BMWs brilliance is it by design or is it due to method?

[genphreak]

Is the reason BMWs last so well more than just good engineering? It seems to me that the dealers have very clear service procedures and disciplines dictated by Germany- in comparison to the other automotive brands.

It appears that those of us in the second hand market do well to get cars that have been so well looked after. The only trouble is most of us (excepting those onn this forum of course) have NFI about maintaining the regime and the cars goto **** due to a couple of big maintainance items cropping up and a whole bunch of missed maintainence...

I have an idea about what can be done to help prevent this. We need a distributed, open version of the BMW Technical Information System where we keep a log of all the work we do, and can see anything we miss... the current TIS does not have this, or any sections for updates, upgrades and modifications...

What do you peeps think? :) Nick

[Blitzkrieg Bob]

marshmellow chicks


anyway....

I seem to see that the BMW was made to be maintaned, where other cars were made to be discarded and replaced.

[genphreak]

marshmellow chicks anyway.... I seem to see that the BMW was made to be maintaned, where other cars were made to be discarded and replaced.You're right on the money there, Bob as ever... I guess cos of this, a lot of things on the car are new (for an old car) when one buys one second hand... still look how many things last 20 years and are still good... GM can't seem to manage it... door rubbers last like 5 years on their cars. :) Nick

[Paul in NZ]

also with most bmw owners i would think that initial maintenance on the car would not be an issue,and generally the cars would get looked after....for instance I beleive the first two owners of my car did not take it out in the rain.....

[Jr ///M5]

Along with what Bob says about the ridgid maintenance program and inspection, my thinking was that if someone could afford to drop $40-60k on a new car 10-15 years ago, they could also afford to keep the damn thing maintained, and cleaned.

Don't bet that the new BMW cars with the ******** extended oil change intervals and 4 year coolant flushes will last as long. BMW has doubled the mileage on just about all maintenance since they started footing the bill for the first 50k miles.

But if you were to buy a new BMW now, and use the older maintenance program, along with initial break in fluid changes with the trans and diff, I would bet it would last too!

[e39dream]

I realized right away that unlike my other car, I actually enjoy working on the bimmer. I too think the extended interval is too much time, I'm going 10k on synthetic oil before change.

[632 Regal]

if you stick to the regular service inspection I and II you would inspect everything that can fail. aside from that following the same service you replace the cooling, belts, antifreeze, fluids etc etc. this is what keeps these cars alive.

[Zeuk in Oz]

I suspect it goes deeper than this Nick.

Certainly the vehicles are well engineered, however as you say, without the rigorous application of a logical approach to maintenance, including replacement of components before they fail, BMWs can be as unreliable and short-lived as other marques.

As the owner of a 4 yo Mercedes M class, I can assure you that Merc appears to have adopted many of these same fundamental concepts when it comes to maintenance of their cars.

The big issue, I feel, is that older cars of any other marque, excluding possibly Jaguar, are not as exceptionally nice to drive.

I think it is this "Freude am Fahren" that makes the smitten, like us, work so hard to maintain our cars.

Can't see anyone resurrecting 18 yo Mercs in the same numbers ........

[rob101]

i was actually talking about this with a guy from work who is according to some people in the company one of the best maintenance minds in the country. The topic came up because one of our german cranes which we recently purchased had a problem, which is the 2nd in as many weeks nothing too serious. I mentioned to him this insurance company's findings on the relative failure rates in cars (in warranty periods) and why mercedes and bmw have higher failure rates whereas hyundai's are at the lower end of the scale. this type of failure is much more common in more sophisticated machines, but most importantly it has nothing to do with the longevity of the machine. then we started to talk about the bathtub curve of realiability and he told me in a machine that doesn't wear (ie all wearable components can be replaced) if you maintain it properly and overhaul it when necessary it never "wears out". i see where he is coming from
but unfortunately we are nerd engineers not the usual car user who doesn't have a f-ing clue how a car works or how important changing the oil and filter is to the car, its the only way you can actually clean the inside of the engine.
personally i would like to get a younger car although my 525i has been fully maintained by dealers all of its life she is old (250 000 km), and if i implemented my own maintenance regime on a car with sub 100 000 km i think it'd last me alooooong time

[genphreak]

Tahnks Zeuk.

I think older Mercs are great looking, but the driver position is weird (you either feel liek a taxi driver with that massive, mung wheel) or liek driving an old Valiant (Chrysler) where you are upright and still have to peer over the steering wheel. Old 280 and 300Es are nice, the SLs of course. I would love a 70s 450SEL 6.9 not to mention a 600 limo, but all of them have mung wheels and are hardly performance vehicles... so it'd have to be a 560SL (if it wasn't for the wheel) and that is way OTT for me. They made a huge leap with the 80s plasticised models, but with Daimler in control now who knows what the Americans will do to the brand, I was riding in a Kompressor 2 door and it felt like it was made of balsawood and plastic (no racism intended good Cousins) I just can't think of a better way to get ithe multinational money-ideology-control factor across at present- apologies in advance. :) Nick

[genphreak]

