Planned Obsolescence

[sbender121]

I was having a long chat with my indy today and an interesting topic came up. The planned obsolescence of cars. He works on mainly BMW, Mercedes, Audi and VW and we were talking about all of the computers the new cars have. He went on to say that most cars year 94 and newer are only designed to last for around 4 years and 80,000 miles before needing to be replaced or having major repairs done usually exceeding the value of the car. According to thee government, this is due to new emission standards they are trying to set. On another note the car manufacturers can use better parts, but choose not to so they can save money. The companies are also trying to make it impossible for owners to do their own repairs by making everything more complex. He explained that you have to disassemble the drivetrain, remove the mufflers and take the undercarriage out to replace the starter on a Touareg. I am quite frustrated that car companies don't make cars that are designed to last. :/ how do you feel?

[bobzdar]

Cars last longer now than they used to...better corrosion protection, longer drivetrain life due to better lubricants and more computational power during design allowing for better fatigue analysis etc. 200k miles is not unheard of anymore, 20 years ago it was, especially if you lived somewhere that they salted the roads.

Regarding working on cars, they're a lot more complex with so much more crammed into smaller spaces that it's to be expected. Warranties are longer, so it's in the car companies best interest to make the cars easier to work on and last longer because they'll be footing the bill if they break down early.

[Mayorchuck]

I don't buy that at all. My extended family have many cars less than 10-15 years old with well over 100k. I have 2 myself. 215k on my '96 740 and 160k on a 2000 Lexus ES300. I have had minor, comparatively, issues with the Bimmer and nothing other than preventative maintenance on the other.

As far as the Touareg example, there have been many cars from my backyard mechanic days that are similar. I had a 1978 Chevy Monza Spyder that had no access to 3 plugs. You either went thru the wheel well or loosen the motor mounts. Anyway, unless there is a 2011 AMC Pacer, Pinto or Edsel, there is no car manufacturer in the world that could survive long term making an 80k max car. Unless it was a low budget, 'you get what you pay for' vehicle that one would expect to have a short life span.

JMO

[seahog]

4 years 80k! Think of all car companies that stand behind there products now for 100k. Cars are lasting longer now than ever and needing much less service. Just think back to the 70's and 80's when a car had to be tuned up with points plugs and rotor every 10k. yes an owner could easily work on his own car and good thing because they needed it often. A lot of cars don't even have scheduled oil change until 10k now. I totally disagree with your indy. who would purchase a $70-100k car if they really thought it would only last 80k that would cost over a dollar a mile in just depreciation at that rate. if banks had that opinion do you think they would offer a 6 year loan?

[m3studio]

Haha no kidding on manufacturer making it harder for owners to repair. BMW and Benz are going to start using Fiber Optics so no additional speakers, aftermarket decks, DVD or anything. Also when u get a Check Engine Light no more OBD-II! Dealer only.. the only benefit of that I'd precise definition on a code not a generalized description like codes now. Ahh how dumb. And German cars are made to last as much as the warranty is aka 4years/50k miles

[toyotahachiroku]

I somewhat agree. If manufacturers built cars that last forever, who would ever need to buy anything new? If my first car, a 1986 toyota corolla gts never rusted out to a point where it became structural,Ii would have never moved on to BMWs and an e36. Last time i checked, the corolla was still running and approaching 500k km after an extensive restoration by the guy i sold it to. that ae86, just like e30, e34, e32, w124, and other japanese/german stuff from that era were just engineered and built better.

[Edwin NL]

Sorry thats BS in my book!

[coleshooter]

I don't necessarily agree with that. While I do think some planned obsolescence is involved in the making of vehicles, particularly through some features (I do love my Star-Tac - works lovely with my iPhone), I don't think the engines are designed to fall apart that quickly.

