How many of you have heard that Japanese cars are the most durable automobiles? I myself hear it all the time, and I think most people believe it: Japanese cars have a much lower depreciation than other comparable cars; and they routinely sell for more than US cars that were more expensive when new.
Here's my question: why is this?
I have heard people talk about "the Japanese car that went xxx,xxx miles"; but that is more of an anecdote than a proof. I had an 82 Datsun 200SX that I bought new and drove for 217,000 miles before a pickup truck totaled it in a parking lot; but I also had a 70 Ford Galaxie 500 that I bought with 204,000 miles on it (and I and rang up 25,000 more before passing it on still running strong).
When I've shopped for cars (and I always buy used these days; I won't watch my new car lose half its value in the first 3 years), I've noticed that Japanese cars are way overpriced compared to American cars. The American cars, with bigger chassis and engines, and more features, routinely sell for less. So I've been buying American; so far, I've been happy every time. Frankly, I've wondered if the myth of Japanese superiority is due to a supremely clever marketing campaign.
I can propose one method of discovering which makes and/or models last the longest: learn the final mileage at "retirement" for all of the Toyota Camrys (or whatever), and then divide by the number of cars measured. That would then accurately indicate how many average miles each model lasted. An only slightly less accurate method would be to do the same with the mileage at the cars' final registration.
Has anyone come across any objective measurement of which cars actually last the longest in terms of both make and model? Boy, would that be interesting to see!
Mike
Hello michaeld and all
Over the years, I have heard what I believe is the valid case of Japanese cars, especially Toyota being dependable cars, not durable. I think that many people confuse the two and assume that a dependable car is a durable one.
I have seen a few old Toyotas with several thousand kilometers but frankly, they were plain awful : fried paint, sun-baked upholstery, creaky body shells - now compare that to a Mercedes.
Also as hokman might know, compare that to an old Volvo. IMHO - no contest.
This question about durability is partly answered by the fact that Paris taxis STILL are about 95%Mercedes-Benz - currently a 220 cDi and if these guys could cut costs, they would. They know that their cars will do their million kilometers in tough start and go traffic and still be saleable at the end.
Denis
Paris, France
I had a 1991 Camry 4 cylinder that had 185xxx on it when I sold it, but it was starting to use oil...paint and seats looked good. I also has a 1990 Dodge Dynasty V6 that I destroyed in a collision with 190xxx on it, running strong till the bitter end, seats and paint looked good. In my personal experience, almost any car can run 200xxx, but truthfully, I have never actually run a car to death. My dad had a VW Type 3 Squareback that he bought new in 1968 that he literally ran until he had to limp it to the dealer in 1st gear, barely running, to trade it in in 1975 (on an AMC Gremlin of all things).
I have also put in excess of 100xxx on 2 Kia Rio's now...the 2003 I have now still has the factory rear tires on it, with 105xxx. I've done nothing but front tires, front brakes and oil changes( at 10xxx intervals). I gave the 2001 to a family friend with 125xxx on it, in 2003, and I still see it around town, beat up, but rolling just the same.
And before you think Toyota is the paragon of dependability, they have a horrible sludge problem with their V6 engines. If you stretch oil change intervals in these, you're asking for trouble.
We had a Mazda 323 in the early-mid 90's that never missed a beat. Having said that, we sold it at 120,000km on the dial. Who knows how long it would've gone before needing major work. Nonetheless a great cheap to run car at the time.
Toyota Landcruisers are worshipped by many in Oz. Many stories of long lived cruisers, but I haven't got any to tell. I've only driven about 4 relatively new "troop carriers" for work and as 4x4's they do what they're supposed to.
I found a post (having nothing whatsoever to do w/ MBz) regarding Japanese cars and trucks
http://forums.automotive.com/community/70/7460/by-manufacturer/mazda/so-you-think-foreign-cars-are-so-reliable/index.html
It represents the viewpoint of someone (on a Japanese car forum, nonetheless) who doesn't believe Japanese cars are more durable.
Considering the initial purchase price - and therefore relative rarity - of Mercedes-Benzes (at least in the USA), I do see a fair number of old 3-pointed stars on the road where I live. I sure don't see a whole lot of 70's (or even early 80's) Japanese cars.
That might be yet another way to track long-term durability: given how many of a given car make/model were manufactured, how many are still on the road today (or at least still registered)?