Yea Rob, I agree. Thing is society doesn't want old cars, the marketers do a good job of ensuring that. So ultimately we don't expect to keep them foreever, nor do we expect to be able to source cheap parts to maintain them (ie the brands are somehow not damaged when they charge 600% markups instead of 40% a lot for the parts). This is plain silly. The sooner the culture changes and one buys a car for life, or a large part of it, the better. There is no reason why my next upgrade shouldn't be a hybrid drive mechanism, why turbos should be made mandatory in all gasolene engines (ie ones that increase efficiency), unless someone is trying to prevent it from happening, like BioFuels are being taxed before they can get a foot-hold. I don't think we all need to be driving water-powered Trevants but disposing of cars after 7 years (and not maintaining them in the process, just look at Japan) is a waste. People just don't understand the fact and sadly it just puts mechanics out of work and makes more waste to choke us. It's a machine and like you say they all need to be maintained and if maintained properly can last forever. Why must we allow manufacturers to prevent this from happening so that they can sell us a new one we don't need- and in doing so rape our environment in the process? It's time that we started worrying less about what new products we are to buy. Perhaps if plastics went up in value due to the the oil that is used to make them (at least as much as fuel is for the punters at the pump) we will have a hope. Who knows...

[rob101]

Yea Rob, I agree. Thing is society doesn't want old cars, the marketers do a good job of ensuring that.
yes i have noticed this myself, i think alot of people are very technology centric. they want all the latest and greatest gizmos, its like some materialistic misconception. Technology is nothing without good design and manufacture. execution and development are far more important than people realise.
I can think of a good example, with regards to americans taking over german companies. there was a german company called Demag who mainly make overhead (gantry) cranes but also mobile cranes. Now Demag got bought out by the US company Terex and trades under the name Terex Demag. They have all the latest technology on par with their direct competitor Liebherr in their mobile cranes. However having more of a multinationalistic approach ever since the american company took over they have outsourced all their parts from different companies. which is not unusual however there are serious compatibility issues with their computers. to the point that in singapore and also in jobs here i have heard that their mobile truck cranes will not operate during the day on a 30 degree C day as the gearbox oil temp sensors f-up and the crane won't even start. apparently the computers in the truck body and the superstructure where build by different companies and have interface problems.
so basically these cranes are sophicated inanimate objects most of the time.
as opposed to Liebherr who are a huge german company that has all their computer systems designed in house, they only outsource their gearboxes and some engines (majority are liebherr engines as well). they have sporatic problems (which is relatively normal especially in the first 500 hrs of operation in the break in) but nothing like that.
so i ask you
would you buy the demag that doesn't work 20% of the time for the technology? hell no, thats the difference between a **** crane and a good one even though both of them have the same level of technology.
i think tech hasn't advanced that far with a holden, hyundai or ford vs. a mid 90s bmw but i can tell you which is a better executed and developed car and thus the one i'd buy.

[nuclearfusion]

I'm sometimes asked why I like owning BMWs: aren't they fussy and finicky, difficult and expensive to take care of, etc. etc.

I always answer that in fact they tend to be very reliable, and aren't particularly difficult or expensive to take care of, but that they are designed for a different mentality to the one many consumers have towards their vehicles. "It's a mechanical system," I say, "built to be used, inspected and maintained - not a dishwasher made to be used until broken, then fixed or in many cases discarded!"

I think it's an issue of attitude. I don't imagine the typical European consumer considers a BMW to be a vehicle that requires any undue amount of care or attention. (of course strict reinspection rules help this too - cars tend to be kept in good shape.) Let's face it, these vehicles thrive on correct maintenance. When treated properly (all maintenance tasks performed on schedule, fluids, belts and tuneup components changed on schedule, inspections on schedule, etc.) their quality shines.

For the average North American consumer this requires a level of commitment and/or awareness (perhaps even a level of "relationship") that is unusual. However, for those who have this kind of awareness, a BMW is a tremendously rewarding vehicle to own and enjoy.

Enjoy (!)

Fusion

p.s. - the myth of expensive BMW service and parts is just a myth, or at very worst not necessary to be true. Servicing a BMW is a dream compared to most other lower-grade vehicles. Parts and fasteners are quality, service and maintenance was part of the original design concept from day 1, components go together and come apart like they were designed to, etc. As for the expensive parts myth - for example premium German-manufactured Balo rotors for our cars are $42 each. Pontiac Vibe rotors cost more than that.

[Zeuk in Oz]

The sooner the culture changes and one buys a car for life, or a large part of it, the better. There is no reason why my next upgrade shouldn't be a hybrid drive mechanism, why turbos should be made mandatory in all gasolene engines (ie ones that increase efficiency), unless someone is trying to prevent it from happening, like BioFuels are being taxed before they can get a foot-hold. I don't think we all need to be driving water-powered Trevants but disposing of cars after 7 years (and not maintaining them in the process, just look at Japan) is a waste.
True as far as it goes, Nick, but this argument ignores the massive quantum leap in car safety that has occurred over the past 20 years.

Wonderful to drive as our cars surely are, they don't have ESP, brake assist, side airbags, window airbags, active head restraints, self tightening seat belts and so on.

These safety features are not just gimmicks, they save lives.

I am not sure that the next 20 years will match the past 20 as far as these issues are concerned.

Only time will tell.