Plus, the more equipped a vehicle is, the more likely it will have problems later on, because there's more to go wrong. I had a 1993 Ford F150 that had 305,000 miles when I traded it off, and I saw it the other day (six years later) still going. It was extremely plain, and Ford's 5.0L 302 is a pretty easy engine to work on, because it doesn't have many features. Of course, it will be easier to own than a 15 year-old Mercedes CLS.

[redpicker]

There is some truth to what is posted in the OP, but not much.

Planned Obsolescence is real, and it has been around for quite some time. Henry Ford used to send his engineers to junkyards with instructions to bring back parts that were just as good as the day they left the factory. He would take these parts and then tell his engineers that these parts were made too well, to find a way to make these parts cheaper. Seems evil, but this practice has driven nearly 100 years of automotive (and manufacturing, in general) innovation.

The auto manufacturers would like it if you had to get your oil changed at their shops. They'd really like it if you had to use their oil. If they could find a way to make you use their gas in the tank and their air in your tires, they'd do it in a minute. Again, this is nothing new. There are numerous laws that prevent that. One of the more famous is the Magnison-Moss Act, enacted in 1975. Prior to that, manufacturers were saying that if you did not use their oil, you would void the warranty. Do some googling on the new Dexos 1 motor oil and see what GM is saying about it.

But, that aside, consumer pressure has pushed auto design to much longer product lives for vehicles. As has been mentioned, 10 years out of a car is not uncommon (just about every E38 is now older than that). Yes, manufacturers design them to be dealer-serviceable when they can (why do you think there is no dipstick for the transmission?), but consumers vote with their dollars. Toyota sells a lot of cars because they are perceived as being long-lasting vehicles, but the Prius only has a design life of 10 years for the battery pack. That doesn't seem to bother the people who buy them, but I wouldn't consider buying a car that would only last 10 years.

rp

[Chief Jimbo]

What?? YOur first post and this is what you bring up? a post from over 3 years ago? Uggg..

[sigtwenty]

Partially correct.

They want repairs to start at 80k, and those people that have a disposable mentality want you to buy a new car.
Then the people like us will buy the undervalued car, dump 5k in it and keep it for another 80k.

[daytonatrbo]

What?? YOur first post and this is what you bring up? a post from over 3 years ago? Uggg..

And the link posted is for some pyramid/make money at home/bs.


Mods... can we kick this guy???

[mboor]

OOOOO i love this topic! Planned obsolesence is built into EVERYTHING we buy. Cars, Boats, atv's, dish washers, hot water heaters, furnaces ect...ect...ect. If it wasn't then our economy would collapse in 20 years. Think about what would happen if you only bought ONE of everything. Think about how many companies would go out of business after the initial supply was meet? Its a necessary evil in our economic world. Yes we have the technology to build cars that never break. But who would buy another new car in a few years if the old one never broke? And yes cars are definately lasting twice as long as the did 30 years ago. They are definately much more complicated and harder to diagnose / repair. Also think about how much more stuff is in a new car vs. a 30 year old car. 10lbs of crap in a 5lb bag....

[Steve Sposato]

I was having a long chat with my indy today and an interesting topic came up. The planned obsolescence of cars. He works on mainly BMW, Mercedes, Audi and VW and we were talking about all of the computers the new cars have. He went on to say that most cars year 94 and newer are only designed to last for around 4 years and 80,000 miles before needing to be replaced or having major repairs done usually exceeding the value of the car. According to thee government, this is due to new emission standards they are trying to set. On another note the car manufacturers can use better parts, but choose not to so they can save money. The companies are also trying to make it impossible for owners to do their own repairs by making everything more complex. He explained that you have to disassemble the drivetrain, remove the mufflers and take the undercarriage out to replace the starter on a Touareg. I am quite frustrated that car companies don't make cars that are designed to last. :/ how do you feel?