Hi fellows
Let me just say that it is not very hard to find a decent, cheap W108 in France, and you do have several specimens to look over.
People here REMEMBER the Toyota Cressida but nobody has seen one in years...I can take you for a walk in nearby streets and show you at least three W123s...and there is a "heckflosse" three strets from here...
Denis
Paris, France
I am given to wondering if the myth of Japanese superiority began with US automakers resting on their laurels whilest the hungry Japanese implemented a long-ranging marketing strategy to create the impression of particularly long-lived cars.
The Europeans (at least in the US) didn't have a major advertising presence for a long time. They're all over the airwaves now, however.
There doesn't seem to be any question that most Americans believe that Japanese make better cars. Strangely, Mexicans - and maybe Central and South America too? - have a negative view toward Japanese cars and prefer American. It's actually kind of funny: while Americans complain about illegal immigration for taking US jobs, those same illegal immigrants are actually out there buying cars that keep Americans employed!!!
PS, yeah, Denis, I see more old Benzes than I do old Japanese cars; and then it occurs to me that there were a LOT more Japanese cars sold here than German ones!
About four years ago (following a redundancy) I spent some months unemployed. I used to get the strangest looks from people when I parked a Benz outside the dole office whilst paying my "respects" to that institution! "Hey, man, how come you can afford a 'Merc' when you're on the dole?" It seemed not to occur to them that I might have worked my arse off for close to 40 years before becoming unemployed; neither did the fact of the car's being over 30 years old seem to register with them. The assumptions people make!
Sometimes I think I may take my MB's for granted, that is until I ride in something else. Australian cars are horrible to ride in, suspension? talk about shake your teeth out. Engines in the Holdens are worn out by 180-200k's, Benz motors, especally the diesel's will do twice that, Ford's have always had crappy gearboxes, you will go through about 2 gearboxes per motor, just rubbish.
And, of course, there's "Australia's own car, built in Australia, by Australians, for Australian conditons" - the Holden (owned, of course, by General Motors, which is as Australian as tiger sh1t).
How is it, then, that in typical "Australian conditions" - a high-30s summer (that's about 100 degrees for those still in prehistoric Fahrenheit mode ;) ) - most of the cars one sees sitting at the roadside, venting steam from their pathetically inadequate cooling systems, are these marvellous "Australian" cars?
I get into a ford or holden and wonder if they have any suspension at all; it's like riding a (squeaky and rattly) park bench!
I think the only Australian-built car we've ever seen in the US was the Mitsubishi Diamante station wagon (estate) in the late 80's-early 90's?? The few they foisted on an unsuspecting buying public were not well-regarded and they disappeared from the scene. As I am typing this, it dawned on me that the Pontiac GTO is a Holden product of some sort, but it just went out of production too, the victim of poor sales.
The Mitsubishi Diamante was, I think, the car called Magna in Oz. Very Mitsu; very ho-hum (though the common opinion seems to be that it was a better built and engineered car than the local Fords and Holdens (GM) - not a hard benchmark to beat.
The last version of the Pontiac GTO was, indeed, an Oz Holden Monaro - which is nothing more than a Holden Commodore (family hack) with two fewer doors and a lower roof (and some fancier badging, go-faster stripes, and similar crap).
There seems to be a consensus building amongst you that Holdens do not merit consideration in the "most durable car" category. It seems entirely possible that Australia - land of great waves, cool aborigines, marvelous English accents, and just a genuinely cool continent (OR is it really an island after all?) in general, may not be the land of the best built cars.
But, of course, the question is, where would that place be? Japan? Or somewheres else?
Now, Denis raised an intriguing distinction between durable and dependable. I kind of lumped those ideas together in my mind; Denis split them apart (there's one in every crowd, isnt there?).
One question would be, is Denis right? (Did I choose the wrong adjective?). Could durability and dependability be different enough so that one car may be more durable, and another one be more dependable? And again, are Japanese cars more dependable?
I've seen high mileage 80's Japanese cars; but then, I've seen high mileage American cars too. And I've heard of some very high mileage German and Swedish cars (let's not forget Volvo). It's all too easy to hear of a couple of stories and form a conclusion based on those stories that isn't actually true. I'm wondering if there is actual, scientific, statistical (specifically NON-anecdotal) evidence that one car maker makes cars that outlast the rest.
