I'm curious.
>>14887949
Over-engineered in a bad way. Too complicated designs, too many redundant moving parts.
>>14887956
>Over-engineered in a bad way. Too complicated designs, too many redundant moving parts
As if that is something only German cars are guilty of...
>>14887997
The Germans are the worst.
Old Mercs were over-built in the sense they used parts that lasted too fucking long, that said, once a part goes...youre fucked. Since then theyve learned they can jew more shekels out of badgewhores and plebs by building basically disposable cars.
Audis and BMWs arent overengineeres for shit, theyre just dumb and pointless designs that jumped on the >muh reliability meme. Go ahead, try and fix anything on a new Audi: shit's so cramped and dumb its obvious it was built so the amount of work hours ramp up. VW a shit too, both old and new.
Want over-engineering? Look at 90s nip cars. Even fucking family sedans from the time had engines with forged internals built to handle over twice the power they had stock. Beefy rods, hypereutectic pistons, and simple as fuck to work on.
>>14888006
It's like the architecture of "Alien" and "Pacific Rim" had a baby together, and it got the worst genes from both parents.
What is an under -engineered brand or engine then?
>>14888022
I drive a mid-90s Honda Accord.
I picked it specifically for reliability. It is an amazingly low maintenance vehicle. Almost all my problems have been related to lights.
>>14888006
>FLYWHEEL SIDE OF THE ENGINE
>>14887949
A lot.
>>14888039
Anything Korean, Chinese, Indian, or from SEA.
>>14887956
Scotty Kilmer pls go
>>14888058
Why? The Japs manage to do exactly the same thing, with less moving parts, less complication so there's less to break.
>>14888049
MFW imagining myself trying to drive one.
It seems people seem to use the word overengineering for "too much stuff I am too dumb to understand so it is shit". Overengineering means making something stronger than it needs to be. Making overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machines is simply bad engineering.
But since we're out of the 1930's, any car is bascally a Rube Goldberg contraption. You're not going to be choking the kind of power you want nowadays out of a ramshackle carb with magnetos for the ignition. Back in the day, if something on your car broke, for example the starter, you took out the starter, took apart the starter, looked for the point at which the copper windings had broken and then you fixed it. Or exchanged the carbon brushes. Or changed the bearings.
Nowadays? Forget it. Try finding the error on a fried ECU PCB and soldering a new resistor or a new capacitor. Or taking the ignition coil apart and fixing the point where a cable fried. You can't fix what's broken because you don't have 2000-era production equipment in your home that was used to make all this high tech. You're now a parts exchanger, and so are most mechanics. Something breaks? You take it out and throw it on the trash, then replace it with a new part. Anything else is uneconomical because the hours a mechanic would need to find the error and fix it would add up to more money than buying a new part would cost.
So really, what's the complaint here? When the car is "too complicated" to work on, all it means is you're actually too fucking stupid to be a parts exchanger. There are robots in a factory doing the job you're trying better than you.
>>14888065
And this will be me when I hit the accelerator.
>>14888065
>>14888080
Rewatched that movie as an adult last year, first time in probably 18 years.
Holy shit it's fucking retarded.
>>14887949
They aren't. Everything has its purpose.
>>14888077
You see anon, theres a flaw in your argument. Even though youre mostly right and your consideration of 30s car repairs is wonderful, youre confused thinking people hate over-engineered german shit because it's top complicated for their stupid brains. Take the Audi engine posted here already, for example: its not hard to see which pieces need to be dissassembled and how, trouble is it seems like a fucking hell of a tiresome work for something that doesnt need to be that way. Its a hassle and it doesnt have to be, hence IT FUCKING SUCKS.
And it specially sucks when other engines are able to do the same without that much hassle. And hassle equals time, time=money spent in the shop, bla, bla, bla...
>>14888104
It's better than any parody of "Star Trek" I've seen.
Even "Star Truck" (I'm serious) wasn't as funny as "Spaceballs".
>>14888113
If we deliberately designed cars to be as easy to repair & reliable as 90s' Japanese vehicles, would they become the most popular cars for the financially-strapped layman?
