The Car Thread ... !

[Lord Blackadder]

Well, it really depends. I have a Ram Crew Cab Ram pickup truck, which means I have a 5 feet 7 inch crumple zone behind the cab of the truck. With a huge hood, I have a very large crumple zone in front of me.

My daily driver is an e46 3 series with the sport suspension. I'm convinced that if I get into an accident, with the trucks/SUVs around me they will end up going over me, instead of staying level and using both crumple zones.

I'd say the average compact SUV is safer in the typical accident vs. a little Smart Car. At least here in the US, where on most roads we are going 50 mph or greater. I would assume during an accident, bumper height being higher outweighs the rollover risk.

The flip side of this is that large trucks and SUVs are killing and maiming people at a significantly higher rate these days due to their greater mass and bumper height. Which leads to an 'arms race' of ever-larger vehicles as people seek safety in size, with no end in sight.

Unfortunately, the debate usually devolves into a personal one as people become defensive about their choice of vehicle. The reality is that in a truck or large SUV you ARE safer, but the people around you are in greater danger. It's not an irrational or malevolent choice, but it is a selfish or self-preserving one - and collectively it makes the roads far less safe. Worse still, it is a situation that will clearly never be resolved on its own merits. Only economic factors, not safety or even environmental factors (though the latter is slowly gaining credibility), have ever been able to steer people into smaller cars en masse.

I own a full-size pickup, though it is an old one that is used purely for hauling and the odd trip into the woods - not a daily driver and not driven on the highway. I am not anti-truck. But it's a fact that seeking safety in size is only good for you. The usual response I get is that it's my fault for buying a smaller car and I 'deserve' whatever happens to me in an accident as a result of my choice of vehicle.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think this is a trend that has some serious road safety implications and as a society we've totally stuck our heads in the sand over it. Unless we all end up driving Tahoes and Grand Wagoneers the problem will persist. If only a minority of driver chose large SUVs it would probably be more of a footnote, but such vehicles are now considered the norm and continue to grow in popularity.

There has to come a point where the upward growth in the size and weight of automobiles stops, surely?

 

[JT2002TJ]

The flip side of this is that large trucks and SUVs are killing and maiming people at a significantly higher rate these days due to their greater mass and bumper height. Which leads to an 'arms race' of ever-larger vehicles as people seek safety in size, with no end in sight.

Unfortunately, the debate usually devolves into a personal one as people become defensive about their choice of vehicle. The reality is that in a truck or large SUV you ARE safer, but the people around you are in greater danger. It's not an irrational or malevolent choice, but it is a selfish or self-preserving one - and collectively it makes the roads far less safe. Worse still, it is a situation that will clearly never be resolved on its own merits. Only economic factors, not safety or even environmental factors (though the latter is slowly gaining credibility), have ever been able to steer people into smaller cars en masse.

I own a full-size pickup, though it is an old one that is used purely for hauling and the odd trip into the woods - not a daily driver and not driven on the highway. I am not anti-truck. But it's a fact that seeking safety in size is only good for you. The usual response I get is that it's my fault for buying a smaller car and I 'deserve' whatever happens to me in an accident as a result of my choice of vehicle.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think this is a trend that has some serious road safety implications and as a society we've totally stuck our heads in the sand over it. Unless we all end up driving Tahoes and Grand Wagoneers the problem will persist. If only a minority of driver chose large SUVs it would probably be more of a footnote, but such vehicles are now considered the norm and continue to grow in popularity.

There has to come a point where the upward growth in the size and weight of automobiles stops, surely?

I have 4 vehicles:

Audi A4
BMW 325i
Ram 1500
Honda VTX 1300R (motorcycle)

I am now an older new father (42 at my son's birth). I take my son with me to work everyday (his daycare is in my office building) and use the 325i as my DD. My 325 and my wife's A4 are 2 seaters now. With the rear facing car seat, the passenger side front seat is so far forward they are unusable. At 6'2" it is impossible to sit behind me in these cars (3" between the drivers seat back and the rear seat). Also, once the stroller base is in the trunk, the truck is also unusable.