There are some mitigating issues, I think. Fuel economy is one. Diesels have racked up more miles than gassers. But I think gassers have substantially caught up in durability (primarily because of fuel injection). If one car gets substantially better fuel economy than another car, that car will likely be driven more - and more often - and rack up higher mileage during its useful lifespan. [This just a theory]. Japanese cars have always tended to have smaller engines than others, and get very good fuel economy.
Another issue is desirability; if a car is less desirable than other cars, someone may simply not want to spend money on (routine) repairs to keep that car on the road. So a car that is actually very durable may be "ended" before its time. And a less durable - but "cooler" - car may stay on the road just because people are willing to keep forking over the bucks to keep it on the road when they wouldn't do so with many other cars. A few of you indicate that most people just wouldn't want to be caught driving an old Japanese "beater" out of a humiliation factor. A car that still starts up and goes but looks like crap could nevertheless meet an untimely appointment with the scrapyard.
Well, what cars are the most durable - in the sense of remaining on the road the longest? Are Mercedes-Benzes on the short list for that title? How do the car makers rank in this department?
And (if there is a real difference), what cars are the most dependable - in the sense of starting up and going with little or no maintenance/repair work needing to be done? Are the Japanese best at making such cars? Or not? How do the car makers rank in this department?
Personally, I HOPE that Mercedes Benz are not high in the former area but low in the latter. Given the fact that Mercedes-Benz parts are more expensive than most other OEM parts - and that fewer non-OEM parts are available (given the high price and therefore lower production numbers compared to other cars), I don't want them to need more repairs/maintenance to boot!!! Rather, I would want the car - given the fact that it is an initially high quality car that uses high quality parts - to require LESS repair work than other cars.
Sometimes, if you pay more for a better quality product, you get a better, longer-lasting product. And other times (the fashion industry often falls into this area) you don't get better or longer-lasting products at all; you pay more just so you can show others that you can pay more! As for the latter: no thanks; I aint no elitest snob ostentatiously flaunting my wealth! I don't got a lot of wealth, and I wouldn't flaunt it if I did!
Now, a mediating viewpoint is that Mercedes-Benzes AREN'T the most dependable of cars, but they make up for it in the quality of the ride and the sheer luxuriousness of their performance. Here, they would cost more, and cost more to maintain - and even need to be maintained more frequently - but they would be worth it just because they are so wonderful when they DO work! I KNOW a lot of you think that our cars offer this kind of luxury; but do you think that dependability and durability accompany that luxury, or do you think you chose luxury at the expense of dependability and durability?
P.S. I read an article that said that the reason that GTOs didn't cut it in the market was because they looked so common (by which I mean, like any other mass-produced standard compact POS). People who were buying high performance cars wanted YOU to know they had bought a high performance car! I didn't know it had links to Oz.
Michaeld: Far too many points for me to consider right now (life just got busy) but, on the point of "common" (your reference to the Pontiac GTO looking nonspecial), here is a pic of each of the Commodore and the Monaro.
A few trim detail changes, two fewer doors, a lower roof, a shortened wheelbase, and voila - a "different" car (not!).
Lengthen the wheelbase of the sedan and you have (1) the station wagon or (2) the Statesman/Caprice (the "luxury limo" versions: leather, ersatz wood, a little chrome around the dashboard, softer springs ...).
Exciting (not).
Monaro:
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a215/OzBenzHead/Other%20Chariots/Monaro_1.jpg)
The "reflection" underneath the Monaro is actually an image of the first model Monaro (1968).
Commodore (a.k.a. Commode, Commonwhore):
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a215/OzBenzHead/Other%20Chariots/Commodore_1.jpg)
One of the handful of brand-new cars I've had was a 1970 Monaro GTS. It was, truly, the most execrable POS I've ever owned. I kept it a whole six months and 8,000 miles. If something on it could fail or fall off, it did (and I was treating it carefully, running it in by the book). I replaced it with a Mazda R100 (Wankel rotary); the Mazda's standard of build and finish, its reliability, and its overall owner satisfaction were many times superior to the Monaro's. (Pity about the atrocious fuel consumption!)
I've had numerous Holdens (and Fords) as employer-supplied cars and, whilst none of them was quite as bad as that 1970 Monaro, the very best of them were tawdry, boring, and, in the handling department, pants-sh1ttingly scary.
