[TrackDay]

From whatever I understood, I think this is in line with targets and how things are today.

It might be better to buy something new than get the old one fixed. It doesn't help that service centers do advice us to go for the newer models too. This comes from the brand too that stops support after a while. For them this might be to focus on the next gen products to keep up with the heavy competition. Take with cell phones. I am sure they will last if maintained well, but what about updates for certain apps that stop for certain models few years post their launch. If the customer want to use such apps, he/she has no other mainstream option rather than get a new phone.

Maybe you can get good life out of your products if you go the extra distance to maintain them. But in the end everything is driven by human nature. Everyone wants the latest iteration of anything out there. A kind of FOMO culture. Rather than companies trying to create a subscription, it is us who can never be content with what we have. From having touchscreen in an elevator to multiple gizmos in a kitchen device, it is simply calling for trouble. More the fancy and complicated tech, the more the chance of it failing and being expensive to repair. But at the same time, companies can't avoid them due to competition and the convenience and gratification brought by them to the end users.

[SN88]

Originally Posted by tilt

When it comes to machines/equipment my opinion is that it makes more sense to define durability in terms of hours of usage (or better, kms./miles that they last for) rather than linear time.

For example, the older cars that you remember as durable may have lasted more years than the newer cars you think of; but try and relate that to the hours of actual usage or number of kms./miles they have been used for. I believe that your results may come out in favour of the newer "less durable" cars than you remember.



Cheers

Thank you, the above is an excellent point of view. Yes the amount of usage can be a better judge of reliability in comparison to just time. I do think in certain newer cars they age better but shorter. If i may put it across as an athlete who is fit till he is 55-60 but dies an early death due to prolonged and constant use of the body.
NOTE: The above is just an eg not necessarily true for all. Peace

[tilt]

Originally Posted by SN88

*SNIP*

This post was to understand from much more experienced members of this forum if they feel that the manufacturers could have / knew how to make the new tech on cars more robust or do they feel the auto co's chose to make better products but limit the ownership time by buyers.

That, I believe, is a possibility. Yes they probably have the know-how and the wherewithal to make products last longer, but planned obsolescence takes over because a business has to make money and can only do so when people keep buying instead of repairing or continuing to use older and older products.

I am not saying it is right or that I condone it; I am merely saying that I understand their rationale.

Cheers

[AZT]

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

To give an analogy from the realm of culture: I am now at an age where my friends and I talk about how great music from the 1990s was compared to what's on the charts today. But I recently went through the Billboard archives from the 90s and there was a lot of absolute garbage from one-hit-wonders that charted really well, got on to playlists in bars and clubs for a year or two, only to be forgotten forever.

This is exactly the example I was thinking of. Survivorship bias works in every aspect of life.

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[shancz]

Originally Posted by SN88

The intention of this thread was not a debate on older is better than newer.

The topic focused on whether i am being a conspiracy theorist that while equipment and technology has become better but at the cost of durability in the interest of capitalism.

Point taken on the topic, and I don't think everything is a subscription, especially cars.
But I understand your feeling because the rate at which things are being replaced hasn't happened earlier so it might give that impression.

The quality of products has come down in certain areas but it isn't due to a capitalism-conspiracy of "if it breaks down earlier, we can sell even more". If any company does that they will eventually be labelled as "bad" and their sales will drop. Might be true for consumables but definitely not high value products like cars.

On your question about whether car companies really trying to make them durable, I had the same feeling until I saw the actual price data.
The manufacturers are also limited in what they can/can't do, because of the price constraints and the market preferring more features for lower prices.
Doesn't mean that they can compromise on the basic mechanicals or safety as some manufacturers have unfortunately shown, but that's OT so will skip.