If I need to go somewhere with my wife AND the baby, there is no way to do it in our cars. It would be impossible with 2 rear facing car seats (which are required until the age of 2).

The ONLY reason cars are small in Europe is mass transit is better. The reason mass transit is better is because most of Europe can fit in the State of TX.

There is a reason compact SUV's and larger are taking over. People have families, and want to all be able to go places together...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I have 4 vehicles:

Audi A4
BMW 325i
Ram 1500
Honda VTX 1300R (motorcycle)

I am now an older new father (42 at my son's birth). I take my son with me to work everyday (his daycare is in my office building) and use the 325i as my DD. My 325 and my wife's A4 are 2 seaters now. With the rear facing car seat, the passenger side front seat is so far forward they are unusable. At 6'2" it is impossible to sit behind me in these cars (3" between the drivers seat back and the rear seat). Also, once the stroller base is in the trunk, the truck is also unusable.

If I need to go somewhere with my wife AND the baby, there is no way to do it in our cars. It would be impossible with 2 rear facing car seats (which are required until the age of 2).

The ONLY reason cars are small in Europe is mass transit is better. The reason mass transit is better is because most of Europe can fit in the State of TX.

There is a reason compact SUV's and larger are taking over. People have families, and want to all be able to go places together...

I agree with you for the most part that small cars just don't work for a family of four+, though the space argument only really works for midsize SUVs and larger, and ignores the previous solutions to this issue - the wagon and minivan.

As for mass transit, it has less to do with geography (the US had an excellent national passenger rail infrastructure) and more to do with the influence of the automobile in the 20th century. The auto industry all but wiped out the national passenger rail system and urban light rail in the US - helping an existing process along through a combination of sales pitches to consumers and lobbying in government. At the end of the day, this leaves us overly reliant on the road system.

I am not suggesting people should feel guilty buying an SUV, but the idea that people actually need one is simply not borne out by reality. And I think wagons and minivans both offer significant advantages over the SUV - the former in performance and the latter in practicality and packaging...and there is no reason we can't have either in AWD, as in the case of the Buick Regal TourX (or any one of a number of BMW touring wagons) or the Toyota Sienna.

EDIT: and to return to my previous point, wagons and minivans offer lower average masses and lower bumper heights than SUVs and trucks (especially full-size models), while still offering excellent safety.

 

[4sallypat]

With vehicle scarcity and dealers charging way over MSRP on new cars/trucks - during and now after the pandemic if prices over MSRP are considered price gouging ??

It just hit me that my state (CA) passed a law about not price gouging during an emergency and news about the grocery chain: Smart & Final overcharging for necessities....

MODERATORS: Should I make a new thread about this ?

 

[Nütztjanix]

I have 4 vehicles:

Audi A4
BMW 325i
Ram 1500
Honda VTX 1300R (motorcycle)

I am now an older new father (42 at my son's birth). I take my son with me to work everyday (his daycare is in my office building) and use the 325i as my DD. My 325 and my wife's A4 are 2 seaters now. With the rear facing car seat, the passenger side front seat is so far forward they are unusable. At 6'2" it is impossible to sit behind me in these cars (3" between the drivers seat back and the rear seat). Also, once the stroller base is in the trunk, the truck is also unusable.

If I need to go somewhere with my wife AND the baby, there is no way to do it in our cars. It would be impossible with 2 rear facing car seats (which are required until the age of 2).

The ONLY reason cars are small in Europe is mass transit is better. The reason mass transit is better is because most of Europe can fit in the State of TX.

There is a reason compact SUV's and larger are taking over. People have families, and want to all be able to go places together...

This is outright ridiculous.
Nothing personal, but the fact that despite owning three cars, one of them being a nearly 6m monster, you are unable to go anywhere by car as a family of three, is just bizarre.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Possibly. I think lots of people think they are safer.

That’s possible too. You feel safer for sure but I have no idea if you are?

Right, as I get older it's getting harder and harder to crawl in and out of my car as it's so low to the ground. It's a nice change anytime I ride with someone in a SUV or truck to step down out of it.