I worked as a mechanic when I was younger and I heard this type of thing all the time from conspiracy theory people.
Having many friends who are and have been CEO's/ CFO's/ and engineers and guys who own their own companies, it's about the responsibility to shareholders or the bottom line.
Companies have to always be intension to provide a product that is better than their competitor, hit the price point of the market they are targeting, and be a profitable company.
That's done by balancing out many factors not planned obsolescence. We have lived in a capitalistic economy and that is driven by competition to be the best.
Sure cars could be made to last 75 years or more , be simple to fix and these cars would cost 6-7 figures because of what it would take to make this goal a reality.
Tesla is a great example of my point.
When I have heard these types of discussions I suggest people gain insight and education on how business works and ask what part of this type of discussion is about their own personal outlook at life and if they see an "us" vs "them" mentality.

[Mayorchuck]

It seems that no one can escape from planned obsolescence. Today, most products are disposable. Here's a familiar scenario: your washing machine or television breaks down, so you have to call the manufacturer for a spare part. However, they are informed you that the part is not available anymore, so you have to buy a brand new one rather than sending it for repair. That's known as planned obsolescence. Read it here: Planned Obsolescence.

Sorry guys. We get many threads/posts such as this. Not sure how this one got by the filter.

[Dunedevil]

I'm an engineer in the automotive industry.

I can assure your there isn't a sinister conspiracy to "make" people buy new cars by designing in faults. Its simple economics and knowing your customer base while designing to meet TARGETS.

I can also say that the opening post is correct, different car companies have different design targets. One of the companies I worked for targeted 10 years or 100k miles. I had to provide detailed studies as to why my component would last to the target. Then I'd get questioned about if I could make the part cheaper...
We don't design them to fail at that target, but we design them to at least meet or exceed the target. I've heard that other companies design to different targets. (I can almost guarantee that we're all beyond the design life of the E38. Hense the low resale value!) You have to keep in mind that more targeted time and more targeted miles equates to more component / car cost.

Here's a shocker: business are in business to make money!

If you can make a product lighter (fuel consumption) or cheaper and charge the same amount for it, why not? If long term robustness is potentially sacrificed, then a study is done to measure the impact on the customer and vehicle. That impact for the customer is considered and the product is adjusted accordingly.

The fact of the matter is that engineers are getting better at design due to computer aided tools and market competition. Back in the day you'd over engineer to ensure margin (adding lots of cost). Now we can use finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and anechoic chambers (among other tools…) to precisely design and understand what is needed to meet the specs set by the sales and marketing departments.

Don't get me wrong. I've been pinned down multiple times by other departments and or the marketing boys telling me that my design won't work.

“From an function stand point it's perfect, but:
sales can't support the cost,
the added weight hurts fuel economy,
the additional air flow hurts fuel economy,
the added heat can’t be rejected by the existing cooling system,
the added air duct won't get past styling…”
The list goes on and on.


Furthermore, I work on my own cars and let me tell you, there have been plenty of times when I think to myself, “Bring me the designer for this part to I can choke him!” To that that point, there are TONS of designers (and approving managers) who have never touched a wrench in their life. “Well the CAD tube says it’ll work…” …but I digress.

Point is that we make what people will buy while making a profit (amidst a highly competitive market). Capitalism (with limited government regulation) makes great cars!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=1_ptUrQOMPs

[mboor]

I don't view planned osolencense as a conspiracy therory by coorporate America to keep us down lol. Like it was pointed out, its usually a cost vs benifit decision made in the design and engineering process. Blame it on the coorporate bean counters, or the engineers, or whom ever you like, But you should bet your bottom dollar that it exists and it's live and well in todays economy.

[blackknight530i]

In regards to the statement about who would want to buy a new car if the one we had never breaks, look at the computer industry or smartphones. Our computers or smartphones are obsolete within 6-9 months, but yet everyone has to have the latest and greatest, even though their old ones did everything they needed them to do just fine. It wasn't planned obsolescence, it just happens that technology is advancing so fast, that we try to keep up. Technology in cars is advancing nearly as fast and we all want the latest in those as well. Don't we all want the more power, safety and technology while also decreasing fuel consumption? The auto industry recognizes this trend and builds cars accordingly. They know that it doesn't make sense to make a car that lasts 75 years since it will be 75 year old technology. We already complain about our 13 year old navigation systems in our e38's, and honestly, isn't it nice that BMW provided a way for us to retrofit newer technologies to our aging cars? I'd say that's the opposite of planned obsolescence.