Here are some prices of base models, to see how much does the car cost today sans any "features".
It made me see the manufacturers in a different light and we sometimes blame them unfairly while we are paying 28-45% taxes on the ex-showroom price itself and the RTO isn't even in the picture yet.
Out of factory, the Alto costs 2.85 lakhs, Tiago is 3.76 lakhs, i10 Nios at 3.97 lakhs, Altroz is 4.41 lakhs, S-Cross is 5.78 lakhs, Harrier is 9.65 lakhs, T-Roc costs 13.78 lakhs, or think about a BMW 330i lux for 32 lakhs, check the link, its true

I think the prices are reasonable, keeping in mind that all cars come with ABS, airbags and rear parking sensors as standard.
Credits to the source MyCarHelpline

[rdst_1]

Originally Posted by tilt

I believe that the two of you are defining durability from a limited perspective - that of time.

When it comes to machines/equipment my opinion is that it makes more sense to define durability in terms of hours of usage (or better, kms./miles that they last for) rather than linear time.

That's a perfectly valid point that you have raised. One more point I would like to make against my own beliefs is that, thanks to Internet, I am now forming opinions not based from my experiences alone. And we all know that one will find majority of the experiences that are listed online, to be of negative nature as people who have positive experiences, don't feel the need to share them as often. So yes, you guys could be perfectly correct and we are being pessimistic for no reason.

Edit - I don't think there is any need to say this but I am still gonna go ahead and say it. I haven't taken any comment made till now as a personal attack on me. I welcome all views as that is how I can make a more informed opinion.

[petrolHead_1609]

Haven't really seen this kind of grilling/bullying on this forum, not sure why there's no infractions yet.

Everybody can choose to disagree with OP and many did by listing reasons and without being harsh but the way attempts were made by select few, literally targeting and passing judgement that it's a mid life crisis and we know it all, how it strikes and what happens.

I know this post doesn't fall in the forum guidelines as it adds no value to discussion but I felt the need to point it out as there are multiple posts violating the no no-value adding post and to top it, there's bullying.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by SN88

This post was to understand from much more experienced members of this forum if they feel that the manufacturers could have / knew how to make the new tech on cars more robust or do they feel the auto co's chose to make better products but limit the ownership time by buyers.

Thank you for your post and clarifications. In this sentence above you have put down what question you are searching a discussion on. Regretfully your opening post is quite confusing and rambling touching on several apparently unconnected points which is why far too many members, including me, read a very different message in it. I'm glad you are 32 and far from mid-life crises'. I am grateful for the crises' I went through as it has helped me become a fuller person. Just my experience - when starting a new thread it helps to frame it carefully as several different members of great diversity will read it and think of responding. Peace.

[Kosfactor]

Is everything a subscription? Yes.

At a basic level we subscribe to food and civilization. Everything else is a voluntary subscription.

You are allowed to drive your M800 from the 80`s and the landline phone as well from the same time.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by SN88

I also disagree with your claim of tv and cellphones being cheaper now. Of course not!!
.

Bought my first cellular phone in year 2002 - I paid a whopping 8000 rupees for a regular feature phone. No bells and whistles - just calls and SMS. That was almost my monthly salary at that time.

Bought my first smartphone in 2011, ended up paying 22500 rupees. It wasn't a flagship or top of the line.

Just bought a new upper mid range smartphone (SD855+, 8GB RAM, 128GB, 6 lenses overall, including 5x periscopic zoom) a few months ago and I paid Rs 25000.

Which one is cheaper?

[SN88]

What i meant by my statement was as below:
Say in around 2010 the best phone top of the line (iphone 5 i guess) was available for around 50-60k . Now when apple or samsungs release their top of the line phones they are well pass 125-130k.
Completely agree the specs are different, but back in 2010 they were game changers as well. The difference in those models and the newer ones are largely improvements in specs like better camera, better memory, better screen , faster processor.
But these are improvements, not newer inventions for co's to simply keep increasing the prices for newer models for every increase in pixel or say memory.
Please feel free to correct me if i havent got the point right.

Originally Posted by clevermax

Bought my first cellular phone in year 2002 - I paid a whopping 8000 rupees for a regular feature phone. No bells and whistles - just calls and SMS. That was almost my monthly salary at that time.