We went to an SUV soon after having my first child. Leaning into the car carry a baby or a baby plus a baby seat absolutely wrecked my back and a taller car was needed. Buckling the kids in even now would be much harder if the car was low. My wife drives the SUV and my daily car is very low by comparison. I certainly notice more a struggle getting out of it too lol.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

The flip side of this is that large trucks and SUVs are killing and maiming people at a significantly higher rate these days due to their greater mass and bumper height. Which leads to an 'arms race' of ever-larger vehicles as people seek safety in size, with no end in sight.

Unfortunately, the debate usually devolves into a personal one as people become defensive about their choice of vehicle. The reality is that in a truck or large SUV you ARE safer, but the people around you are in greater danger. It's not an irrational or malevolent choice, but it is a selfish or self-preserving one - and collectively it makes the roads far less safe. Worse still, it is a situation that will clearly never be resolved on its own merits. Only economic factors, not safety or even environmental factors (though the latter is slowly gaining credibility), have ever been able to steer people into smaller cars en masse.

I own a full-size pickup, though it is an old one that is used purely for hauling and the odd trip into the woods - not a daily driver and not driven on the highway. I am not anti-truck. But it's a fact that seeking safety in size is only good for you. The usual response I get is that it's my fault for buying a smaller car and I 'deserve' whatever happens to me in an accident as a result of my choice of vehicle.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think this is a trend that has some serious road safety implications and as a society we've totally stuck our heads in the sand over it. Unless we all end up driving Tahoes and Grand Wagoneers the problem will persist. If only a minority of driver chose large SUVs it would probably be more of a footnote, but such vehicles are now considered the norm and continue to grow in popularity.

There has to come a point where the upward growth in the size and weight of automobiles stops, surely?

I think SUV’s in Europe are probably the size and height of small cars in the US lol. Watching some of the American YouTubers review European SUV’s is funny as they call them ‘compact SUV’s’ whereas they are big to us!

 

[JT2002TJ]

I agree with you for the most part that small cars just don't work for a family of four+, though the space argument only really works for midsize SUVs and larger, and ignores the previous solutions to this issue - the wagon and minivan.

I just showed that even a family of 3 can't fit in a "small" car. And I will argue that an A4 and a 3 series is hardly considered small. The small would be an A3 or a 2 series or smaller.

Compact SUVs and wagons, I still give an advantage to the compact SUV. For example a Audi Q3 is only around 100 lbs more than an A4 avant, but has significantly more cargo space. They can be acquired with basically the same 2 liter turbo engine.

As for mass transit, it has less to do with geography (the US had an excellent national passenger rail infrastructure) and more to do with the influence of the automobile in the 20th century. The auto industry all but wiped out the national passenger rail system and urban light rail in the US - helping an existing process along through a combination of sales pitches to consumers and lobbying in government. At the end of the day, this leaves us overly reliant on the road system.

I'm going to disagree with you here. The US NEVER had a European level of mass transit. This is why the US is such a Car country. There simply is too much land to successfully cover via Mass transit. It is almost 900 miles to cross the state of TX, that's a 14-16 hour drive. There simply is no way to have mass transit cover every major town in the US... It's unrealistic and unstainable. Mass transit is a regional thing. Even if Houston TX had a NYC style mass transit system, I can't imagine how long it would take to go from corner to corner, and how many transfers it would take. It would never work. Mass transit is to get people to and from work, when a LOT of people need to arrive in a small area.

I am not suggesting people should feel guilty buying an SUV, but the idea that people actually need one is simply not borne out by reality. And I think wagons and minivans both offer significant advantages over the SUV - the former in performance and the latter in practicality and packaging...and there is no reason we can't have either in AWD, as in the case of the Buick Regal TourX (or any one of a number of BMW touring wagons) or the Toyota Sienna.

EDIT: and to return to my previous point, wagons and minivans offer lower average masses and lower bumper heights than SUVs and trucks (especially full-size models), while still offering excellent safety.

I still say, wagons and minivans do not offer an advantage over an compact SUV. A Q3 is smaller than a Toyota Sienna. Minivans are almost the side of midsize SUVs. And I'm a Minivan van.