[mboor]

A car can be technologically obsolete, but still function 100%. When i talk about "planned obsolesence" I'm refering to underengineering of a specific part or system, or product in whole. I.E. designing something to last just long enough to make it past warranty, when we know that a little extra effort would extent the useful life span of said product. I agree 100% that we are suckers for all the new tech junk. people don't care about how cars drive, look or preform anymore. its all about what new apps it comes with, if it interfaces with my new smart phone 1000 or if i can tweet my friends while im driving or letting the car park its self. Imo, cars arnt that much more efficient, powerful or safer than they were 15 years ago. They are however chalked full of new technology that gives them the appearance that they are more safe and efficient. Personally i could care less about the tech end of it, save it for the lap tops and cell phones. my 750, despite being 16 years old, still has technology that is not found in a lot of modern cars, makes almost 350hp (thanks to DUDMD's tune) and averages 21mpg. not bad for a 16 year old 4600lb car, those numbers would hold up to any modern day equivillant. Thats what i would expect from a $100,000 car new. No planned obsolesence on higher end products...

[xboss]

One thing for sure is that cars are flimsy now and the manufacturers dont worry about it being in the family for 20 years. People are addicted to shiny and new. They think a 10 year old car is not modern enough.

[mboor]

i think thats because 10 years has somehow become the accepted lifespan for most manufactured producted now days. Most things are not built to last multipule generations nowdays

[Dunedevil]

I think it's a "chicken or the egg" question. Is it that manufactures don't design for multiple generations or that consumers don't purchase for multiple generations?

The key fob on my 750... Glued shut and the battery soldered in?! The fob was also fully functional once I replaced the battery indicating quality design manufacturing.

Obviously BMW exclusively catered to the original buyer - definitely not the guy that bought it 13 years later for $4100!

Nothing wrong with that, it's their strategy to make a buck.

[blackknight530i]

I think it's a "chicken or the egg" question. Is it that manufactures don't design for multiple generations or that consumers don't purchase for multiple generations?

The key fob on my 750... Glued shut and the battery soldered in?! The fob was also fully functional once I replaced the battery indicating quality design manufacturing.

Obviously BMW exclusively catered to the original buyer - definitely not the guy that bought it 13 years later for $4100!

Nothing wrong with that, it's their strategy to make a buck.

Correct, my point was that the manufacturers are building what the customers apparently want, a new car every 4 years, but a really good car for those 4 years. We're a consumption based society and we consume cars, not preserve them, except for us enthusiasts.

[xboss]

I feel that I am more than just an enthusiast, it's a lifestyle choice for me! Same goes for tons of stuff in my life, I swoop in on the cheap and only like old school nice things. Maybe I'm just an old man but none of this new stuff impresses me too much.

[M.Rad.]

I don't think they "plan" for things to fall apart at a certain time. I DO think that they build it to last as long as their CUSTOMER expects the product to last. For the current BMWs the "customer" is someone who wants and can afford a new car about every 80,000mi (4-5 years).

WE (the guys who wrench on their own iron) are NOT BMW's customers! They DO NOT care that your guide rails self destruct at 130k mi.! Don't like it? Buy a new one! Can't afford a new BMW? You're obviously a cheapskate, perhaps you should look elswhere, for something more appropriate to your station in life...

So, if they can get away with making certain parts that fail at a little over 80,000mi, they will. They'll build in a little safety margin so that the warranty isn't activated, but basically they will build it as cheaply as possible (BMW plastics and wiring insulation for example), sell it for the most they can, and pocket the difference.

Regards,
M.R.