|
fishmech posted:A problem can be anything from "the headliner is a bit saggy" to "the radio has poor tuning" to "the car explodes". If it's only 3% of any problems at all then it's not bad at all. Dude, it was a *malfunctioning transmission* in 3% of cars equipped with that transmission. And that figure is from Ford's investigation into that transmission, so that's *after* the manufacturer put the best face possible on it.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:3% initial failure rate in something that is A) rather expensive to buy and B) expected to last and be used for 5 to 10 years is pretty bad. For cars, though, it's almost meaningless as a "production defect" can mean anything from a scratch on the dashboard to a missing wheel. 3% of automobiles have some sort of blemish or irregularity that a trained observer could spot with some effort. Very few of them have anything to do with reliability or safety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Dude, it was a *malfunctioning transmission* in 3% of cars equipped with that transmission. And that figure is from Ford's investigation into that transmission, so that's *after* the manufacturer put the best face possible on it. Your numbers are misleading. 0% of the transmissions failed. 3% of the transmissions had some sort of problem, all of which were minor and most were the fault of the drivers themselves. "Jalopnik posted:Last month, Ford announced the results of its own investigation. Company officials said the faults had occurred with 3% of all transmissions, and that none of the issues found would cause a safety hazard. The first issue the company identified involved clutch plate bolts that loosened over time, making shifting difficult and causing grinding. Ford says it revised the fasteners and issued a "service message number" to techs. The NHTSA says only five complaints were related to this issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Occupy the 3% Serious note though, given what a car is doing every drat day -- that is, hurling one ton of metal plus your fat rear end around constantly with ridiculously little maintenance required -- 3% is mind-bogglingly good ...if that's actually an accurate number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Your numbers are misleading. 0% of the transmissions failed. 3% of the transmissions had some sort of problem, all of which were minor and most were the fault of the drivers themselves. Also, it's a sports car transmission - they intentionally engineer those more towards performance and less towards durability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
I'm not "excusing" the automotive industry for X rate of failure given the scope of the challenge that is two-and-a-half standard deviations of non-failing powertrains. I'm saying that there's nothing to excuse. Edit: where does this all tie back to energy generation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
3% for any sort of quality issues is really good, even though it's not even 3-sigma. The fact that those are non-life threatening issues makes it less of a concern though. Another issue regarding quality is that age might filter out the worst offenders. Like people didn't necessarily make houses better 60 years ago, just that the crappy ones from 60 years ago aren't around today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Your numbers are misleading. 0% of the transmissions failed. 3% of the transmissions had some sort of problem, all of which were minor and most were the fault of the drivers themselves. In order to get to 0% failure, you need to define failure as "completely stopped working." From the customer's perspective (and a process perspective), "failure" means "did not perform as designed." Not to make an overblown analogy, but we blew up two space shuttles because we defined "failure" as "completely stopped working" instead of "behaved in an undesigned and unexpected way"; O-rings were failing and allowing hot gas to blow by, but since the orbiter still made it to orbit it wasn't considered a failure. Big chunks of ice were falling and striking the orbiter on every launch, but since the orbiter still made it back to Earth it wasn't considered a failure. That's called "normalization of deviance", and that's how bad poo poo happens. From that article: quote:Last month, Ford announced the results of its own investigation. Company officials said the faults had occurred with 3% of all transmissions, and that none of the issues found would cause a safety hazard. The first issue the company identified involved clutch plate bolts that loosened over time, making shifting difficult and causing grinding. Ford says it revised the fasteners and issued a "service message number" to techs. The NHTSA says only five complaints were related to this issue. If I buy a new car and need to take it back into the shop because the clutch plate bolts loosened up and now my transmission is grinding, that's a failure. If my design and manufacturing process releases a transmission into the wild where the clutch plate bolts loosen up, that's a failure. If I need to issue a TSB saying "Oh, yeah, the transmission fluid we put in when we built the thing is lovely, you need to have it replaced with this other stuff," or