 

[Mousse]

Auto manufactures are trying to turn cars into non-user servicible parts appliances.😖 My buddy was venting about how much of a PITA it has become to change the oil on 2021 Sentra. He had to remove the skidplate. 2 dozen clips and screws had to be removed before he could access the oil filter. That's ridiculous.

Don't get me started on some high end cars. Saw this on Reedit...

Only a certified Mercedes mechanic is should open the hood on the EQS.😲 Just opening the hood, y'all.😐😑😑 My days as a shade tree mechanic will end when the old jalopies I drive shuffles off its mortal coils.😔

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think a big problem with many older crossovers were that they weren't designed with good handling in mind. But ever since Porsche got into the crossover market with the Cayenne and later the Macan, there has been a lot more emphasis on better handling. As such (particularly with the new US-market HR-V using the current Civic platform), the new HR-V will at least have reasonably decent handling.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Here's one for all you Tesla fanboy's and girls.

Does somewhat remind me of that scene in attack of the clones when Threepio has a bad day!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm going to disagree with you here. The US NEVER had a European level of mass transit. This is why the US is such a Car country. There simply is too much land to successfully cover via Mass transit. It is almost 900 miles to cross the state of TX, that's a 14-16 hour drive. There simply is no way to have mass transit cover every major town in the US... It's unrealistic and unstainable. Mass transit is a regional thing. Even if Houston TX had a NYC style mass transit system, I can't imagine how long it would take to go from corner to corner, and how many transfers it would take. It would never work. Mass transit is to get people to and from work, when a LOT of people need to arrive in a small area.

I disagree that rail transport is poorly suited to long distance travel - quire the opposite IMO. It would require major infrastructural upgrades but that alone is no reason to reject it out of hand. But I don't think we should be looking at an either/or here. There is a lot of scope for an expansion of mass transit to reduce reliance on the automobile. What we do have in the US is almost zero mass transit outside major metro areas, with most of the country being almost totally reliant on auto transportation.

I recognize I'm in the minority here..and arguing for the merits of mass transit in a 'car guy' thread (making a rod for my own back). I see SUVs as a poor compromise but many (most?) of you own one and see it as the perfect do-everything vehicle, the culmination of a century and a quarter of automotive evolution. That is representative of the perspective of the masses, judging by seas of SUVs you see in every American parking lot, as they gradually replace everything that isn't a pickup. It used to be called an 'SUV craze' but in reality it's the new normal.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

The flip side of this is that large trucks and SUVs are killing and maiming people at a significantly higher rate these days due to their greater mass and bumper height. Which leads to an 'arms race' of ever-larger vehicles as people seek safety in size, with no end in sight.

Unfortunately, the debate usually devolves into a personal one as people become defensive about their choice of vehicle. The reality is that in a truck or large SUV you ARE safer, but the people around you are in greater danger. It's not an irrational or malevolent choice, but it is a selfish or self-preserving one - and collectively it makes the roads far less safe. Worse still, it is a situation that will clearly never be resolved on its own merits. Only economic factors, not safety or even environmental factors (though the latter is slowly gaining credibility), have ever been able to steer people into smaller cars en masse.

I own a full-size pickup, though it is an old one that is used purely for hauling and the odd trip into the woods - not a daily driver and not driven on the highway. I am not anti-truck. But it's a fact that seeking safety in size is only good for you. The usual response I get is that it's my fault for buying a smaller car and I 'deserve' whatever happens to me in an accident as a result of my choice of vehicle.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think this is a trend that has some serious road safety implications and as a society we've totally stuck our heads in the sand over it. Unless we all end up driving Tahoes and Grand Wagoneers the problem will persist. If only a minority of driver chose large SUVs it would probably be more of a footnote, but such vehicles are now considered the norm and continue to grow in popularity.

There has to come a point where the upward growth in the size and weight of automobiles stops, surely?

Perhaps you should read these statistics?

Pickup Truck vs. Car Accident Statistics: 2024 Update | House Grail

Trucks are notoriously more dangerous than cars. However, this isn’t for obvious reasons. Trucks are not more dangerous by design...

housegrail.com

While on a head-on crash between a pickup truck (or any other large vehicle) and a small automobile the occupants in the truck may fair better, it doesn't mean that pickup trucks are killing the most people in all other vehicles. Also, trucks are unsafer to the driver and the passengers (of the truck), specially during rollovers.

