its not easy to lead the motoring industry without some tech advances.

Personally, its the driving experience and how the car handles that makes the difference, no gadgets and tech can ever outweigh the performance of a car. So I'd stay with the slightly older cars for that reason.

Too much tech even on the performance of the car practically ruins it anyways, silly letting a computer drive the car for you. So what if I am a bad driver, if you're responsible enough, you wouldn't dare to drive carelessly on public roads, if I want to drive fast I'd do it on the track.

[Apex 693]

I do understand the point of this topic and to answer you I would say that we have yet to reach tipping point, cars like most technology has constantly evolved, and we have always had to adapt to it, you don’t go pulling your I-Phone apart yourself do you?

A lot of the “every day people†cars are still simple to work on and designed to be user friendly so I believe it comes down to choice.

If you want to buy say a late model out of warranty BMW/Audi etc and can’t afford to fix it and more importantly maintain it properly to prevent big costs more fool you, that’s the price you pay for driving something flashy and pretentious that is maybe (or not) in your initial purchase budget but is way out of the long term budget when you could have instead purchases less showy new car with a 3-5 year warranty for the same money.

When the day arises that all cars even econo-boxes become completely dealer only serviceable that will be the day of the tipping point.

[CamB 48]

that’s the price you pay for driving something flashy and pretentious

I think the question still remains as to whether they really need to design in the complexity? (I think you do understand the point)

I'm not sure the consumer actually demands all the technology (even the new buyer) and there is a genuine risk (for BMW, for instance) that if its used cars become considered unreliable that this will affect its new car image.

Slightly unrelated, but the single greatest attraction (to me) of my M3 is that its light on driver aids (and only moderate on technology generally).

Edited January 23, 2011 by CamB

[Apex 693]

A new M3 may have all the driving aids but they can all be completely switched off to reveal pure unadulterated V8-Manula-LSD fun.

I don’t think many of you that complain about modern cars and computers have actually driven any decent modern performance cars, maybe in your dads VE Commy the traction control is annoying when you’re trying to pull a one wheelie squealy in front of your awesome girlfriends but it is completely switchable on the decent cars and even if it’s not and you do reach the point where they intervene maybe you are doing something wrong, most modern cars I have driven have the threshold set quite high and only kick in when your fists turn to ham and drive out of your comfort zone.

I switch mine off on the track or on a event but when driving on the road just leave them in place, if im having them kick in on the road im either driving like a fukwit or it is a genuine emergency, I have had stability control save the missus from putting our at the time BMW 545i into a paddock.

Triple edit special. Clap clap for the dyslexic handicap

Edited January 23, 2011 by Apex

[Grant 4]

I do understand the point of this topic and to answer you I would say that we have yet to reach tipping point, cars like most technology has constantly evolved, and we have always had to adapt to it, you don’t go pulling your I-Phone apart yourself do you?

A lot of the “every day people†cars are still simple to work on and designed to be user friendly so I believe it comes down to choice.

If you want to buy say a late model out of warranty BMW/Audi etc and can’t afford to fix it and more importantly maintain it properly to prevent big costs more fool you, that’s the price you pay for driving something flashy and pretentious that is maybe (or not) in your initial purchase budget but is way out of the long term budget when you could have instead purchases less showy new car with a 3-5 year warranty for the same money.

When the day arises that all cars even econo-boxes become completely dealer only serviceable that will be the day of the tipping point.

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.

[westy 614]

I dont think the point was whether or not you can switch traction control off or you have comfort access or any of the other pointless waffle.

I think the issue is with the underlying complexity of the systems used to control basic operation of the car.

Of course new cars are more efficient, more powerfull and, for the first 5 years of their life, possibly more reliable but just imagine how much more of all those things a new car could be if it didn't weigh 2 ton.

Once these cars are more than 5years old they become nothing but liabilities for their owners.

And I dont think 5years is a long enough life span for a car. There's the sinking feeling that this is what new manufacturers are chasing.

Not only is it silly expensive, but also horribly wasteful of resources that wont last forever.

Also, New M3 GTS get round the ring 2 seconds faster than E46 CSL.

Considering the new generation and .8l larger engine, I'd call that a win for the E46.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Westy

[Apex 693]

You did say all cars not just BMW in the OP.

BMW’s tipping point, easy from my point of view, the E38-E39. Needed a dealer to wipe its ars and was always being called in for this or that and after 5 years started to fall apart.

Needless to say that was the tipping point my old man who went back to a bread and butter brand and has never looked back.

I believe we make choices though, like I have said to friends many times I would love a modern M car and could even afford to buy one but I would not be able to afford to maintain one, I could however buy an alternative with 90% or more of the performance and have just as much fun with low maintenance costs.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Apex

[Grant 4]

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).

[Grant 4]

You did say all cars not just BMW in the OP.

BMW’s tipping point, easy from my point of view, the E38-E39. Needed a dealer to wipe its ars and was always being called in for this or that and after 5 years started to fall apart.

Needless to say that was the tipping point my old man who went back to a bread and butter brand and has never looked back.

I believe we make choices though, like I have said to friends many times I would love a modern M car and could even afford to buy one but I would not be able to afford to maintain one, I could however buy an alternative with 90% or more of the performance and have just as much fun with low maintenance costs.

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

[Apex 693]

Sorry, some of us (me) are a bit slow Grant. You have put in a way I can understand

I can’t compare the BMW’s as they are not what Kiwi’s buy and don’t reflect a realistic portrait of what modern buyers are purchasing so in my head I am comparing a new Toyota Corolla to a 1991 Toyota Corolla and I would say it’s no different, I am equalling it out.