It seems to me mid-90s vehicles are perfectly serviceable.
>>14888119
Lol even the directors name is a redflag
>>14888113
Well, I'm no expert on Audis, I'm more of a Merc guy, but I can say that I know that timing >chains< instead of belts are installed with the intention of never being exchanged or removed. They are built "for lifetime", and that means that with proper maintenance (and assuming no gremlins in the engineering that will just make something break because it's been built / designed wrong) they will last until the end of the natural life of the engine or the car, wherever that pre-calculated point may be.
This of course means that if they DO break for whatever reason, they're going to be a bitch to repair because they're nestled deep inside the machine and covered in grease and eighty other machine parts. But you have to understand that one of these "for lifetime" parts is supposed to be of equal life like, for example, the crankshaft. Yeah, it's deep inside and a bitch to exchange, but that's because it's an essential part that is supposed to never be exchanged.
Of course, then you have retards who miss oil changes, and a thin timing chain will react a whole lot more sensitive to bad gunked-up oil than an external, ungreased timing belt will. But them's the breaks. Either it's an integrated system welded shut that you need to maintain vigilantly. Or you have a conglomerate of easily exchanged spare parts. For a factory trying to make a more-or-less foolproof machine, the former is obviously the better choice, given that Average McBumfuck can barely handle exchanging the oil in the car, much less the timing belt. But if he does the former often enough, the latter will never crop up in a car that's been built with a "for lifetime" timing chain.
I can swear to you up and down that the percieved bad reliability of German cars in the 21st century is entirely because they switched to the former way of building and retards thought they were still in the latter, neglected maintenance, then the engines started brewing up. An ounce of prevention ...
>>14888192
The chains on the Audi engines are fine, it's just that the plastic chain guides wear out and everything is put on the back of the engine.
That's just plain bad design.
>>14888208
It looks to me as if the timing chains are greased by the motor oil, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you sure that they wear out just like that or did people not change oil often enough or filled in the wrong one? Sticking to the SAE designations is utterly critical nowadays.
>>14888128
Emissions and safety standards will not allow anything short of hyper complex horseshit that needs a special FORDCHEVYFIATBMWMERCEDES BRAND laptop to fix. If they'd force CANBUS parts to be interchangeable like OBD is life would be awesome. However instead we've got fuck faces who want to pull an apple computers and claim that modding the ECU should be mega illegal because "the ECU could be modified to pirate music"
Anything more complex than drive by wire or variable valve timing is really not needed. However a lot of this is planned obsolescence so the car company can make more shekels.
>>14888168
I take it back. "Night Crew" ("Robot Chicken") is a pretty good parody of "Star Trek".
They even snuck Khan into the skit with virtually no one on Youtube noticing.
>>14888229
Modern car complexity is mostly bullshit. I'm pretty happy with mid-90s tier Japanese technology. It's as complex as it needs to be, but no more than that.
But no, we have to have everything "complicated and high tech". It's a car, it doesn't need high-tech nonsense.
We just think cars need high-tech nonsense.
And then we ask why so many people can't afford a car, beyond a used one. Simple. Because the used-car has no bullshit.
>>14888259
Cars have become cheaper and cheaper. Besides that all that new tech isn't really much of a problem when implemented properly.
>>14888259
Nigger.
I can a-fucking-sure you that people all over the fucking world during every single fucking period of human history have said that exact thing you just said with a few of the nouns exchanged. It was just as wrong back then as it is now.
Source: I talked to an old, retired Daimler engineer and this exact question came up. The 80 year old fuck laughed at people thinking that tech is getting too complicated because people like him have been pushing that "more complicated" tech, and that old fuck still got along with it just fine. He literally told me: "Back in the 70's people said that Direct Injection was 'overblown overengineered bullshit they ripped out of old WW2 figher planes'. What a lof of crap! Only a luddite would say that!" And it's true! Look this fucking thing up! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_601
New tech is always first unreliable. Then they build it so often that they manage to figure out more reliable stuff out of the same concepts. The it becomes so commonplace that nobody wants to go back to the horrible shit they used in the past. often times, the new stuff is in the end more reliable than the stuff it replaced.