If anyone would like to copy these images, please do so, as I don't want them polluting my site longer than necessary. ;)
Hi Michaeld and all
Here are a few remarks that may help people think about the issue you raised in thsi thread.
I maintain that durability and reliability are NOT the same and usually not found together in most products. Here is an example : in the early eighties, the Volvo 240 was a good quality car. It was NOT reliable - many people had to visit their dealers frequently for little repairs and adjustments. Once sorted out, these cars accumulated hundreds of thousands of kilometres - they were clearly durable. And then started to show signs of reliability :o
At the same time, french people were excited by a Toyota model ? that was incredibly reliable - you bought it and drove it, never a glitch but after a few years, they were all camping in the car graveyards ::)
The notion of "desirability" is a good one and IMHO a real factor. I have a sentence of wisdom about this (michaeld thinks I came down a mountain with some tables ;)
If your car loves you, you love your car and it will be durable.
People will fix and keep nice cars on the road, not nasty ones. A decrepit "suspensionless", trashed seat Yokomobile dies young. A Volvo 240, with comfortable seats, good visibility and doors that shut well along with ergonomic layouts GETS fixed because it LOVES it owner. An old BMW 323 will make you feel good - it LOVES its owner and it also gets fixed.
And of course a W116 is the same...mine LOVES me which explains why I am building the aftermarket EFI for it...
OK, here is another way to say it : you will resole a great old pair of quality shoes...
Cheers mate
Denis
Paris, France
Quote from: Denis on 13 June 2006, 09:21 AM
If your car loves you, you love your car and it will be durable.
hah hah , this get quite intimate, but this should be partly true as 116 lovers like us usually tend to keep good care of the car. The other part, which is still there, comes from the natural durability or is it robustness of old MB's in general.
Another point is fixability for a DIY-man, this is at a high level in old MB's as well and very low in modern cars (including MB's) where special equipment is needed and large parts need to be changed to correct something minor involving big $$$.
BTW quite a nice victory of the aussies in the soccer world cup over the japs.
regards from spain,Tomi
Quote from: Tomi on 13 June 2006, 10:38 AMBTW quite a nice victory of the aussies in the soccer world cup over the japs.
Thanks, Tomi! You go to Spain for the Cup? (BTW: What is this soccer world cup? And, no, I don't follow any other leagues or variations of ball games, either. It's all bollocks to me.) ;) ;D
Quote from: OzBenzHead on 13 June 2006, 10:48 AM
Quote from: Tomi on 13 June 2006, 10:38 AMBTW quite a nice victory of the aussies in the soccer world cup over the japs.
Thanks, Tomi! You go to Spain for the Cup? (BTW: What is this soccer world cup? And, no, I don't follow any other leagues or variations of ball games, either. It's all bollocks to me.) ;) ;D
yes, you have to celebrate down there now, and my next beer is on you 8). No i'm in spain for business, the games are in Germany. We call it actually football, but it gets mixed with the US and other variations of the game.
Hello gentlemen
The most durable car in the world is FRENCH ;D
Look here : http://www.3wheelers.com/cugnot.html
And some time in July, our friend Brian Crumb and I will try to start it up in the museum just to prove that it is DURABLE - we need a lot of wood to run 25 minutes but this is going to be fun ::) and some kangaroo hair in the boiler might help with a bit of napoleon VSOP cognac and a few Fosters :D
Denis
Paris, france
I dare say Big Richard is right; Americans don't seem to go for base models. The high falutin' luxury crap industry (which I consider a bad thing) has primarly been driven by America, I fear. Personally, I love simplicity. I would gladly even (horrors) roll up my own windows rather than have to replace window motors; and (gasp) lock my own doors rather than mess w/ vacuum systems.
I'd really like to respond to Denis. I completely agree that a car that develops a following will get the higher level maintenance. Cool cars are better loved - and therefore better cared for - than disposable cars. And, Denis seems to be saying that cars that get such a following develop it because they "love" their owners (in the sense that they reliably do what their owners want them to do).
The second point, I'd qualify. I think there are cars out there - without naming any - that develop a following simply because of the way they look. I also think there are cars that perform extremely well when they are just right - but are unreliable maintenance pigs - that also receive a loyal following.