If one assumes that large trucks, and small and large pickup trucks are causing most of the deaths as they crash onto small vehicles, who do you think would fair better if a small vehicle hits a motorcycle, or a motorcycle hist a bicyclist?

The main culprit is not the vehicle type, but the driver. The problem is that the news media has been blaming the type of vehicle-instead of the driver-for years already.

There are more automobiles on the roads than pickup trucks.

As you can see here:

https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/55/2

 

[JT2002TJ]

I disagree that rail transport is poorly suited to long distance travel - quire the opposite IMO. It would require major infrastructural upgrades but that alone is no reason to reject it out of hand. But I don't think we should be looking at an either/or here. There is a lot of scope for an expansion of mass transit to reduce reliance on the automobile. What we do have in the US is almost zero mass transit outside major metro areas, with most of the country being almost totally reliant on auto transportation.

I recognize I'm in the minority here..and arguing for the merits of mass transit in a 'car guy' thread (making a rod for my own back). I see SUVs as a poor compromise but many (most?) of you own one and see it as the perfect do-everything vehicle, the culmination of a century and a quarter of automotive evolution. That is representative of the perspective of the masses, judging by seas of SUVs you see in every American parking lot, as they gradually replace everything that isn't a pickup. It used to be called an 'SUV craze' but in reality it's the new normal.

I'm not saying rail transport isn't good for long distances. It's the problem of when you get to the destination. Local mass transit in every US cities is not feasible. So, when people get to the state/city they are going, they will still need a vehicle. Also, taking a train from one quadrant to another in the US just takes too long (even with high speed trains). This is why we have airplanes. Yes, Airplanes fall into "mass transit."

It simply would cost too much to build/maintain a NYC level of mass transit within every major US city. It works really well in NYC, because NYC is built upwards, not outwards. Any outward built city like Houston can take more than an hour and a half driving at 80 mph WITHOUT traffic to get across (Houston metroplex, basically Harris County). Mass transit is expensive, it is only cost effective to develop as a way to get people in and out to small work area. It is designed as a spider web to bring all the workers to one area.

I live and work in the NYC area. NYC is one of the best mass transit systems in the world. All subways are designed to bring people into Manhattan. If you live and work in Brooklyn, but live in one end of BK and work in the opposite end of BK, it can be quicker to take the train into Manhattan then find your way back to BK, it can take 2-3 times as long taking the bus. It can take you hours to get across BK using mass transit. While it would take you 30-40 minutes to get to most places in Manhattan.

I use to take the Long Island Railroad to work. Again, if you don't live in walking distance of the trains, it is impossible to get to the trains using mass transit. So, now you need a car. I live by the Hicksville station, if I want to take the train directly south of me (5-6 miles south), I have to take the NYC bound train to Jamaica (Queens, NYC) switch trains then take the west bound train to Wantagh. This would take me 2 hours. And I can basically throw a rock and be in NYC.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Perhaps you should read these statistics?

Your linked article focuses on the safety of occupants in an accident, not the increased risk of fatality to whatever you run into, which was what I was discussing. I do agree with the article that pickup drivers tend to engage in riskier behaviors and that trucks have a higher rollover risk, that is all well-documented.

As to the point about a small vehicle hitting a bicyclist or motorcycle, it is also well-documented that the victim will fare better in that instance than if they were hit by a truck. In the former case they tend to strike the legs and the person rolls off or over the vehicle...but trucks tend to strike the torso (vital organs) and then run over pedestrians and motorcyclists and sometimes drag them. I don't think I need to explain why that is worse. With lifted trucks, they tend to ride up over cars and even smaller SUVs in a collision.

I recognize that few people ever factor other people's safety when shopping for a truck or SUV, but this is not an imaginary argument.