Go on. Rip out your ignition coil and replace it with magnetos. I fucking dare you.
>>14888303
I drive a mid-90s Honda Accord.
That level of technology is good enough. We're not all swimming in cash.
With college and credit card debt everywhere, all these hyper-expensive cars are out of touch with economic reality.
There's no point in making modern cars if no one can afford them.
>>14888303
I can't help but notice you completely left economics out of your argument.
>>14888331
What kind of a retarded statement is that? So they should stop engineering new machines that run better and more efficiently because you can't afford them? How salty is that? I don't even have a car, I roll on a 2smoke scooter because that's the minimum of what I need to get around, but I still see that technological progress in the mainstream of carmaking is utterly necessary.
Inb4 buying new. Yeah, I also would never spend more than 10k on a car. Doesn't mean I don't have a boner for hightech. If I can afford the insurance and taxes at al, I'd like to buy a 5-10k Mercedes W140 sometime, with the V12. The maintenance I'll glady dive into.
>>14888340
Economics is the same progression. It's expensive at first when it's experimental, then it progressively gets cheaper until it's even cheaper than the stuff it replaced. It's often invented because the old technology is wasteful or actually quite expensive compared to the new one. For example Through-Hole electronic boards versus Surface Mount electronic boards. Same with mechanical engineering. DI vs. Carb is a battle that was already fought.
>>14888380
I'm saying carmakers shouldn't stop making cars the economically desperate can afford. Instead they act like the Great Recession never happened.
I don't give a shit about high-tech, I care about reliability and affordability both short and long-term.
>>14888380
The key word being "progressively". The long term.
But student loans, credit card debt, and youth unemployment are not progressive. They are now, present, and omnipresent.
They are killing car culture among the young. Cars aren't a realistic option for so many of them.
>>14888214
The nylon guides on timing chains wear out after 200.000km-ish on almost any car with chain driven valves.
>>14888460
Then a DI engine is simply better than a carb. Carbs can go out of alignment due to simple mechanical stresses or heat acting on them. DI and its ECU don't care unless lightning strikes and fries the electrics.
What you want is a cheap but still modern car. Mitsubishi Mirage goes for about 10k new. Still has dual overhead cams and DI.
>>14888486
Cars aren't really getting more expensive. They were always this expensive. People just earn a lot less money. The median / average (I dunno which) wage stayed the same since the 70's in America if I'm not mistaken. Don't blame car makers, blame the politicians.
>>14888006
someone post the picture of the guy working on it. his face is fucking priceless.
especially if you post the one with red overlay.
>>14888513
I'm not interested in assigning blame. I'm interested in the creation of a subgroup of vehicles that fall into the category of hyper-cheap but still reliable and safe.
Vehicles aimed at a large demographic of Americans. The ones who simply cannot afford cars equipped with modern tech beyond the minimum necessary.
Obviously, there will need to be regulatory exceptions (not safety) granted for this class.
>>14888577
That 10k Mirage too much for you? It can't really be made much cheaper than that bro. It already is practically bone stock with no frills. I am talking a new car here man.
>>14888587
I got my Honda Accord for 1,000 dollars.
I was thinking something in the few thousands range.
>>14888601
There was never a car like that in the last 30 years. Not new anyway, and especailly not when you consider inflation for the prices from back then. I was not considering the used market because I thought we were only talking about the new inventions. Used you can get anything for cheap.
>>14888601
It's actually not without precedent. The Tata's price in dollars is 3,000 dollars.
I want more equivalents to it.
>>14888613
We can't make new cars with older-tier technology?
>>14888624
The Tata Nano was also notorious for suddenly bursting into flames, and a whole other bunch of safety issues.
>>14888645
Do you somehow think that old tech is cheaper than new tech? You what mate? The cheapest thing on the market is what is currently being mass-produced the most. DI injectors and DOHC cams are thrown out like fuck because they're everywhere. Carbs haven't been relevant in decades. Lrn2IndustrialRevolution.
