When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If we take away that he prefers a 300k mi LS beater over a new car, he does have a point that from a mechanical perspective, the engine components (like valve covers - which are mostly plastic these days) are likely to be of lesser durability (some justify the decision as to reduce weight, but we all know it's mostly about cost).
Would a LS500 last 300 mi miles with just a few gasket leaks compared to the LS400 if you give it 20 years? I don't think it would.
Here is a interesting comparison of the current generation Camry with the previous generation. E.g. in the new there are a lot of plastic clip on parts in the engine bay without even any screws to hold them on, wheel liner material that is cardboard thin. So this just goes to prove that Toyota today makes no attempt to differentiate from other mainstream manufacturers now, creating a minimal viable product out to the market from a durability standpoint.
I don’t think the new models will be any different in long term reliability. If the engine is designed well, then it will last a long time. Poor engineering, then you get poor reliability. All engines do burn oil BTW. Less features or less options then less to,go wrong. Can’t stand timing belt engines
you got to think bigger. Every action has an equal and opposite impact on the environment, for better or worse. In the worse category, this means more pollution, more deforestation (land fill is not infinite) less biodiversity etc.
while it doesn’t impact you in a way you see right now, the impact is there. Someone else ends up paying for it, and it doesn’t have to be measured in dollars.
80 million cars are produced each year. Even if their useful life decreases by a small percentage, that is a lot going into waste as recycling is never fully done well in practice.
I buy stuff that lasts personally speaking, it's the majority that doesn't and wants new stuff constantly. Even stuff like my vacuums are fully rebuildable and both are 20 years old since I perfer something that works better than the modern stuff Dyson makes. Tried three from them and none outperformed my grandmas Kirby or really even came somewhat close. I found two Kirby's that people were throwing away and took them all the way apart, blasted the metal, and refit them....and I'll likely have them for 30+ years.
I'm that way with a lot of stuff, I just had my irrigation controller fail and since it's a 12 zone commercial unit I repaired it vs replacing. The only reason I could do so is because it's an older design that allowed me to, a new one is throwaway and replace
A rubber timing belt is an opportunity for fatally missed maintence that a chain just isn't. I'll bet you there are a lot more interference engines getting trashed, and taking the whole car to the scrapyard with them, because a rubber timing belt snapped at age 8 than because a metal chain falied at age 13.
I've personally replaced 8 3.6 Chevy engines with chain failures that resulted from valve contact from chain stretch.
3 Honda 2.4s
Two Hyundai 2.4s
And two Toyota 2.4s
About every VW engine and in particular the 1.8 engines, these things are horrible about chain stench and failure.
And various other chain engines that stretch and cause freak issues or correlation codes, oh and 5.4 ford.....that one alone proves the point well.
I have had only two cars have a belt failure, a CRV with 290k on the original and an LS430 with over 340k on the belt and 540k miles on the car. From everything I have seen and the dozens upon dozens of belt cars comes though it seems to me to be a system that fails less and doesn't have the stretch and wear issues chains have and are EASY to change. A 3.5 Honda is literally 2 hours if you have ever done one before.
I know my 460 will have chain issues since I have already repaired two other ones with issues that came to me. Same with my 4.0 but that's a given since it's a Audi after all...
It's FAR worse to do chains than a belt, it might also shock you to learn a chain is cheaper to implement and produce than a belt.
I've personally replaced 8 3.6 Chevy engines with chain failures that resulted from valve contact from chain stretch.
3 Honda 2.4s
Two Hyundai 2.4s
And two Toyota 2.4s
About every VW engine and in particular the 1.8 engines, these things are horrible about chain stench and failure.
And various other chain engines that stretch and cause freak issues or correlation codes, oh and 5.4 ford.....that one alone proves the point well.
I have had only two cars have a belt failure, a CRV with 290k on the original and an LS430 with over 340k on the belt and 540k miles on the car. From everything I have seen and the dozens upon dozens of belt cars comes though it seems to me to be a system that fails less and doesn't have the stretch and wear issues chains have and are EASY to change. A 3.5 Honda is literally 2 hours if you have ever done one before.
I know my 460 will have chain issues since I have already repaired two other ones with issues that came to me. Same with my 4.0 but that's a given since it's a Audi after all...
It's FAR worse to do chains than a belt, it might also shock you to learn a chain is cheaper to implement and produce than a belt.
Hey, I'm not.a blind hater of belts. My last car had a Honda J Series, and it's a great engine. And I don't disagree with everything you're saying. But I do think you're going a little bit far.