[rob101]

Wonderful to drive as our cars surely are, they don't have ESP, brake assist, side airbags, window airbags, active head restraints, self tightening seat belts and so on.

thats true
but i don't believe that these are standard fitments on the majority of japanese or australians cars atm
only Euros have the majority of those as standard. hell, holden only just announced that ESP will be standard for the first time on the next evolution of the commodore in the last 2 weeks.
besides i've heard people say things like oh a excel or echo is much safer than an e34
get bent, wow it has airbags big deal so does mine and it has ABS and most importantly it weighs 400 kg more and has a more rigid chassis! problem is when it comes to safety people think that oh its got this feature or that.
so what? i mean i am not against ESP or ABS or what have you
but i can tell you the only car ever to get 0 on the eurocap testing HAD AN AIRBAG. its very difficult to compare old and new car's safety unfortunately but there is a site run by monash that has some very interesting statistics of the australian crash data here (http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc241.pdf)
you are 0.23% more likely to be seriously injured in a e34 than a VY commodore if you are in an accident most interesting enough you are 0.1 % less likely to be seriously injured in an e28 than a VY
so
new cars are waaaaaay safer, sorry reality has different ideas.

[Paul in NZ]

i might be a bit cynical here but i think some of the hype by the manufacturers about airbags etc are to SELL more cars.We live in a consumer society we must always buy the newer better bigger....I am not saying that airbags et al dont assist in safety.We can still buy parts for our cars.a mate here has a 99 falcon ute,some parts are aready listed as not available.

[Zeuk in Oz]

thats true
but i don't believe that these are standard fitments on the majority of japanese or australians cars atm
only Euros have the majority of those as standard. hell, holden only just announced that ESP will be standard for the first time on the next evolution of the commodore in the last 2 weeks.
besides i've heard people say things like oh a excel or echo is much safer than an e34
get bent, wow it has airbags big deal so does mine and it has ABS and most importantly it weighs 400 kg more and has a more rigid chassis! problem is when it comes to safety people think that oh its got this feature or that.
so what? i mean i am not against ESP or ABS or what have you
but i can tell you the only car ever to get 0 on the eurocap testing HAD AN AIRBAG. its very difficult to compare old and new car's safety unfortunately but there is a site run by monash that has some very interesting statistics of the australian crash data here (http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc241.pdf)
you are 0.23% more likely to be seriously injured in a e34 than a VY commodore if you are in an accident most interesting enough you are 0.1 % less likely to be seriously injured in an e28 than a VY
so
new cars are waaaaaay safer, sorry reality has different ideas.
I must say that I have difficulty with some of your arguments Rob.

I agree that without a well engineered chasis with proper crumple zones and safety cages, no airbags are worth much. However I find it hard to argue that a new 1500 kg BMW with all the latest safety gear is not safer than an 18 year old 1500 kg BMW with only ABS. I am not comparing a $hit box Hyundai with a BMW.

The site that has given me much assistance is www.folksam.se (by the way there is an English button for those of you who don't read Swedish) which is the site of a Swedish insurance company that does assess real world crashes, not just hypotheticals.

They have found that ESP reduces accidents by 35% in dry conditions, 55% in snow and ice and by a whopping 65% in the wet.

They unequivocally recommend that anyone buying a car should buy a car equipped with ESP. That is a pretty big call !

They have also shown with their collation of real accidents that, generally speaking, the larger the car and the newer the car, the safer you are.

They seem to indicate this critical mass figure of 1300 kg that I am fond of quoting, saying that you shouldn't buy a car that weighs less.

Obviously there may be exceptions out there, but I must admit that I feel that any safety feature that prevents a collision or accident is worth its weight in gold. I even include good tyres in that !

My gut feeling is that we have reached a plateau with respect to safety issues in cars now, and that the next 20 years will see enormous advances in the efficiency of new power plants, whatever they will be.

Paul in NZ, I don't necessarily disagree that there is advertising hype associated with some new features, however particularly in Oz, safety is given much less priority by the average punter looking at buying a car than style, colour, interior features and now fuel economy.

I will now vacate this soapbox. ;)

[rob101]

well i know what you mean what i am trying to say, is that
buy a new car for sub 40k which isn't european
you won't get ESP standard, and that statistics have show that newer cars aren't significantly safer than the bmws of old in a crash. if i wanted more safety i'd buy an e39 or e46.
they are very much safer in the road crash statistics on our roads than cars built ever since. so my point was that if safety is a big issue chances are you'd be buying a slightly newer (late 90s early 00s) european car anyway. unfortunately safety has come along way but local manufacturers and asian manufacturers have been playing catch up for the last 10 years when compared with european manufacturers.
and the link in my last post that is based on real road crashes in this country, its not hypothetical.