we need to redesign the clutch and modify the field units with the new parts, those are failures. "Component quality issues" with synchros are failures. None of those things are the driver's fault, and the fact that none of those things were safety issues requiring a recall or total transmission-stops-functioning doesn't make them not failures of process and design. computer parts posted:3% for any sort of quality issues is really good, even though it's not even 3-sigma. The fact that those are non-life threatening issues makes it less of a concern though. It's not "really good." With the exception of large-die semiconductor manufacture, there's not a modern industrial manufacturer out there that'd tolerate that today. If you're a machinist and 3% of your parts don't meet spec, you're looking for a new job. If one of your suppliers delivers parts and 3 out of 100 are bad, you're looking for a new supplier. Six-sigma is buzzword bullshit, but sub-3-sigma is not really good. And that's *one part* on a *brand new car*. Again: 28% of 2006 cars on the road have experienced engine, transmission, or fuel system problems. There's plenty of room for reliability improvement in cars, and EVs can do a lot of it. Seriously, here's a partial list of what EVs do away with, as compared to a typical 4-cylinder engine. Two camshafts, 2 fuel pumps, 2 fuel pressure regulators, at least 8 camshaft bearings, 16 valves, 16 lifters, 16 valve springs, 16 valve guides, 4 spark plugs, 4 coil packs or a distributor with its cap and rotor and drive relay from the cam, various sprockets and belt wheels and tensioners, the cam timing belt/chain, at least 12 piston rings, 4 pistons, 8 big end bearings, 8 main bearings, 8 gudgeon pins, etc. All that poo poo can fail. The transmission has another several hundred parts. The drivetrain of the Model S contains about 20 moving parts. There's plenty of room to improve. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Phanatic, can you pull from your mind / experience an example of a device with as many working parts and as severe a level of strain through normal use as a car must have and endure that see greater than three sigmas of tolerance? Edit: this isn't rhetorical -- I just can't think of any myself. I want to say stuff like computers, servers, consolidated architecture / blade systems, but they don't compare in any meaningful ways. Metal fatigue is a bitch and I'm trying to think of things that compare. Edit 2: Having done some hobo-grade gas to electric conversions on Rangers and an 2003 TT, I can anecdotally declare that, once you have a good design for clutch-motor interface, 144V DC storage pack, proper digital control of power, optimizations in general, poo poo just runs. Each conversion I've been involved in was over-engineered to hell, however, and probably would probably be unnecessarily costly at commercial scale. Gas cars "just run" as well, but I can easily accept where an electric motor and simplified drivetrain can make physical complexity plummet. Diesel trains discovered this decades ago: petroleum engines drive electric generators under continually-optimal conditions. Electricity is provided to direct-drive electric motors that, with a slew of controllers, also may operate under continually-optimal conditions. The marriage of internal combustion and a need to let car users drive anywhere from 1MPH to 80MPH with what westerners consider "decent" acceleration prohibits continuous optimal operation of the engine and drivetrain while introducing more moving parts that must endure significant strain. A modern train doesn't give a gently caress - a bigass over-engineered diesel engine drives a gearbox and generator. All three can live in harmony and spool up slowly to reduce strain. The motors and drive wheels similarly don't give a gently caress about anything but moving at optimum speed with optimum acceleration. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There are theoretical designs for fission-fragment rocket engines. Your fuel is fissile material pulverized down to nanoparticle size, and inject them into a chamber inside an axial magnetic and an electric field. As fission occurs, the ionized fission fragments are directed out of the chamber by the magnetic field, producing thrust. But instead of producing thrust, you could trap and decelerate the fragments with the electric field, directly converting their kinetic energy to electricity. You could do that with up to 90% efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Meanwhile, at a higher level, a conductor and some navigation software keep power generation and train acceleration/speed at levels optimizing fuel consumption for the needs of the terrain and schedule. Trains are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Do we have a thread to
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Phanatic, can you pull from your mind / experience an example of a device with as many working parts and as severe a level of strain through normal use as a car must have and endure that see greater than three sigmas of tolerance? There's an implication in that question that we should be expected to tolerate greater failure rates from more complicated devices, but that's not true. Complexity drives cost, and there's no reason you should tolerate higher failure rates from more complicated, more expensive devices than from cheaper, simpler stuff. I test helicopters for a living, and I can say that if 3% of, say, the helicopters we delivered to the customer came with defective transmissions, they'd come down on us like a ton of bricks and we'd have government inspectors crawling up our collective rear end in a top hat to figure out what the problem was. Again, the context of that 3% figure was a particular transmission on a particular model of Fords. Know who did a better job at designing/manufacturing devices with as many working parts with as severe a level of strain? *Every other car manufacturer in that and other years.* Even Ford, on their other cars. It was a poorly-made Chinese part. 3% is a failure rate well, well in excess of even other cars; you can't say "Well that's actually a really good rate that we should be happy with," because every other car was doing it a lot better that year. My point isn't that new cars aren't reliable; they are. And I don't disagree that the vast majority of modern cars don't have problems with the drivetrain. But that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement; a good proportion of cars that are 10 years old *do* have problems with the drivetrain, and as the Getrag example indicates there are cases where even new cars can experience unacceptable, far-above-the-norm failure rates (yes, 3% is unacceptable. There were 12.5 million cars in the US that year, if that rate were typical then that'd have been 375,000 defective transmissions, which is absurd). Eliminating that complexity is a real avenue for improvement in reliability. quote:Gas cars "just run" as well, but I can easily accept where an electric motor and simplified drivetrain can make physical complexity plummet. Diesel trains discovered this decades ago: petroleum engines drive electric generators under continually-optimal conditions. Electricity is provided to direct-drive electric motors that, with a slew of controllers, also may operate under continually-optimal conditions. The marriage of internal combustion and a need to let car users drive anywhere from 1MPH to 80MPH with what westerners consider "decent" acceleration prohibits continuous optimal operation of the engine and drivetrain while introducing more moving parts that must endure significant strain. That's a perfect example of an advantage of EVs. An automatic transmission, a manual transmission, dual-clutch autos, manumatics, CVTs, whatever, they're all just compromises: how do we get useful torque delivered to the wheels over a ride range of engine rpm. The Model S does it by being an electric motor that produces max torque at 0 rpm and just having enough torque to do things with up to ludicrous rpm. You don't need the transmission at all to let the user operate from 1 to 80mph with decent acceleration, you've just got a fixed gear ratio and that's that. I believe the Model 3 is doing similarly, and it obviously won't have the torque of the Model S but they're still claiming a sub-six-second 0-60 time on the base model, which doesn't just crush the Leaf and other toy cars, it's better than a bunch of IC ones. kaynorr posted:Do we have a thread to Mass adoption of EVs has serious implications for electricity generation, and I don't think they're off-topic at all. That's one of the things I *haven't* seen talked about much in regards to the Model 3. Tesla's supposed to be doubling the number of supercharging stations they have nationwide, but that's still all that not much, and while the Model S is something I could say making long drives in the Model 3's supposed to be a daily commuter car. I don't see a bunch of commuters in the same city all converging on the local supercharger on a weekly basis, and even if they do, that doesn't scale well at all as a solution. 350,000 cars is in the grand scheme a relatively large amount, but mass adoption is going to do things like poo poo the peak demand hours, and the electrical infrastructure will need to be able to adapt in order for EVs to grow to dominate as people expect they eventually will. freezepops posted:Do you have any source on that efficiency number? The general efficiency for a beta voltaic is sub 1% and that uses something that produces only charged particles. I don't see how it's possible for fission to beat that when it would also include losses in the form of gamma rays and neutrons. I wasn't talking about betavoltaics, although those are also nonthermal. Betavoltaics work by shooting beta particles into a p-n semiconductor, you can think of them as like a photovoltaic cell that's tuned to beta particles (or alpha particles) instead of photons (there are better designs that use the alphas or betas to generate photons in some phosphor and use the photons to drive a more conventional cell, with the idea being that you're not blasting your delicate p-n junction with radiation that will damage it, and that one beta has enough energy to scatter many, many photons out of the phosphor). The method here is using an electrostatic field to brake charged particles, which in the case of fission would be the heavy, ionized, fission fragments flying out of the fissioning