The GM 3.6 is known for stretching chains; it's a known design defect. As for the other anecdotal cases you mentioned, I'll just make one simple point: No, a chain is not always a perfectly bulletproof lifetime part. But in the end, why did Lexus recommend replacing the belt on the LS 430 every 60k, but not make the same recommendation for the 460's chain? The answer is obvoius: Because even though some chains can mechanicallly fail, on average a chain outlasts a belt.
I'm willing to bet more engines were ruined by broken timing belts vs chain wear. But maybe BMW skews that stat. The best Lexus V8 ever made uses a timing belt so there is that.
Since the thread title is about plastic and we are talking about timing chains here is how it all fits together, in my story.
Owned a Ford Maverick back in the day with a V-8.
Loved that car and after a month of driving it it stalled out and died on the road.
I pulled down the engine to discover it had a timing chain with oem factory plastic gears!
The chain had jumped timing due to worn out gears.
Replacements were metal so added a new chain too and was back on the road the same day.
Metal chain with plastic gears, genius... haha
PS- I think it was a Maverick or something similar, it was a long time ago, 1970's vintage car.
Hey, I'm not.a blind hater of belts. My last car had a Honda J Series, and it's a great engine. And I don't disagree with everything you're saying. But I do think you're going a little bit far.
The GM 3.6 is known for stretching chains; it's a known design defect. As for the other anecdotal cases you mentioned, I'll just make one simple point: No, a chain is not always a perfectly bulletproof lifetime part. But in the end, why did Lexus recommend replacing the belt on the LS 430 every 60k, but not make the same recommendation for the 460's chain? The answer is obvoius: Because even though some chains can mechanicallly fail, on average a chain outlasts a belt.
The real reason is because most 460s have a "hesitation issue" from chain wear that they bandaged with a reflash that partially ignores the knock sensors. There is PLENTY of info on this and every UR engine I've opened has out of spec stretch on the links. That makes the ecu confused and if it gets too bad it will will set idle-low rpm pending relation codes. This comes from following the "recommended" oil change of 10k, use 5k if you actually care about 100k+ mile wear. The UR has ratcheting primary tensioners though so you won't get ford/GM style ultra slap and strange behavior most of the time. However....the live data will show it.
Most people do not scan their cars and look at the signals or complain of a used car they bought needs chains. Someone who buys it new would so it lasts about 100k-120k before issues can start. It can be avoided if you maintain it well but most people do not.
LS430 is 90k and can easily go 180k. That is well above the average chain now that cars are old enough to see how they have fared, US V8s/any cam in block doesn't count since those are the ones that don't see the stretch have much of a negative effect. Still happens with them and they have tensioners in many designs.
I don't really care, I own cars with both but calling a chain better/longer lasting is not something I will agree with since I see roughly 1:3 ratio belts vs chains and percent failures are much higher in the chain cars. I have never had a diesel VW have a belt issue or any of their belt cars have issues, chain problems are endless however....
When I first started I was 1000% chains and said I would never own a belt car since it's "stupid and pointless" that the timing system didn't use a chain. Now that I'm experienced I know better, a belt engine will outlast a chain engine and transmit less shock into the valvetrain. People fear them due to the fact they recommend changing the belt, but man let me tell you how many have come in with 200k+ miles on the OE.....meanwhile chain cars are a rattly mess 40k before that if they are lucky. The unlucky ones have slap at startup or running issues, people don't change the oil and they wear down.
A belt is like air suspension, it works or it's dead. A chain gradually grinds down and wears out but can limp along whole out of spec, until you snap on the throttle and confuse the ECU or in some engines cases hit valves.
I buy stuff that lasts personally speaking, it's the majority that doesn't and wants new stuff constantly. Even stuff like my vacuums are fully rebuildable and both are 20 years old since I perfer something that works better than the modern stuff Dyson makes. Tried three from them and none outperformed my grandmas Kirby or really even came somewhat close. I found two Kirby's that people were throwing away and took them all the way apart, blasted the metal, and refit them....and I'll likely have them for 30+ years.
while it's nice you can fix old stuff and keep it running and sure, old appliances were definitely built more tank like than modern ones, this is all ignoring paradigm shifts in function or other benefits that make your vacuums basically antiques.
for example, the dyson's you weren't enamored with were likely a whole lot lighter than your tank-like vacs.
and i've largely given up on regular vacuums entirely, using robot vacs instead. i've got 3 now, 2 at the house and 1 at my office. the new ones even mop and mine can automatically tell when they're on carpet so they avoid mopping that. they're freaking awesome. as far as longevity, my old one is about 15 years old and while dumb compared to new ones, it's still doing a great job cleaning the master bedroom with one touch of a button.
same with cars... while sure, a capable person like yourself can keep old cars going, there's many other benefits to driving something newer.