I would like to think that I have not fallen prey to either of the above two categories in my w116. Rather, I want to believe that I have fallen in love with a worthy car that - in Denis' words - loves me.
To continue using Denis' language, what I want to know is, which automakers' cars have best "loved" their owners?
Michaeld
Hi michaeld and all
Taking a risk at simplifying things, the main point of a car "loving" its owner is that the bloody machine appears to be made for human use :
- the door locks are properly placed and work easily
- the door opens and allows the human to get in/out easily
- the seat and seatback fits the human body and adjusts
- the human is not annoyed by some quirk
- the instrument cluster makes sense and is usable
- storage spaces exist and can be used without looking or using a flashlight
- the car starts reliably
- the engine does what it is expected to do
- the car is easy to drive/see out off
- things dont fall off unexpectedly
- the car obeys its owners (accelerates well, brakes well)
- the car goes straight unless you turn the tiller
- the car does all of the above for a long time.
Such cars make the humans that own them NOT want to sell them. Miss out on too many of these points and as soon as this car has problems :
"kick in the car's arse" - it appears in the want adds or the car graveyard. Fini, no more, das Scheiße-Auto ist tot !
The early Citroen CX achieved many of the goals but did very poorly on one : - the human is not annoyed by some quirk because its roof was too low for anyone over 1m80 >:(
A more common example taht most might know : the VW Scirocco of fame - it did NOT achieve several of the above "LOVE" requirements and many were prematurely scrapped.
Why people buy silly cars is beyond me but they do.
Th W116 rates very highly on the list.
Denis
Paris, France
Bright day, cloudy, pollution alert asking people to not drive to work
QuoteWhy people buy silly cars is beyond me but they do.
The W116 rates very highly on the list.
Oups... :-[...OK, that is not the right way to say this :P
What I meant is that with respect to my love list, the W116 is a winner.
I did not say that the W116 is a very silly car that only fools like us will buy ;D
Denis
Paris, France
Quote from: michaeld on 15 June 2006, 09:16 PM
I dare say Big Richard is right; Americans don't seem to go for base models. The high falutin' luxury crap industry (which I consider a bad thing) has primarly been driven by America, I fear. Personally, I love simplicity. I would gladly even (horrors) roll up my own windows rather than have to replace window motors; and (gasp) lock my own doors rather than mess w/ vacuum systems.
I would have to say that, as a whole, I totally agree, which is one of the reasons I love my '77 280SE. The only option I can find on it is the armrest between the seats. I love manual windows, I've replaced too many 116 power window regulators not to. Though I do occasionally get comments from passengers like, "I for one PREFER power windows"...though this might be partially because the passenger window could use a lube... ::) I do have to confess that I miss central locking and would like a sunroof, I haven't quite broken my attachment to those, but everything else (except those rare ABS systems and maybe seat heaters) as far as options go is probably more trouble than it's worth, IMO.
Hi fellows
You know what 116.025 ? You just convinced me NOT to add the power windows to my 350SE. I have all the parts from a parted 280SE for months and use fellows just need to go adjust our window regulators.
My car is also aircon-less what a joy ! Honestly we can live without it in northern France but I do have, and love my sunroof. Unfortunately it IS a rust area. at this point, it is the only rust area on my car >:(
Denis
Paris, France
People who love older cars for their simplicity are different than most; which is a polite way of saying "weird."
The luxury add-ons are the primary thing that will eventually killing the classic car industry. Cars that have been built since the early-mid 90's often has too much stuff that will fail, and will be too expensive to repair.
I think Denis' post detailing what is meant by a car "loving" its owner is quite right; and I've had a few 30 year old cars that did all of those things! I think that the problem w/ modern cars is that they try to provide the illusion of comfort - and all too temporary comfort at that - at the expense of real comfort. I don't need GPS and a wheelbarrow full of whiz-bang gadgetry; just give me a comfortable seat that is built to last, good ventilation, and generally commonsense ergonomics; I'll be like a clam in its comfy shell. And again, I won't feel comfortable in my car if I have to constantly worry about something going wrong w/ it.
I've got one window that doesn't work, and one power door lock that works only if I drive over 15 min (same door, btw: right rear). It's not a big deal, and it certainly isn't a critical component; but it is always annoying when things don't work. I think of cars today (and I'm not even talking about luxury cars, but just plain old everyday cars) that have dozens and dozens of such systems. Who's going to want them in 15 years?