I'm not saying rail transport isn't good for long distances. It's the problem of when you get to the destination. Local mass transit in every US cities is not feasible. So, when people get to the state/city they are going, they will still need a vehicle. Also, taking a train from one quadrant to another in the US just takes too long (even with high speed trains). This is why we have airplanes. Yes, Airplanes fall into "mass transit."

As I said, I completely agree that no single transportation mode is going to meet all our needs. Further, I think the US probably needs a higher proportion of automobiles than most nations due to the size and dispersed nature of most of our towns and cities.

But right now there is too much reliance on automobiles, and consumer choices coupled with automaker marketing mean we drive around alone in a 7-passenger SUV to buy a bag of groceries or case of beer - and we ALWAYS HAVE to drive to go to work and buy necessaries. Safer, more efficient automobiles and mass transit improvements are still possible, we are not in a 'There is No Alternative' scenario regarding transportation. It's just not easy, because it requires consumer behavior shifts, manufacturers regulation, and political consensus. The rewards are more affordable, more efficient transportation options, without getting rid of our current options.

I differentiate autos as a hobby and passion and roads as the current backbone of our transportation infrastructure. Arguing for a reduction in our reliance on cars, or pointing out the negative effects of the SUV paradigm shift (i almost said 'craze') does not equate to being some kind of auto-hating killjoy. There is always room for the enthusiast in all this.

 

[Huntn]

It could be a blown strut or strut mount. Especially if the clunk corresponds with driving over bumps or road imperfections. Not a super cheap fix but a pretty straightforward one.

Ref 2012 Fiat 500, the dealer has the car, they said it is a bent sway bar as a result of impact. I said I’ve not had any accidents or impacts that I can remember except driving over some spots in the road that make the suspension bottom out. You might remember, I have a lifetime mechanical warranty on this car, but that won’t be covered, $1100 to fix. My local mechanic says he can fix it for $800.

Then the dealer says your drive train bushings are leaking grease. I asked how much is that and they said $4000, but it is covered by your warranty. So far it appears by virtue of the warrant I purchased when the car was new, I’ve dodged some significant bullets. It drives well, and gets good gas milage, but if I had had to pay for these repairs out of pocket, at 50k miles, the car would have been traded in when the engine went.

Of note this:

How Long Do Fiat 500 Last? (Solved & Explained) - Engine Patrol

The Fiat 500 is a fun size 2-door car that was first sold in the US in 2012. Throughout that time it gained a lot of fans thanks to its quirky retro styling, affordability, good gas mileage and sporty handling. […]

enginepatrol.com

The Fiat 500 is a small, durable car that can last on average between 200,000 – 250,000 miles when properly maintained and driven conservatively. Based on an annual mileage of 15,000 miles, you can expect 13 – 17 years of service before it breaks down or requires expensive repairs.

Vs this:

Consumer Reports names 20 worst cars for reliability

The cars cross a wide spectrum, the problems all seem similar

www.usatoday.com

Fiat Chrysler vehicles, including Fiat, Dodge, Chrysler and Ram, finished generally near the bottom of the pack, as brand's go. Fiat 500L was the least reliable single model.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Ref 2012 Fiat 500, the dealer has the car, they said it is a bent sway bar as a result of impact. I said I’ve not had any accidents or impacts that I can remember except driving over some spots in the road that make the suspension bottom out. You might remember, I have a lifetime mechanical warranty on this car, but that won’t be covered, $1100 to fix. My local mechanic says he can fix it for $800.

Then the dealer says your drive train bushings are leaking grease. I asked how much is that and they said $4000, but it is covered by your warranty. So far it appears by virtue of the warrant I purchased when the car was new, I’ve dodged some significant bullets. It drives well, and gets good gas milage, but if I had had to pay for these repairs out of pocket, at 50k miles, the car would have been traded in when the engine went.