fuel. http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/PDF/aiaa05.pdf quote:The electrical conversion unit is in the exhaust chamber, which operates on the principle of direct collection of charged particles. The electrons are first separated electromagnetically from the positive ions and allowed to flow to the ground of the electrical system. The stream of positive fission fragment ions, carrying most of the energy, is composed of ions of different energies and is therefore of different electrical potentials. These ions are caught by series of electrostatic collectors, each one kept at slightly higher potential than the proceeding one. A That article's talking about a rocket where you can either spit the exhaust out to generate thrust or decelerate it to produce electrical power or do whichever combination you want to arrive at the mix of thrust/power you want, but if it's a reactor and isn't going to move you could just turn it all to electricity. computer parts posted:Again, failure is not a binary system. There's "not meeting specs" and there's "the consequences of not meeting specs". Car buyers don't say "Well, I have to bring the car in to the shop so they can fix the transmission, but at least it's only slightly failed and not exploded." It's like if your flight gets canceled: it doesn't really matter whether it got canceled because the inbound flight's toilet broke or it got canceled because the inbound flight's engines all sheared their bolts and fell off while landing, the inconvenience and costs are the same to you in both cases. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Again, failure is not a binary system. There's "not meeting specs" and there's "the consequences of not meeting specs". You're right that the first factor is fairly high, but the second factor is very low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
In the context of significant mechanical issues with a car. 3% seems like a really a big number. Content: quote:Nissan recently released the results of a five year study that found 99.99 percent of its battery packs are still operating as warrantied (battery not having less than 80 percent capacity after five years). Using that information, a study conducted by Warranty Direct (an independent British insurance specialist) found that the Leaf drive train is 0.255/0.01 =25 times more reliable than internal combustion engines. This is, however, somewhat misleading because today’s conventional cars are amazingly reliable, especially compared to a 1973 Pinto. They found that out of 50,000 conventional cars aged 3-6 years old, only a quarter of one percent “had an issue that led to an immobilization of the internal combustion engine.” This is the closest thing to actual data I could find: EV =.01% chance of failure. ICE=.25% chance of failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Comparing battery pack vs drivetrain failure rates is not a like-to-like comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Car buyers don't say "Well, I have to bring the car in to the shop so they can fix the transmission, but at least it's only slightly failed and not exploded." It's like if your flight gets canceled: it doesn't really matter whether it got canceled because the inbound flight's toilet broke or it got canceled because the inbound flight's engines all sheared their bolts and fell off while landing, the inconvenience and costs are the same to you in both cases. Actually it does matter if you're not dying because of it in one case, and dying in the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Mass adoption of EVs has serious implications for electricity generation, and I don't think they're off-topic at all. That's one of the things I *haven't* seen talked about much in regards to the Model 3. Tesla's supposed to be doubling the number of supercharging stations they have nationwide, but that's still all that not much, and while the Model S is something I could say making long drives in the Model 3's supposed to be a daily commuter car. I don't see a bunch of commuters in the same city all converging on the local supercharger on a weekly basis, and even if they do, that doesn't scale well at all as a solution. 350,000 cars is in the grand scheme a relatively large amount, but mass adoption is going to do things like poo poo the peak demand hours, and the electrical infrastructure will need to be able to adapt in order for EVs to grow to dominate as people expect they eventually will. The Model 3 is still fundamentally a second car in most use cases, but there are plenty of those out there to replace. I wonder what the range sweet spot is for where it more sense to use an EV as a primary car and just rent a gasoline car for longer drives. Tesla's charging stations aren't the only ones, and in most cases the only one that really matters is at a regular destination like a job if availability can be guaranteed - it basically doubles range there. A charger by a mall or grocery store might be a bonus, but are people realistically going drive that distance with the risk that not finding a charger might strand them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Comparing battery pack vs drivetrain failure rates is not a like-to-like comparison. Not really. The battery in an EV is the main long