[Alexlind123]

thats true
but i don't believe that these are standard fitments on the majority of japanese or australians cars atm
only Euros have the majority of those as standard. hell, holden only just announced that ESP will be standard for the first time on the next evolution of the commodore in the last 2 weeks.
besides i've heard people say things like oh a excel or echo is much safer than an e34
get bent, wow it has airbags big deal so does mine and it has ABS and most importantly it weighs 400 kg more and has a more rigid chassis! problem is when it comes to safety people think that oh its got this feature or that.
so what? i mean i am not against ESP or ABS or what have you
but i can tell you the only car ever to get 0 on the eurocap testing HAD AN AIRBAG. its very difficult to compare old and new car's safety unfortunately but there is a site run by monash that has some very interesting statistics of the australian crash data here (http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc241.pdf)
you are 0.23% more likely to be seriously injured in a e34 than a VY commodore if you are in an accident most interesting enough you are 0.1 % less likely to be seriously injured in an e28 than a VY
so
new cars are waaaaaay safer, sorry reality has different ideas.

If im reading that study correctly, one is 1.92% more likely to be seriously injured in a 96-02 Mercedes S-class than our e34s.

[rob101]

If im reading that study correctly, one is 1.92% more likely to be seriously injured in a 96-02 Mercedes S-class than our e34s.
ummm i think you might be reading the aggressivity part
which is how likely the occupants of the other car is likely to get hurt,
not the occupants of the car itself

[Zeuk in Oz]

the link in my last post that is based on real road crashes in this country, its not hypothetical.
Wasn't trying to suggest that it was, Rob, just adding my own link to real world crash statistics.

It has always amazed me that driving on roads is far more dangerous than just about any other activity we can do regularly, including flying, and yet the majority of the great unwashed buy junk cars with no realworld safety because they like the look of them, or they are cheap etc.

Speaking of flying, I'm not sure I'm all that keen on flying in an Airbus........:D

[rob101]

Wasn't trying to suggest that it was, Rob, just adding my own link to real world crash statistics.

It has always amazed me that driving on roads is far more dangerous than just about any other activity we can do regularly, including flying, and yet the majority of the great unwashed buy junk cars with no realworld safety because they like the look of them, or they are cheap etc.

Speaking of flying, I'm not sure I'm all that keen on flying in an Airbus........:D
it is indeed, but one thing that amazes me is that my e28 my "bomb" lol is safer than most average cars that were built in the 90s!

as for airbus, too many french engineers involved. I've worked with french engineers
jesus what a PITA they were!

[genphreak]

i might be a bit cynical here but i think some of the hype by the manufacturers about airbags etc are to SELL more cars.We live in a consumer society we must always buy the newer better bigger....I am not saying that airbags et al dont assist in safety.We can still buy parts for our cars.a mate here has a 99 falcon ute,some parts are aready listed as not available.LOL, moral of that story Paul? Perhaps it is Don't buy a new car, just buy 3 old ones so you don't have to rely on the manufacturer any more than you can trust it to make the car last. What a sorry state of affairs- we just deserve to choke to death!

As for ABS and ESP, etc. the real studies show people just learn to drive their cars to their limits, which is why you tend to see younger people tailgating closer than older people (ok, perhaps just one of the reasons :)) as they have learned on cars with these features and know the car stops quicker/handles better: Instead of benefitting form the increased safety margin, they just drive harder inside the danger zone. It is only natural behaviour- how many of us are not in a hurry to get places?

One other thing I know- the manufacturers are just playing with consumers- they just love selling new cars and coming up with reasons we should buy them so much they can barely offer us a decent way to make them last. Worse, they could never ever imagine improving the ones we've already invested in and getting service income instead.

Seems to me they are missing out on a big market there... the parts/mods/upgrades industry is barely waking on this stuff too- if the manufacturers let it carry on they will soon find people making older cars into better than new ones... (since so may of the new ones are really not so crash hot)

:D but actually I am wrong there... it would have happened long ago, but they just get (our) regulators to put a good stop to it every time it happens.... and threatens a multinational's profits.

[Alexlind123]

ummm i think you might be reading the aggressivity part
which is how likely the occupants of the other car is likely to get hurt,
not the occupants of the car itself

I was wondering why some diahtsus and hyundais were lower...

[joshua43214]

I think it has both to do with high quality engineering and the owners. I used to service a Mazda for a guy at an indy shop I worked for 8 years alot. This guy was as anal about his car as any Euro car owner I have ever seen, after it had abuot 100k on it, it started to cost a boatload of money to maintain. Part after part just failed, it became common to give the guy estimates over $500.00 for repairs or maintaiance every time he came in for an oil change.

Suburu used to make these unbelievably bullet proof cars that would run forever with almost no attention, and eventualy fall apart at about 200k from overall neglect and rust. If folks maintained them as well as BMW owners did, they would run forever. Same goes for Toyota.

BMW (and Euro) car owners in general maintain there cars better, so they last longer while and stay looking good. Many american car owners will ignore a rattle, or a slow moving window, and just shrug it off, then they get hit with a huge estimate at 120k or so and dump the car. The BMW never gets that bad in the first place since potential problems are addressed right away.

BMW's and the e34 in specific is one of the best engineered cars I have ever seen. When you consider how complex the e34 is, even by todays standards, its incredible that the are as trouble free as they are.

[rob101]

LOL, moral of that story Paul? Perhaps it is Don't buy a new car, just buy 3 old ones so you don't have to rely on the manufacturer any more than you can trust it to make the car last. What a sorry state of affairs- we just deserve to choke to death! ...........
hmmmmmmm the 3 car idea isn't sounding that bad:p
i might consider upgrading to an e39 (or e38 muhaha) sooner or later
but as far as i am concerned
whats the point in spending the same amount of money on a new shitbox (probably a holden astra or similar) that isn't as safe, fast or luxurious
its a no brainer IMO.