Not sure exactly what he means by 'drivetrain bushings leaking grease'....but I'm not a mechanic. A failed strut or CV joint often leaks grease, but a transmission or engine seal failure would produce oil or ATF leaks, not grease. I could have the entire engine on my Fiesta replaced for $4500 though, so whatever it is they are quoting for is a major repair. A replacement CV half-shaft should only cost a couple hundred bucks for the part, and install is not going to result in thousands of dollars of shop time.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Not sure exactly what he means by 'drivetrain bushings leaking grease'....but I'm not a mechanic. A failed strut or CV joint often leaks grease, but a transmission or engine seal failure would produce oil or ATF leaks, not grease. I could have the entire engine on my Fiesta replaced for $4500 though, so whatever it is they are quoting for is a major repair. A replacement CV half-shaft should only cost a couple hundred bucks for the part, and install is not going to result in thousands of dollars of shop time.

If its under warranty they will push the price as much as they can. Free money for them and whatever they do its a bonus for @Huntn. But agree it does sound like they are taking the pee. @Nütztjanix is our regular mechanic, so perhaps he can enlighten us.

 

[Nütztjanix]

If its under warranty they will push the price as much as they can. Free money for them and whatever they do its a bonus for @Huntn. But agree it does sound like they are taking the pee. @Nütztjanix is our regular mechanic, so perhaps he can enlighten us.

I'm not a mechanic but rather an automotive engineer, but still:

I don't know of any „drivetrain bushings“ that cost $4000 to replace — at least not on a Fiat 500.
I don't know the average american cost, but that seems definetely on the high side.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'm not a mechanic but rather an automotive engineer, but still:

I don't know of any „drivetrain bushings“ that cost $4000 to replace — at least not on a Fiat 500.
I don't know the average american cost, but that seems definetely on the high side.

Sorry my bad! I didn’t mean it as an insult.
I have much respect for people who are able to maintain cars. Especially as they get more complicated. Last time I worked on a car I had to use feeler gauges to adjust my points. Things have moved on somewhat since then.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't know the average american cost, but that seems definetely on the high side.

As far as I can tell, there is no mechanical part on a Fiat 500 that will cost $4k USD to replace other than the entire engine. So I'm suspicious of what the dealer is claiming there.

It is true that these cars are orphans in the US now and parts are getting expensive, but not THAT expensive.

 

[Allyance]

Auto manufactures are trying to turn cars into non-user servicible parts appliances.😖 My buddy was venting about how much of a PITA it has become to change the oil on 2021 Sentra. He had to remove the skidplate. 2 dozen clips and screws had to be removed before he could access the oil filter. That's ridiculous.

Don't get me started on some high end cars. Saw this on Reedit...

Only a certified Mercedes mechanic is should open the hood on the EQS.😲 Just opening the hood, y'all.😐😑😑 My days as a shade tree mechanic will end when the old jalopies I drive shuffles off its mortal coils.😔

Gone were the days of ease of maintenance long before the EV's. the sheer number of onboard computer modules to control everything and pollution controls made everything a nightmare. The last engine I had that was great to work on was a 1967 Ford High Performance 289. Hot cam, solid lifters, Mallory Dual Point ignition, Holley 4 barrel. That engine would scream for an American V8, redline was around 8K. I could do 62 mph in first gear! People have to understand EV's require special training, tools and safety measures. NO WAY should the owner of a MB EQS attempt to work on a highly technical, pure electrical car (plus any with the $$ to buy one can afford to have MB work it). 10 years ago I worked part time at a Honda car dealer. One day I had to take a pair of high voltage gloves to an independent certification company to be tested for possible leaks that would seriously harm the mechanics trained to work on the hybrids even then. Normal cars have 12volt electrical systems, the new EV's operate 800 volts or more.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Gone were the days of ease of maintenance long before the EV's. the sheer number of onboard computer modules to control everything and pollution controls made everything a nightmare. The last engine I had that was great to work on was a 1967 Ford High Performance 289. Hot cam, solid lifters, Mallory Dual Point ignition, Holley 4 barrel. That engine would scream for an American V8, redline was around 8K. I could do 62 mph in first gear! People have to understand EV's require special training, tools and safety measures. NO WAY should the owner of a MB EQS attempt to work on a highly technical, pure electrical car (plus any with the $$ to buy one can afford to have MB work it). 10 years ago I worked part time at a Honda car dealer. One day I had to take a pair of high voltage gloves to an independent certification company to be tested for possible leaks that would seriously harm the mechanics trained to work on the hybrids even then. