Does anyone agree we are going backwards in terms of long term reliability? Car wizard thinks so.

 

Yes....mostly because vehicles have become too complex mechanically and electronically. There have been warnings about this for years, but the industry has not listened.

Some of the complexity is due to government regulations mandating certain itself or capabilities. Some of it is from today's customers demanding so many comfort and convenience items. And some of it is simply due to image-competition among automakers themselves trying to outdo each other in features and bragging-rights.

One other reason, too. Many of today's engines use oil because the manufacturers use loose-fitting piston rings trying to get the gas-mileage up. Loose-fitting rings make for less internal engine-friction so the engine doesn't have to work as hard overcoming it, and uses less fuel, but the downside is that they don't seal off the cylinders as well, and some oil may get into the combustion chamber and be used or burned.

 

Loose-fitting piston rings are largely gone.

 

 

Eh... a lot of hype and opinion in there. I'm not hearing about the usual, reliable new cars having tons of problems these days. So what he is saying is off.
While some things are assembled cheaper today, I think we are better off with the newer stuff. Not even taking into account the safety systems, reliability on many makes is quite stellar. Our yearly graphs and charts prove that. Also, a lot of it is related to how the owner takes care of the vehicle. If it's given the care it needs, not beaten on, it can usually last.

 

I watched that too, he has some valid points but overall he is really overstating the point.

 

if you want a car you're willing to drive 10x around the equator (250-300k mi.) then sure, but the video is stupid. he compares an ls400 with a rented malibu.

and i don't care how well cared for, a car with that many miles is going to need some expensive service at some point. plus i just don't care for sitting on basically 'collapsed' seats and driving a car with no modern safety features. but if that works for someone, go for it.

 

And if you watch the video that old LS400 has a number of problems they just aren’t repairing because it’s so old, leaks etc. I don’t want an old car leaking on my driveway or garage floor either

 

I loved my 1999 RX300 for my almost 18 years of ownership. I learned a lot from it, had a lot of fun especially with it in Mexico and it was truly a good part of my life and family. However, when it had to go due to engine issues (sure I could have fixed it either with engine internal upgrades or a new motor), I had to look at the fact that it had a longer than normal reliability than most vehicles I know. That did not mean it was immortal or going to run forever. The declining mpg numbers alone led me to get the CT200h (always was going to stay in the Lexus family and that great reliability from my RX reinforced that). However, I will take a modern vehicle over past vehicles any day. So much new technology and advancements to enjoy. I know many people older than me that miss the great vehicles they grew up with, but at their age they love automatic transmissions, power steering, great a/c, easy to use radio and good navigation not to mention bluetooth.

 

This video only confirms what I have said for years.......that Toyota and Lexus built a number of their best vehicles in the 90s and early 2000s, and that it has been slowly downhill in product solidness and quality since then.

 

The question "are we going backwards", the answer is no, but the priorities of what goes into designing and building a car are changing rapidly.

As someone who had an LS400, no car I have owned since 100% feels as high quality as that car, including my S560. When they designed that car, their priority was that it age gracefully and all the materials and parts used were designed to do so, and truly, you can drive a well maintained one with 200,000 miles on it and it will drive like a new one. To say "look at this car today, and compare it to a Chevy Malibu of today" is an asinine statement...because that car new was $90,000 today...compare it to an Accord from then and it was also incredible. You wont drive and be wowed by a 1995 Accord compared to a new Accord lol

BUT, cars are different today. They are full of technology and features and those things take R&D and development dollars, and some of that overbuilding is not as emphasized as it was. Thats just the reality if car manufacturing today. As much as I loved and respect that LS400, I would never want to have one as my primary car today...it simply lacks all of the features and tech I want.

So, yeah I would take almost any new car over that old LS400.

The reality is, that car was designed for someone to buy it and drive it for 200,000 miles....and very few people who bought them new did that. Very few people who buy luxury cars do that. Thats why I left Lexus, because the "longevity" and "reliability" was lost on me since I wanted a new one every few years.

 

Absolutely true. Lexus is nice since you can buy them at 100k or so and still get good service out of them but they are behind the leaders now.

 

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.

 

So without "overbuilding" a little, and every component engineered to last for a specific period of time, then the overall longevity of cars made in the last few years have effectively decreased. That decrease can be a few years to 10+ years. Also the more technology a car ships with, the shorter the life span of the car especially if the technology is integral to the drivability of the car.

 

Yes and no. Obviously a vehicle loses some of its new-car feel wth age, but, IMO (and I can remember when the first Accords were built, in the mid-1970s) the best Accords were built in the early 90s, just as with the Camry in the early-mid 90s. Some later Accords had transmission problems...and the latest Accords today have more features, but IMO are not comparable in solidness and build-quality to what was done in the 80s and 90s.

Have you sampled a Mercedes product built in the 1980s or earlier? They were like tanks, famous for being overbuilt, with jewel-like precision assembly. Arguably the best cars in the world at that time. That started to change in the 1990s, as Lexus and Infiniti debuted and started giving Mercedes some REAL competiton. The company cut costs to compete, and the result was noticeable in their cars.

Ever wonder why the G-Wagon (Gelandewagen) kept it its tanklike feel for so long, when some other M-B products didn't? First, it was originally designed for the German/Austrian military, and had to be stout enough for military standards, and, Second, it was designed in the late 1970s, back when that kind of solidness was a Mercedes trademark.