[Zeuk in Oz]

whats the point in spending the same amount of money on a new shitbox (probably a holden astra or similar) that isn't as safe, fast or luxurious
its a no brainer IMO.
You are talking to the converted, Rob.

That is why I would imagine that not one of us on this forum bought their E34 new. We have decided that a well engineered used car is better, safer, nicer etc etc than a new $hitbox.

And long may the myth of high maintenance costs for old BMWs continue as this makes them affordable second hand. :D

[Ross]

I think the impression here in the US is that DAIMLER-Chrysler is run by the Germans not the other way around. Good thing otherwise we would have Lee Iacocca selling rebadged K- cars as Mercs. What the f is a mungwheel?

[genphreak]

You are talking to the converted, Rob.

That is why I would imagine that not one of us on this forum bought their E34 new. We have decided that a well engineered used car is better, safer, nicer etc etc than a new $hitbox.

And long may the myth of high maintenance costs for old BMWs continue as this makes them affordable second hand. :D
Rob; I think u should check out the e39 carefully before thinking too much more about it. Many around here say (ie they don't just feel) that a rebuilt e34 might be better ;)

Zeuk- very good point indeed. However there is certainly a high 'love cost' ie making sure one treats them right is not a simple thing to learn for the uninitiated. And it is expensive (and takes time) to learn it too.

But therein lies an interesting challenge- who bought an e34 new that still has one today? Mattyb knew of 2 I think. What we need is someone on the forum that did this... :D then we'd be a more 'well-rounded' community...

[Zeuk in Oz]

LOL, moral of that story Paul? Perhaps it is Don't buy a new car, just buy 3 old ones so you don't have to rely on the manufacturer any more than you can trust it to make the car last. What a sorry state of affairs- we just deserve to choke to death!

As for ABS and ESP, etc. the real studies show people just learn to drive their cars to their limits, which is why you tend to see younger people tailgating closer than older people (ok, perhaps just one of the reasons :)) as they have learned on cars with these features and know the car stops quicker/handles better: Instead of benefitting form the increased safety margin, they just drive harder inside the danger zone. It is only natural behaviour- how many of us are not in a hurry to get places?

One other thing I know- the manufacturers are just playing with consumers- they just love selling new cars and coming up with reasons we should buy them so much they can barely offer us a decent way to make them last. Worse, they could never ever imagine improving the ones we've already invested in and getting service income instead.

Seems to me they are missing out on a big market there... the parts/mods/upgrades industry is barely waking on this stuff too- if the manufacturers let it carry on they will soon find people making older cars into better than new ones... (since so may of the new ones are really not so crash hot)

:D but actually I am wrong there... it would have happened long ago, but they just get (our) regulators to put a good stop to it every time it happens.... and threatens a multinational's profits.
Some interesting points, Nick.

Manufacturers will never want to produce a car that can last forever because they are answerable to their shareholders first, governments that subsidise them second and employees last so wish to keep on making more and more cars. This concept was first seen in the US in the fifties, I believe, where the big 3 would bring out a new "improved" model each year with a different headlight or taillight or even a new fin !

Then they would market it by saying "be the first in your street to own this year's model XXXXX with new improved features." They would sell it with glamorous models or television ads and everyone was safe and secure knowing they were driving the latest.

Australia, and to a lesser degree, Europe adopted some of these practices due to the fact that especially Ford and GM had large market share in these markets. Possibly the largest stumbling block was Europe where consumerism never quite caught on to the extent it did in Oz or the US.

Getting back to your point Nick, I certainly feel it is extremely healthy to be cynical about anything government or big business wants us to do.

However, I feel that safety features like ABS, traction control, ESP, airbags (especially windowbags), active head restraints, seat belt pretensioners and to a lesser extent brake assist are actually of some merit. They all came more or less at once, I presume, due to the increased reliability, lower cost and higher processing ability of the computers that are required to run them.

It is interesting to note that some mechanical safety devices, such as Audi's excellent steel band that caused seatbelts to be tightened in the case of a frontal crash due to the movement of the engine being forced backwwards in the engine bay, were dumped because we, the great unwashed, preferred front airbags. A bit like the superior beta video system compared with the popular VHS.

That is not to say that anything has changed. Manufacturers are still trying to get us to update and are now, in my opinion, bringing out models with highly questionable features. I just cannot get excited about distance measuring cruise control or infrared forward seeing ability that relies on taking your eyes off the road and viewing a monitior in the dash.

Your point about drivers, particularly the young, driving to the potential of the new cars is possibly true to a certain extent, but this does not make these features useless.

I know in my youth I committed most of the sins that are now being done by our young drivers, with no hope of survival if anything went wrong. :D The young will always live on the edge as far as they are able, that will never change as they believe they are immortal.

The area in which I live has lost so many young drivers on our roads over the past 5 years it is a major tragedy. All of my 4 kids have lost friends and have had to attend their funerals. This makes no difference to the way young people in this area drive !