I've thought about buying a new car several times; but the biggest reason I keep going back to older cars is that I just don't feel that anybody is building a car that is right for me in the new car market. I found my w116 and something inside said, "Yes!" Mind you, if my w116 was built for me, it would get much better gas mileage - but beggars can't be choosers!
Who is making such cars today?
Denis, Speaking of French cars and Citroens,
last weekend we went to Melbourne and found ourselves behind at least 6 classics on their way to who knows where. Just enjoying the Victorian countryside. Got no idea what the models were and I wont try and expalin what each looked like although there was that "beetle" type up front. Here's the best pic I got of the last car in the convoy, didn't dare overtake each one in case I threw up stones. Aren't I thoughtful!! They all looked so shiny.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3518/citroenmedium2br.jpg)
As far as human comfort etc, my newer car (2005 Ford Territory (SUV)) is comfy but it's a ford with ford quality and has already been in twice with warranty issues. The car is great to drive but you know what annoys me? Its multifunction buttons for gadgets.
True I like my 350 mostly because it's a joy to drive but each button or switch or knob does one thing. I don't have to access a menu button then work my way thru to set something. It really takes your concentration off the road. I don't have to cycle thru a menu to reset the tripmeter. Even the greater spec'd sel's with all that was available at the time adds more switches etc rather than assign more functions to one switch. I suppose we can blame the electronic age, but despite it being relatively maintenance free, it's certainly not faultless. Give me mechanical control of my A/C, seats, stereo etc any day.
Hi oscar and friends
An interesting point can be made here. Some people would say that "our "idea of the W116 simplicity is just old-fashioned and we dislike "progress".
Well, the picture of that blue car in your post shows how true progress USED TO exist and that what is called PROGRESS today is mostly obtuse gadgetry.
The "beetle-like" is the Citroen DS. The original that came out in 1955 was an example of TRUE PROGRESS - it had the best Cx factor of any 1955 saloon (the streamlined body accounted for 10 kph in top speed), it introduced great ride (through hydropneumatic suspension, great brakes with DISKS in front and even better road grip than the earlier "traction" (the prewar looking car ahead of the DS on your picture).The DS hydropneumatic suspension of 1955 was eventually matched by steel -sprung car suspensions of the late seventies - being 20 years ahead of its time is what I call real "progress".
When the owner of the 1955 Citroen took delivery of it - it was arguably the most advanced saloon in the world but did the owner have to read a 400 pages owner guide ? learn to press buttons in a secret code with silly iconic displays that only an alien can understand or put up with the infamous "check engine" idiot light ?
Nahhh !! he just got MORE car. The technical progress was real. To me, the last technical progress was ABS - a W116 feature 8)
I think that modern cars are bent on including aerospace technology with washing machine technology budgets. If car manufacturers of today made flying cars, I would stay on the ground...
Cheers
Denis
Paris, France
Densis (and of course my other friends!),
"Progress" has trade offs; and sometimes one has to question whether the "progress" of a gadget justifies its MTBF (mean time between failures) that accompany it.
Here is one example: brakes. Most everyone acknoweldges that ABS was a major technological advance. It also makes DIY brake work far more difficult. Do you want it, or not? My car missed having it by one year (MBz introduced it in the 450 line in '78). Since I prefer to do my own work - and since I believe my 4-wheel disc brakes are more than adequate - I am glad I don't have the added technology and the headaches that come w/ it.
Today, brake systems are being introduced that make ABS look quaint. I don't know what the system is called, but it is a highly computerized anti-roll system that will initiate a "take over" of the brake system; computers will take over if the brakes are applied hard, enabling just one wheel to brake - then another - to avoid a rollover situation.
I am imangining that this will probably take any hope of DIY from much of the braking system. And I ask, would I want that? The answer for me is, not really. Do I think that such a system is pointless? No way; it is a magnificent technological accomplishment! But I feel more than safe enough in my car - provided it is functioning as it was designed. If I WERE to roll over, my solid body would protect me. I think that cars are built in a flimsy manner to save weight (to reduce cost of materials and improve fuel efficiency); w/ today's bodies, you NEED gadgets to protect the passengers.