Bought my first smartphone in 2011, ended up paying 22500 rupees. It wasn't a flagship or top of the line.

Just bought a new upper mid range smartphone (SD855+, 8GB RAM, 128GB, 6 lenses overall, including 5x periscopic zoom) a few months ago and I paid Rs 25000.

Which one is cheaper?

Honestly this I contradict myself. Phones have become cheaper for the value.
Perhaps due to a wave of competition and the sheer amount of users opting for smart phones.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by SN88

But these are improvements, not newer inventions for co's to simply keep increasing the prices for newer models for every increase in pixel or say memory.
Please feel free to correct me if i havent got the point right.

This is confusing, your reference to why flagships cost more isn't tenable IMHO.
I bought a Galaxy S3 in 2012, exactly same price as the iPhone 4S then(2499aed roughly 40k during that time). It had 1Gb RAM, 16GB storage, under 5 inch screen, 12MP/5MP cams and average battery. You can buy the same/better specs today for 10k.
So have products gotten cheaper ? Yes.
But there are way better products available and they charge a premium not just for the product but also the experience which varies from person to person.
At the end its a product offered by a company, you may buy it or not its up to you but it doesn't matter since its not the only one.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't your concern similar to saying that a cup of coffee is getting too expensive in 5 star hotels. They don't charge just for the coffee but for the experience. And its strictly optional.
I still think I have misunderstood something please correct.

[SN88]

Originally Posted by shancz

This is confusing, your reference to why flagships cost more isn't tenable IMHO.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't your concern similar to saying that a cup of coffee is getting too expensive in 5 star hotels. They don't charge just for the coffee but for the experience. And its strictly optional.
I still think I have misunderstood something please correct.

No, you are correct and i have agreed in my previous post that i do take back my statement in regards to the cellphone scene. Cellphones seem to be working in favor of consumers. You get a choice of spending 40k or 100k for similar specs. Brand consciousness is upto the buyer.
cheers

[shancz]

On the topic of durability of vehicle components I will say its not that black and white.
Lot of variables at play here like :
- operating temperatures
- dust and pollution
- humidity
- traffic
- warranty and service
- quality for fuel and lubes
- maintenance
- usage

I can't expect my powertrain to perform flawlessly for 100000kms if I don't adhere to the basics like low loads after cold starts, excessive redlining, insufficient maintenance etc.
Other factors aren't much in our control though but they do have their impacts. Example if VW warranty was taking care of the DSG malfunctions or if the repair costs weren't so high it wouldn't be that big a concern IMHO.

On our roads we face at least 3 of these factors at any given time. Some unfortunate souls experience all of them together
So, its difficult for the machines along with the humans too and especially true for cars which are built for the world and India being one of the markets. I can safely guess that the DSG is working well in other countries especially its home market(EU).

Slightly OT but PW1100G engines which caused the grounding of several A320Neos worldwide reported more cases of failure in Indian conditions(operated by Indigo and Go Air). The reasons mentioned were that our conditions have high heat, humidity, pollution and salty environment all at the same time which were causing more failures as compared to other places.
If you want to know more check this out.

[rkv_2401]

Originally Posted by SN88

The intention of this thread was not a debate on older is better than newer.

One gentleman has taken it personally that i am critical of newer vehicles etc which is not the case. I am only asking are manufacturers ON PURPOSE not making full use of the potential of the tech available to make cars better and EQUALLY durable.

I think this is a very interesting question you pose. Are car manufacturers intentionally not using the full potential of the tech available to them to make cars more durable?

I don't agree with your observation on the dual-clutch gearbox, because I feel that such a complicated kit of electronics can't be figured out to perfection at a price that makes sense, and no manufacturer other than the luxury marquees have been able to implement a reliable version. In this case, I think the price of India-specific R&D and a 'perfect' implementation for our roads is the prohibiting factor, not planned obsolescence. Agreed, we should demand better, but there is some mitigating factor.