As far as upgrading older cars with some of these new safety features is concerned, the only manufacturer that I am aware of that is doing it is Mercedes. They are retro fitting a drivers airbag to the W124 models here in Oz, and possibly also some S class cars.

The problem with retro fitting safety featurs like these, I presume, is complexity and therefore cost. In some cases this technology, I presume, needs to be designed in at manufacture, and even if it can be added, possibly requires wholesale replacement of major components.

The only truly reliable thing about all of this is that the only constant is the unwavering greed that vehicle manufacturers have as their guiding policy.

[genphreak]

Yes sorry Zeuk, you are right that these are innovations we would not have without manufacturing improvement, but then again no-one is making money out of retroftting or innovating in the aftermarket because manufacturers are keeping the competition out in several ways. Primarily they set out to achieve a culture in which their work producing cars will make them large profits at the expense of whatever else, they really don't care. The resources put into car manufacture, endless sales yards, the wastes us owners expend fiddling with, misunderstanding, abusing and repairing vehicles, let alone the what the service/aftermarket industry does, and all the energy used by them- all these things are too great to let continue like this on the road to a tarmac planet.

Ultimately it is more than a waste, it is a distraction for the public- we really should be worrying about more important things than what car we want to buy.

But the problem is we look at cars now as we used to look at feather headresses when we were living back in the forest. Its a 'personal statement'; prestige, a way in which to be judged by others...

I guess what I am saying is that they cannot be forgiven for preventing innovation (let alone good maintenence) with existing products and for creating a disposable, consumer culture in which we value so highly something that delivers us so little and does so much damage. A car is such a common, environmentally destructive product within our society, how can we let it get to the stage that every young girl has to have one to feel secure, and every young man must have one to be a man... it's plain sick.

We need a sustainable approach to vehicle manufacture, care and life. Every time you see an old banger belching out smoke because someone can't afford to pay for the maintenance now so is paying for wasted fuel adn oil, etc. later reminds me constantly. That others have to breathe their filth is awful too. It really wouldn't take much to address these issues, yet in 30 years we've not come any further than improving manufacture, engineering (a little- we don't have proper low-emissions vehicles yet)
and are now making cars cheaply in Asia rather than polluting our own back yard (or more importantly to the finance gurus; generating local jobs).

OK, ok enough. Back in my box now- thanks for the replies everyone...
:) Nick

[rob101]

I don't really think it is greed that drives them, it is more the fact that the car market is essentially saturated and is highly competetive thus they must come up with all these new ideas to survive. i think perhaps rather than it being companies influencing people to think in a certain way, society in general has (i am sure marketting has had a bit impact on that but it is not the only culpable party) and you find that people are increasingly wanting the latest and greatest. i think car manufacturers are only reacting to this and satisfying a need.

its kind of like the iPod, its a cracker of an idea but i thought about it myself and i never really need one as i never catch public transport, i drive to work thus i use my cd-stacker and at home, well i can just use my computer or home stereo. i don't NEED one but alot of people just can't understand why i would not have one. as its essential because its a good idea, regardless of whether you actually have a use for it.
people are hung up on technology, i am going to throw in a hand grenade and say why the hell does a man who is meant to be able to drive need brake assist? go to a driving school and learn how to emergency brake for god's sake. if your legs are too puny go to the bloody gym.
brake assist only does something you should know how to do in a car equipped with ABS and that is push that brake pedal hard. As hard as you bloody can you idiot, before you rear end that semi-trailer!!!!
i understand the reasons for having brake assist for women though.:p
ESP ABS i think are excellent technologies, but there is something to be said for driver training as every car you get into will have HSP (human stability program). and not just the ones that are european.

[Zeuk in Oz]

But the problem is we look at cars now as we used to look at feather headresses when we were living back in the forest. Its a 'personal statement'; prestige, a way in which to be judged by others...

I guess what I am saying is that they cannot be forgiven for preventing innovation (let alone good maintenence) with existing products and for creating a disposable, consumer culture in which we value so highly something that delivers us so little and does so much damage.......

We need a sustainable approach to vehicle manufacture, care and life. Every time you see an old banger belching out smoke because someone can't afford to pay for the maintenance now so is paying for wasted fuel adn oil, etc. later reminds me constantly. That others have to breathe their filth is awful too. It really wouldn't take much to address these issues, yet in 30 years we've not come any further than improving manufacture, engineering (a little- we don't have proper low-emissions vehicles yet)
and are now making cars cheaply in Asia rather than polluting our own back yard (or more importantly to the finance gurus; generating local jobs)

I think the fact that many see cars as a fashion statement first and foremost has frustrated many car manufacturers over the years. They have wanted to charge more for ESP in bread and butter models for the past 10 years but the great unwashed wanted to spend the same money on a CD changer instead.

I must admit that I probably think differently about cars than the majority as I have assessed every car I have ever owned firstly on safety (including driveability), secondly affordability, thirdly functionality and lastly style. (Why else would I ever have owned a Volvo ? :D )

But I am the exception ! (My kids call be thpethial :D )

We are quick to criticise vehicle manufacturers for not bringing new safety advancements onto the market straight away, but sometimes this is market driven. The average punter is either so ignorant or apathetic that they don't care about or want new safety features as long as it comes in red at no extra cost. (Everone knows that red cars go faster :D )

Whether or not cars should exist opens a whole new Panora's box. Suffice to say that if the car had been first invented yesterday there is no way in the world that politicians would let us have them. A mobile, polluting, energy consuming proletariat is the last thing they would allow.