It’s a hard comparison to make, would love to spend some time doing research though, I think you would need a couple of years and would need to take inflation into account, a 14†tyre for a 1990 Corolla is considerably cheaper in 2011 than it was is 1991.

[Grant 4]

Sorry, some of us (me) are a bit slow Grant. You have put in a way I can understand

I think it is more the case that what I am thinking in my head, and trying to articulate through the keyboard, is not what is read the other end. It is also easy to get off the original point because a car is much more than it was say 20 years ago, they advanced in many ways (safety, features, accessories etc).

[Apex 693]

It’s a hard one.

Random thoughts.

Is the $$$ cost to replace an Airbag or a skid control system is high vs the emotional cost of losing a family member when they die in an accident.

Where would you cut costs?

A 2011 is 1000% stiffer than a 1991, has more space, is faster and better to drive and in the event of an accident you may live, it will drink less fuel and require less servicing than a 1990 Corolla, also, relative to inflation and income a new Corolla is cheaper to buy in 2011. It does weigh 250-300kg more though and won’t do as mean a skid.

[Grant 4]

It’s a hard one.

Random thoughts.

Is the $$$ cost to replace an Airbag or a skid control system is high vs the emotional cost of losing a family member when they die in an accident.

Where would you cut costs?

A 2011 is 1000% stiffer than a 1991, has more space, is faster and better to drive and in the event of an accident you may live, it will drink less fuel and require less servicing than a 1990 Corolla, also, relative to inflation and income a new Corolla is cheaper to buy in 2011. It does weigh 250-300kg more though and won’t do as mean a skid.

I agree, a modern car is a significantly better car in nearly every way, especially safety.

What if they dropped the brand new engine out of a 1991 Corolla into a 2011 Corolla, and all of the additional safety and comfort features worked. (I know that I am being overly simplistic in this example - and it probably isn't even possible)?

I'm not even sure why I am that interested in this topic. I put it down to my overly analytic nature, and that these types of things interest me.

[Apex 693]

Being Toyota the engine hasn’t come a long way since 1991, both are relatively simple 4 cylinders. I believe both cars would be equal in all aspects of basic running costs and believe it’s all time relative, sure the modern car has more modern systems but so do the dealerships.

Would you believe that when I took my hamster on a wheel 1986 Toyota to the dealership there was not one technician there that knew how to tune it up? That turns the tables on things doesn’t it, a modern dealership un able to service a car that most imagine to be simple.

Same would go for an old BMW, I know it took Glenn quite a few hours and cost me a quite a bit of money just for fix an idling issue with the old E30, given it was modern Glenn could have diagnosed it with a scanner and save 8 hours labour and tedious work trouble shooting.

[Grant 4]

Would you believe that when I took my hamster on a wheel 1986 Toyota to the dealership there was not one technician there that knew how to tune it up? That turns the tables on things doesn’t it, a modern dealership un able to service a car that most imagine to be simple.

That is a good/interesting point.

Greg, what are the oldest cars you get into the dealership for work? Do you get many E30/E34 era cars in for work?

What about older (notwithstanding the fact that most of this era are no longer on the road)?

What do you prefer to work on, a newer car or an older car?

[Grant 4]

I dont think the point was whether or not you can switch traction control off or you have comfort access or any of the other pointless waffle.

I think the issue is with the underlying complexity of the systems used to control basic operation of the car.

Of course new cars are more efficient, more powerfull and, for the first 5 years of their life, possibly more reliable but just imagine how much more of all those things a new car could be if it didn't weigh 2 ton.

Once these cars are more than 5years old they become nothing but liabilities for their owners.

And I dont think 5years is a long enough life span for a car. There's the sinking feeling that this is what new manufacturers are chasing.

Not only is it silly expensive, but also horribly wasteful of resources that wont last forever.

These are my thoughts as well.

[Jamex316 1]

When the economy is going great, those who can endulge on luxury will be willing to buy brand new and to replace their cars every 3-5 years, the 5 years of possible troublefree motoring design then becomes the manufacturers goal.

And often those people just want the fancy gizmos to show off then caring about reliability and costs later down the track.

[Greg111 13]

That is a good/interesting point.

Greg, what are the oldest cars you get into the dealership for work? Do you get many E30/E34 era cars in for work?

What about older (notwithstanding the fact that most of this era are no longer on the road)?

What do you prefer to work on, a newer car or an older car?

Surprisingly yes, we still get quite a few E30s, E34s, E36s etc, even the odd E28 and E32s, there's a difference when working on these old girls and working on the newer models, i.e, most of the above you can still carry out a basic tune, the new ones are tuned for "life", be it new or old the mechanical side, suspension brakes etc are all the same, the electrics are the ONLY thing different, as technology progresses so do the cars, it's a way of life. To answer your question, i prefer the newer ones to work on, why? Believe it or not, the diagnostic procedure is far more efficient and less complex.

[hybrid 1043]

What I dont get is why the manufactures want to overly complicate the vehicles with having to re-code after a battery change or what ever when:

Everything can be bypassed weather they like it or not. (people will always find a way to crack something)

The general populous will in 10 years just stop buying your cars because they are too hard.

[Greg111 13]

What I dont get is why the manufactures want to overly complicate the vehicles with having to re-code after a battery change or what ever when:

Everything can be bypassed weather they like it or not. (people will always find a way to crack something)

The general populous will in 10 years just stop buying your cars because they are too hard.

The consumer doesn't know the half of it, when they purchase a vehicle they are tought how to operate the gadgetry and that's it, if by chance the vehicle faults it comes to us, we do our thing and back out the door.