But coming back to the same VAG group, they've had the ABS sensor problems in cars that have been manufactured for more than a decade. Reading posts on international forums, and talking to my seniors from college who have carried out research on ABS systems, it seems to be a problem with the harness. One of those posts that I can't find rn said that it's probably because of a wire a tiny bit too long/short shorting itself out. Either way, I believe at this point if VAG had had an incentive to fix this problem, they would be able to fix it. The level of engineering gone into my DSG Vento continues to astound me 4 years later. Everything just makes sense on the car. The speedo has completely stopped working but the damn thing still shifts gears perfectly, stills rolls smoothly and even provides engine braking without a fuss! I don't believe the guys who engineer cars like this and the Jetta can be stumped by a simple ABS sensor. I believe they just aren't incentivized enough to fix the problem. In fact, they'd have to spend money looking into it, lose some revenue(from all the ABS sensors shipped! ) and spend precious R&D time for the future generation cars.

And that's where I think the 'problem' is. To answer your question, I don't think they're making FULL potential of the technology available to them, and cars of this era could be made even more durable/reliable. They're simply not incentivized enough to. However, we can't discount the massive improvements in a car's performance, durability and ease of use. Nowadays you can trust the authorized service center to do the job, as long as you pay what is asked and give the car at appropriate intervals, the car just works for the rest of the time. This wasn't the case 15 years ago, and this is good enough for a lot of people. I know it is for me. No more running to the service center every couple of months to diagnose a failing thermostat, weird noises or strange electrical gremlins.

The cellphone analogy is a bit convoluted because of Moore's law, technology gets better (and cheaper to produce!)at a very significant rate, but it is obvious to see that today's smartphones, laptops, TVs et al on average are far harder to get access to/repair than previous generations. And there's more revenue to be made for the companies to replace/convince the consumer to upgrade, which makes it seem like a conspiracy theory, but we also have to look at the fact that the customers as a whole seem to not have the time/energy to bother fixing the now-old product, which means it's just market forces at play. There used to be a period from 2008-2013 where certain portable nVidia graphics cards(from the Geforce 8M series to the GT650M) were a ticking time bomb and would, with certainty, fail - it was just a matter of when. Those were soldered to the motherboard and you would have to replace everything when it fails, an expensive proposition. Does it fail in a year and you make a fuss? Or does it fail in 5 and you just throw away the laptop? I remember being able to open up my afflicted laptop as a 12 year old kid and just blast the GPU with a heat gun, trying to get the thing to work again for 2 or 3 weeks. And it worked, astonishingly. My current laptop has always been plagued by issues, and at one point there was smoke pouring out of the back like you see in Formula 1 cars. I have never opened it up the right way(possibly out of fear of setting something on fire), and haven't bothered to do more than hand it in to a service center because a) they're super cheap at 900Rs. and b) I don't have the time to meddle and try something that is very unlikely to actually fix the problem. I didn't bother that this problem arose because my friendly neighborhood service center can fix it for me.

My only concern is that, planned obsolescence or not, being able to repair a product is becoming harder and harder. Apple's been clamping down on this for a while, and their latest phones don't let you use the product with parts from another iPhone of the same model. I can't even change the battery in my Vento outside of the service center without being harassed by someone manning the front desk(what would a reception lady know or have to say about MY car, which she hasn't even seen in person?), or my warranty being taken away. That sort of behaviour is not okay. And I think that's where the frustration comes in for a lot of people. If a customer decides they want to take things into their own hands and experiment with a screwdriver and a spanner, I believe they should be encouraged to do so, and not condemned.

It begs the question, who owns the product? The paying customer, or the brand who sold it to them? Many brands are behaving more and more like they've signed a contract stating that you must come back to them for any repairs. They haven't, and they don't own the only right to conduct repairs to the product. And for that one reason, I won't be taking the Vento to the VAG A.S.S after my extended warranty expires. Even though they've done a wonderful job so far, I don't like their attitude around changes to the car. The service advisor should help me get MY car serviced, the way I've set it up for MY usage. Not judge me for acquiring a replacement battery from outside, a battery which will last longer and is far cheaper.