Rob, you disagree that greed is not the over-riding motive behind vehicle amnufacturers. Please let me know if you find one that has a social conscience.

[rob101]

Rob, you disagree that greed is not the over-riding motive behind vehicle amnufacturers. Please let me know if you find one that has a social conscience.
car manufacturing is a business
and businesses must make money
if you call that greed then yes. thing is it is people and only people who can tell them what to do, people want this in a car bad enough. it will happen. Problem is everyone wants something for nothing, they want windfarms but the farmers don't want them in their backyard, they want more highways but tell them that somebody has to move to another house and its an "unnecessary highway".
People want to have their cake and eat it too, people say they value quality, but they want a new car every 2 years and want it to be economically viable. So they go out and buy a hyundai or a toyota or whatever. the europeans go hey, people don't give a **** about quality anymore so lets start cost saving so we can put more gizmos in the cars.

The problem is the people, the companies only give the masses what they really want. which is, very different from what they say they want.
People want the perception of quality and safety. "oh look it has 2 airbags, its way safer than any other car." The perception of quality to most is satisfied by putting tons of intruiging gizmos into the car.
It is people who let companies survive in the end. corporations can only do as much as people let them get away with collectively.

[genphreak]

Yes very true. It is a collective issue, what I can't get over is that noone seems to want to do anything other than ignore and perpetuate the existing problem we've known about for decades.

Aside from that society cares far too much about people anwyay; I mean, travel has always been the most dangerous occupation fro any human being and we are silly to expect cars to make it safe. Maybe we should be driving without doors, windows (let alone teevees and cupholders, or all our electronic safety enhancements) so we can be more aware of how mortally prone we really are when we undertake it. Perhaps then we'd think twice before considering long commutes to work every day.

Surely if we cared about life so much we wouldn't let people starve for the want of saving a dollar or two a week, per person, from our Gross Domestic Product.

Following on from Zeuk's point; if safety really was important to us we'd be taking real lessons in dirving like they do in smarter societies rather than allowing L-platers striaght into the traffic throng- all busy driving on their ABS. Let alone fill the pot-holes and subterranean man-hole covers that the odd idiot manages to leave in the street for a thousand cars a day to hit. I wonder how many shock absorbers a day are destroyed by the combined affect of one pot hole- after all it should be filled just so that if someone has to emergency brake they don't bounce through it and regardless hit something they were doing their best to avoid...

No we really do like the danger of travel and speed, we like the colours and the look. Our only problem is convincing our logical selves that the risk is worth the buzz and these days it takes less marketing to achieve this.

Rob you're right; it is the people that are to blame, whether they run an automotive or oil company, a country or just sit at home- commute, consume and pollute...

[Zeuk in Oz]

Aside from that society cares far too much about people anwyay; I mean, travel has always been the most dangerous occupation fro any human being and we are silly to expect cars to make it safe. Maybe we should be driving without doors, windows (let alone teevees and cupholders, or all our electronic safety enhancements) so we can be more aware of how mortally prone we really are when we undertake it. Perhaps then we'd think twice before considering long commutes to work every day.

Surely if we cared about life so much we wouldn't let people starve for the want of saving a dollar or two a week.
As I have said before, the greatest disposable commodity on this planet is human life. We have no intrinsic value !

The issue is that governments, businesses and dictators all realise this and act accordingly except where it comes down to thier own life or the life of someone they care about.

I see nothing wrong with making cars safer, however someone needs to address the other side of the equation - safer roads.

We seem to be overpopulating most cities now without any regard to more or safer roads or, as is the case in Australia and the US, thinking about supplying an alternative such as an efficient public transport system.

In Oz almost all goods are moved by truck as the rail system is useless. This not only adds to inefficiencies, it also makes the roads less safe.

[Zeuk in Oz]

car manufacturing is a business
and businesses must make money
if you call that greed then yes. thing is it is people and only people who can tell them what to do, people want this in a car bad enough. it will happen. Problem is everyone wants something for nothing, they want windfarms but the farmers don't want them in their backyard, they want more highways but tell them that somebody has to move to another house and its an "unnecessary highway".
People want to have their cake and eat it too, people say they value quality, but they want a new car every 2 years and want it to be economically viable. So they go out and buy a hyundai or a toyota or whatever. the europeans go hey, people don't give a **** about quality anymore so lets start cost saving so we can put more gizmos in the cars.

The problem is the people, the companies only give the masses what they really want. which is, very different from what they say they want.
People want the perception of quality and safety. "oh look it has 2 airbags, its way safer than any other car." The perception of quality to most is satisfied by putting tons of intruiging gizmos into the car.
It is people who let companies survive in the end. corporations can only do as much as people let them get away with collectively.
I would argue that corporations can only do as much as governments let them get away with.

I feel that all car companies have gone beyond business and have now embraced greed. They have been able to supply safety extras for many years now and not bothered because the general public weren't educated as to the values of the various systems.