Additionally, I want to bring the thread back to its purpose: which cars are the most durable (AND the most dependable). We can look at the automotive world as it was during the days of the w116 and ask this question; or we can look at cars through the latest models. We've mainly been discussing the latter in our posts.
This is the mentality I bring to cars: I want an automobile that will run well - and for a long time - on good solid basic maintenance. I want a car that I can work on myself for most issues (I believe that simplicity is an expression of great engineering; the engineering equivalent of Occam's Razor. If I pay more for parts (and MBz parts ARE more expensive than US car parts, for e.g.), I want those parts to be of higher quality and therefore last longer.
Now, we have talked about the "ride" experience of our cars; and it is - IMHO - amazing. But is there a trade off? Are Japanese cars - let's say 80's cars - more durable or more dependable than our w116s? Of course they don't have the same ride quality; let's not even bother to discuss that! But is there any reason to believe they are more dependable?
Mike
Michaeld and all
Is the W116 more dependable than a Nippon X of 1989 ?
Look at the library on this site - check the owner survery on the W116 ; When new, the W116 was not a reliability wonder, it was good but not great. The japanese approach was to provide perceived dependability on relatively new cars with very few "trouble" areas.
Once a new model is sorted out, it CAN become a repected dependable car. Durable ? hehehe, not proven yet.
As for the perfect car, I will borrow a snippet from another post and arrange it to reflect my opinion :
In a heavenly car,
The body is Italian
The engine is German
The seats are French
The sound system is English
and everything is organized by Swiss
Cheers
Denis
Paris, France
paris : hot day, bring out some cool sangria with ice cubes !
Agreed, extra gadgets cause worse MTBF performance.
My 280SE is 26 years old this year. It has 423 000km indicated. It has the following creature comfort options : vacuum central locking, electric windows, rear seat belts, A/C, rear window demister, rev counter
In all these years and km, the following is a list of the problems I have had with "gadgets"
a) A/C compressor bearings gave in - replaced with new compressor at an admittedly high cost of nearly US$1000
b) the drivers door electric window lift broke by way of the alloy plate that forms the backboone of the thing cracked. I disassembled the unit and had a specialist metal welder "stitch" it back together - cost about US$ 30, and has been in service for about 200 000km since.
c) passenger front door electric window lift suffered the same problem about a year later - same fix, same success.
d) one of the rear doors had a vacuum unit failure on the central locking, but that was because I accidentally pierced the bellows while working in there - solution - second hand vacuum unit
Other comments : all interior controls for heating, cooling, electric windows, seat adjustment etc etc still work flawlessly and have naver given any problems. I have never had any heater issues of any kind. My central locking is so good that after the car has stood for 2 weeks I can still lock and unlock all dodrs a few times before I have to start the engine to recharge the system.
That is what I call dependability.
My W140 has half the mileage, half the age, and probably 10 times the complexity. In the six months I have been driving it I have had the entire A/C system replaced/overhauled, I have electric window lift problems, door lock vacuum problems, closing assist vacuum problems (the doors "suck" themselves closed on high specced W140's), the heater doesnt work, there are a myriad of switches that often need to be "jiggled" before they work. Is this progress??you answer that. Do I want it - well I now use my W140 for the highway business trips I make of a few hundred km each every week. The ergonomics, human comfort and freedom from driver fatigue are a quantum leap better than the W116. believe it or not. BUT - there are all those niggles, and from what I read on the internet, with the W140 its not just an issue of fixing the niggles - there will always be new niggles. And they are EXPENSIVE.
So is the W140 better than the W116? Depends on your needs.
Ryan
Quote from: oscar on 29 May 2006, 06:39 AM
We had a Mazda 323 in the early-mid 90's that never missed a beat. Having said that, we sold it at 120,000km on the dial. Who knows how long it would've gone before needing major work. Nonetheless a great cheap to run car at the time.
Toyota Landcruisers are worshipped by many in Oz. Many stories of long lived cruisers, but I haven't got any to tell. I've only driven about 4 relatively new "troop carriers" for work and as 4x4's they do what they're supposed to.
My father has an 84 landcriuser fj60 with just over 450000 on the clock still doesn't miss abeat not even puffs of smoke only one thing has gone wrong with it and that was a water pump.(its always run castrol synthetic oils) but i must say my ol 450 has done over 500000 now and still regularly drags off commondores :)