>>14888624
That thing is only cheap because it's being built at slave labor prices.
>>14888460
Car makers should continue to do business as per regular because if the general population is too stupid to open their eyes then they deserve to get fucked
>>14888664
Yes, because it wasn't based on Japanese engineering principles.
My mid-90s Honda Accord has been amazingly resilient. And any hyper-cheap car should be modeled after it.
>>14888682
I bought a Japanese car from the 90s at one-third the price of a modern Tata, the cheapest new car ever made at present.
>>14888714
And?
>>14888716
And what? How is mid-90s technology more expensive than 2016 technology, in 2016?
>>14888736
Because all the factories that built mid-90s tech have already been dismantled or changed to 2016 tech. You can at best get ready leftover stock from back then, but that'll run out. Time moves on.
>>14888741
It can't be that difficult to reverse-engineer primitive tech. It's why it's called primitive.
>>14888770
You don't need to reverse engineer anything, it's well known how it works. You just gonna need infinite production capacities for it, and you don't. Nobody will set up a factory for building outdated technology when obvious, better, cheaper, already mass produced alternatives exist. I ge tthe feeling I'm being trolled or you're too stupid for middle school.
>>14888782
You're telling me fucking India can make a 3,000 dollar car, but it's beyond the goddamn West's capabilities?
We're getting owned on this by India, of all places?
>>14888851
Ok, now I know that I am being trolled
All this effort for nothing, I hope you're happy.
>>14888854
So it is beyond our abilities.
How the fuck did that happen?
Developed nation my ass.
Fucking people these days complaining about technology
>650hp Corvette zo6 gets 29 mpg
>never need to tune carbs
>brakes work
>disks instead of drums
My dad has a 66 GTO that came with manual drums all around, and a two speed auto, (now swapped for power disks and a 4 speed.) and holy shit better not have skipped leg day.
>EFI systems that tune a car for you
>fit and finish
>doors and windows seal
>100 years of engine and drive train improvements
>100 years worth of tire advancements
>ABS
>Traction control
>The car can keep you from killing yourself
>airbags
>Chrysler offers a car with 700hp from the factory, with a warranty
>diesel pickups will soon be hitting the 1000lb/ft of torque mark soon.
>turbos
>as of 2016 new cars are getting lighter to start satisfying fuel economy regs
>Cars pollute less, make more power, and have better mpg, handle better, are more comfortable then ever
The most basic new shitbox you can buy today will be a better all around car to DD then any car luxury or otherwise from the 60's or so
The 2016 Honda civic with the 1.5t does 0-60 in 6.6 and a 1/4 mile in 15.1 with 174 hp (according to C/D)
The 1969 Boss 302, of which 700 were made, does 0-60 in 8.1 sec, quarter mile in 15.8 sec (1970 motor trend). It was rated at 290 hp (most likely made more).
And remember cars got worse before they got better, see the late 70s
Just look at the vw beetle, and its counter part the Toyota corolla. the beetle does 0-60 in 25+ seconds. They were terrible to drive. They needed constant maintenance. The worst you can accuse the corolla of is being boring.
We are in a goddamned golden age of cars right now.
>>14888119
Spaceballs is a Star Wars parody
>>14888881
I can go on the Internet, and have someone show me in step by step detail how to preform almost any car related task
I can argue with random strangers about car things. I can order parts from all over the world, I can buy used things from the global market place. Its a great time to be a car guy.
>>14888870
We could, they're called gasoline golfcarts. If you want to take one of those on a US highway, I salute your balls.
>>14888881
this, the only place we're behind is visibility and stale design language
>>14888499
Can confirm. Plastic guides wear out super easy
>>14888691
That Japanese engineering is exactly what makes Jap cars generally more expensive (along with the yen being more expensive).
Once the Japs design a Tata Nano the pricing will end up in Aygo territory. Oh wait, might as well just sell the Aygo.
>>14888022
VW's are fairly easy to work on, although not too reliable. But they're not shit.
t. VW mechanic
Are FIAT and Alfa Romeo overengineered or underengineered?