If ESP had been brought into mainstream cars 10 years ago rather than just happening now, possibly hundreds of thousands would not have died or been severely injured in crashes that just would not have happened.

The irony is that everytime a bag accident occurs, a car manufacturer sells another car when that one is replaced. It is in their financial interest for cars to crash.

I once was naiive enough to think that some of the more "switched on" car manufacturers (Mercedes, Volvo and Saab to name a few) who showed an interest in safety were seriously trying to do something to help. I now see that it was just a form of marketing.

[rob101]

marketting is targetting and meeting needs
not brainwashing like some people think
it has become so complex that the psychology of it all isn't as accessable to most people.
but peoples needs aren't what everyone likes to say overtly
if people valued safety so much we'd all be driving volvos.
if people where so disgusted at fuel prices everyone would drive diesels and hybrids and nobody would drive 4wds or v8s etc.
that was what i was trying to get at before.
this is just an opinion, but i do see your point as well.
This country doesn't value safety at all, things like ESP ABS etc. they pretend to care but will they vote with their cash? No they don't.
i blame the people not the government or the companies. companies want to sell cars you can try and dictate to the market what they want. that is putting the cart before the horse.
companies like bmw are successful because they understand the people who buy their cars. thats marketting IMO.
and why is it when you mention diesels people say diesel fuel is too expensive so its not feasible.
UM hello you idiot a diesel uses 2-4L/100km (even more in things like landcruisers)less especially in the city
Duh! its typical of people they just have no clue
I wonder whether sometimes the average person thinks "oh i am sorry you didn't spoon feed me the information that i might not want to get killed in a car accident and therefore should by a safer car"
in this age of information to read up about these things is ridiculously easy. but this is why we have 20% of the population overweight etc. they are hung up on instant gratification and quick fixes. if its not easy, its not worth doing!

[F4Phantom]

Hey I know its late in the debate but I have some very valuable insights to add (joke). But I do have an opinion on all this. I think the debate is quite a deep rooted one and it reflects our fundimental values to some extent. To give an example, I have always been interested in looking after the planet and all that, I suppose I am almost a greeny. BUT - put 50 million in front of me and ask me to dump (this is not exact but you get the picture) 1 ton of crude oil into port philip bay and I have to be honest and say that I would not immediatly turn down the money, in fact after some thought I may even dump some oil. I know what your gonna think but at the end of it all, we do tend to look after ourselves first and our familys.

The next thing is cars and buying decisions. I have traditionally bought cars that I like, and can now afford. EG my BMW was kind of like a supercar for me in high school - and now i own it for 6k. The thing is, most people like the car but after you tell em the age its like they loose all respect for it. I like to make things last, use older crap and fix it, but I (and you?) are in the minority. You see an add on tv and say "what crap, who would buy that!!" then the next day your friend owns one.

What it comes down to is people are fairly shallow with big financial decisions. Glitter does matter, big names of tv personalities I either hate, or have not heard of matter. New crap matters.

I dont know why, there is no financial value in buying new cars all the time, but people want new, not refurbished or as new. They want new, with warranty.

Even with my extra fuel consumption my mate who is selling his 5.7L commodore for a getz (to save on fuel) is way behind me, as I will take years to catch his getz price tag in fuel and maintenance costs. again - BUT, he will not have any maintenance to do, at all for perhaps as long as he owns the car. Less bother.

Mobile phones are the perfect way to see a much faster lifespan of product. The are almost upgraded monthly!!

Lastly if you saw any of the corporation documentry you will see that companies are very selfish if they were individuals, they say they would be locked up. This means they dont have any care for the earth, they only care as much as the people who buy their product want them to care. This also means they get away with a lot because we all tend to buy on price, if your rich and dont personally buy on price, your big company you run still does. Its not only the people's or company's or governments fault, its all three. The government will give the people what they want after around 20 years (unless its a big big headline issue). Companies will give every possible thing they can to customers regardless or any consequence except profit. Untimatly tho, its the people who have all power. If we got together we could demand that every car sold withing 2 months from now has to be a hybrid with the power of a v8. with 5L/100km. If we want it, they will make it happen. Why wont this happen? because johny johnson says, well great idea but I was already gonna get a falcon with X pac and pin stripe so I will get it this time, but next time I will get a hybrid. At the end of it all, people will not band together and demand very often. Its easy to demand, all we do is either buy no cars new, or only hybrid models. Then the car market place will change overnight to the way we want. If you were very very rich, you could possibly run adverts on tv and try to swing the whole country (easy in australia cause their aint many tv stations or people) into making a collective decision like hybrids only.

[Zeuk in Oz]

This also means they get away with a lot because we all tend to buy on price, if your rich and dont personally buy on price, your big company you run still does.
Interesting.

I heard an interview with the departing Australian GM of LM Erikson about 5 years ago when he was going back to Sweden.

He was asked what were the differences between Australian and Swedish consumers and he answered that there was 1 major difference : Swedes buy to a quality and Australians buy to a price.

I presume the same applies to a large extent in the Us and Canada as they are similar cultures.

This might be another reason why the annual car model upgrade never quite caught on in Germany or France.