term reliability factor. If you are only looking at electric motors on the Leaf the failure rate is probably even closer to zero. Tesla on the other hand had a bunch of problems with the motors in their earlier cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Not really. The battery in an EV is the main long term reliability factor. Kinda sounds like you need to include the rest of the drivetrain to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Kinda sounds like you need to include the rest of the drivetrain to me. Mechanical problems with the drivetrain seem pretty much non-existent. So again the battery is a good comparison. It's something that degrades over time and you know it will need to be replaced at some point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Mechanical problems with the drivetrain seem pretty much non-existent. And again: even if rare, they still need to be accounted for if you want a fair comparison to the drivetrain in an IC car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And again: even if rare, they still need to be accounted for if you want a fair comparison to the drivetrain in an IC car. I think the issue is more that IC engines and drivetrains have become incredibly reliable, despite their complexity. The simplicity of electric drive won't improve on that very much, no matter how reliable it is. Electric cars will still have steering gear, suspensions, HVAC, electrical, and all the other systems that create most of the problems which bedevil automobiles. Hence, "increased reliability" isn't a particularly strong selling point for electric vehicles. They have plenty of others, but that isn't a very good one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually it does matter if you're not dying because of it in one case, and dying in the other. Read what I wrote. In neither case are you dying. In both cases, your flight is canceled. Nobody who has to go without his car for several days at least is going to not consider it a failure just because it the reason he has to bum rides to work is because of repair of his transmission rather than replacement of his transmission. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Tesla's charging stations aren't the only ones, and in most cases the only one that really matters is at a regular destination like a job if availability can be guaranteed - it basically doubles range there. Yeah, but how's that going to happen? Right now, workplace chargers are less common than workplace handicapped spots. My workplace has over 2,000 employees, if there's substantial adoption of EVs there's no way management's springing for more chargers than it currently has handicapped parking, so "if availability is guaranteed" is not something we can reasonably expect. Deteriorata posted:I think the issue is more that IC engines and drivetrains have become incredibly reliable, despite their complexity. The simplicity of electric drive won't improve on that very much, no matter how reliable it is. Electric cars will still have steering gear, suspensions, HVAC, electrical, and all the other systems that create most of the problems which bedevil automobiles. Again, how are you missing the statistic I've quoted multiple times and can quote again and provide a citation for that over 25% of cars 10 years old have in fact suffered powertrain problems? For cars 5 years old, it's 9%. Yes, for *all current model-year* cars, the rate is insignificant, but for older cars in general and particular makes and models in particular (other example: 2009/2010 Nissan GTR transmissions had a habit of grenading if you used the launch control feature the car shipped with), the rate becomes significant. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Right now, workplace chargers are less common than workplace handicapped spots. Less common than something that's been a legal requirement for going on 25 years seems like a weird thing to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Less common than something that's been a legal requirement for going on 25 years seems like a weird thing to complain about. I'm not complaining about it, I'm pointing it out as a factor. How many people work at your place of employment? Do you see your company installing electric chargers for more than a tiny fraction of them to be able to show up at work and plug in their cars? On the company's dime, no less?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
ok you had a full page gb2-AI or start another thread or something