since this topic has come up a few times already in this thread, just got the fabled airmatic failure message in my E
front right strut 'suddenly' let go 2 nights ago when i took the car out for a quick sunday fun run... i say that with quotes since it had been slowly leaking for like a year (after 4-5 days the front right would start to droop and by 2 weeks would be basically flat) but suddenly wouldn't hold air after reaching the bottom of a somewhat steep hill going like 95 lol
luckily arnott makes a rebuilt unit for a fraction of the price and you're still getting all new rubber bellows and gaskets
many people will switch these cars to coilovers but i ain't about that, i'd have to consider myself someone irresponsibly living beyond their means if i did that lol... the airmatic is a cool feature but every few years will act up a bit
while it's nice you can fix old stuff and keep it running and sure, old appliances were definitely built more tank like than modern ones, this is all ignoring paradigm shifts in function or other benefits that make your vacuums basically antiques.
for example, the dyson's you weren't enamored with were likely a whole lot lighter than your tank-like vacs.
and i've largely given up on regular vacuums entirely, using robot vacs instead. i've got 3 now, 2 at the house and 1 at my office. the new ones even mop and mine can automatically tell when they're on carpet so they avoid mopping that. they're freaking awesome. as far as longevity, my old one is about 15 years old and while dumb compared to new ones, it's still doing a great job cleaning the master bedroom with one touch of a button.
same with cars... while sure, a capable person like yourself can keep old cars going, there's many other benefits to driving something newer.
Same weight within half a pound, far worse suction and over 40 CFM less at the head and totally inferior brushbar performance. Also not self propelled and with my current carpets the dysons literally stall even on the highest setting. It's not a comparison in the slightest, plus it's not far since a new Kirby is $1500
I also expect it to clean in one full speed pass of my arm removing literally anything on the carpets so the whole house (3000 sq ft of carpeted areas) is done under an hour. Nothing else allows me to move this fast and this completely clean everything on top of being absurdly overbuilt, I would pay the $1500 for a new one if it wasn't so easy to refit older ones with the newest motor and fans. Filtration is also far beyond any canister filtered units, the allergen version of the Dyson vac has SO much ultrafine particle leakage at the seals, that's bothersome since the whole point is to trap and retain.
I don't want to waste time or effort having to do multiple passes to clean or not fully removing everything. Robo vacs (any vac really...) just don't have the power to lift the whole carpet off the pad and suck through it entirely. I tried a bunch of different brands that people I know own and this one far and away totally outperforms and exceed not only what I wanted but what I thought is possible lol!
Now that auto mop has my attention if it doesn't run into stuff and can work well on wood floors....
Sorry for being a huge nerd about this, my moms side is Polish lol!
At the end of the day, the priorities for vehicle design are changing. Technology is advancing which allows for the use of materials that seem “cheaper” on the surface, but actually are just as durable if not more so than older materials that seem “more expensive”. Weight is also a constant enemy in vehicle designs where efficiency is a huge focus, and metal equals weight. If you can use materials that are lighter and achieve the same longevity, or even shorter longevity that makes sense with the lifecycle of the vehicle, then that just makes sense.
The implication is that carmakers are “cheaping out” by doing this, and I just don’t see it that way.
“Once the recall is underway, dealers will replace the recalled jack with a metal jack with a different design. Undelivered vehicles will have the plastic jack removed prior to delivery and owners will be given a replacement metal jack as soon as one is available.”
while it's nice you can fix old stuff and keep it running and sure, old appliances were definitely built more tank like than modern ones, this is all ignoring paradigm shifts in function or other benefits that make your vacuums basically antiques.
for example, the dyson's you weren't enamored with were likely a whole lot lighter than your tank-like vacs.
.
I have a Sears vacuum. It works great. I think in D had it for 25 years now. I had to repair it just once. My sissy in law has a Dyson… worked great but was a POS for lasting long. She paid like $800 or something like that.
ignoring paradigm shifts in function or other benefits that make your vacuums
What type of paradigm shift is there with vacuums? Like how much better can vacuuming a carpet really get
At the end of the day, the priorities for vehicle design are changing. Technology is advancing which allows for the use of materials that seem “cheaper” on the surface, but actually are just as durable if not more so than older materials that seem “more expensive”. Weight is also a constant enemy in vehicle designs where efficiency is a huge focus, and metal equals weight. If you can use materials that are lighter and achieve the same longevity, or even shorter longevity that makes sense with the lifecycle of the vehicle, then that just makes sense.
The implication is that carmakers are “cheaping out” by doing this, and I just don’t see it that way.
More so they are giving people what they actually pay for, otherwise it would cost 40% more if they used the old methods on top of all the new tech they include. Heck if you factor inflation at all it's amazing they sell stuff at the prices they do
07-12-22, 05:46 PM