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'm not complaining about it, I'm pointing it out as a factor. Since I live and work in a real city there are no dedicated parking spaces for the company, because everyone walks or takes public transit and then walks. The cops probably wouldn't look kindly on installing a charger on the sidewalk. fishmech fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But it's not really a factor that makes any sense. "Right now, workplace chargers are less common than workplace handicapped spots. " It was a comparison of proportions, not an assertion of similarity. If it makes you feel better, pretend I said "Right now, workplace chargers are less common than hens' teeth" or something suitably folksy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think the issue is more that IC engines and drivetrains have become incredibly reliable, despite their complexity. The simplicity of electric drive won't improve on that very much, no matter how reliable it is. Electric cars will still have steering gear, suspensions, HVAC, electrical, and all the other systems that create most of the problems which bedevil automobiles. I'm not so sure. It seems reliability is almost always a factor. Think about how many people would leave certain manufacturers like FIAT-Chrysler out of their vehicle shopping because of real or perceived reliability problems that probably amount to no more than a few percent worse than another carmaker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I'm not so sure. It seems reliability is almost always a factor. Think about how many people would leave certain manufacturers like FIAT-Chrysler out of their vehicle shopping because of real or perceived reliability problems that probably amount to no more than a few percent worse than another carmaker. Reliability isn't that important. Liberals love Volkswagens, Volvos, and Subarus even though they are not very reliable brands. Yuppies love Audis, BMW, and Mercedes even though they cost a boatload to fix and maintain. Rednecks love and buy American cars even though often they may not be as well engineered as Japanese cars and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Reliability isn't that important. Liberals love Volkswagens, Volvos, and Subarus even though they are not very reliable brands. Yuppies love Audis, BMW, and Mercedes even though they cost a boatload to fix and maintain. Rednecks love and buy American cars even though often they may not be as well engineered as Japanese cars and so on. http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/top-10-reasons-why-car-buyers-choose-specific-vehicle-model quote:1) Reliability/Durability
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/top-10-reasons-why-car-buyers-choose-specific-vehicle-model A lot of people have misconceptions about car reliability though. For example, a lot of liberals think that Subaru and European brands are reliable. I bet if you surveyed American European car owners, many would say that they bought a European car for its reliability. People come into the somethingawful help me buy a car thread all the time saying "I value reliability and fuel efficiency" and say that they went shopping for Subarus and want the thread to help them choose between Subaru models. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/top-10-reasons-why-car-buyers-choose-specific-vehicle-model drat, pwned
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Reliability isn't that important. Liberals love Volkswagens, Volvos, and Subarus even though they are not very reliable brands. Yuppies love Audis, BMW, and Mercedes even though they cost a boatload to fix and maintain. Rednecks love and buy American cars even though often they may not be as well engineered as Japanese cars and so on. I resent this. And Audis are not that expensive to fix and maintain. Now, if you are dragging it to the dealer like a moron, yes, you deserve every inch of the butt rape that is dealer pricing and labor costs. And ironically, more often than not most Volvos, Volkswagens, and Subarus ARE as reliable as Ford or Chevy, who believe it or not break regularly as does nearly every mechanical device known to man.. Know why they break most often? People don't take care of them. People are more often than not the weakpoints on cars maintenance wise. They ignore that squeek, or try to ride out an oil change a little longer, or ignore massive mechanical issues to save a buck. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Actually, most cars do not break regularly, as it is no longer 1968.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actually, most cars do not break regularly, as it is no longer 1968.  You might want to let the mechanics of the world know that
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Read what I wrote. In neither case are you dying. In both cases, your flight is canceled. Nobody who has to go without his car for several days at least is going to not consider it a failure just because it the reason he has to bum rides to work is because of repair of his transmission rather than replacement of his transmission. After 10 years of user "maintenance" EVs are also going to break.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:After 10 years of user "maintenance" EVs are also going to break. And sloppily made EVs will be just as unreliable as sloppily made ICs. It's not the technology, it's how it's used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Good points all around guys. I checked up on the Energy Generation Megathread to read about the comparative reliability of Volvos and you guys did not disappoint. Please keep up the good work and lets try not to derail the discussion with anything about power plants, global energy production, or other stupid poo poo like that. I wanna hear what a bunch of laymen retard hacks think about cars because lord knows I can't get that kind of high caliber discussion anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:43
|
|
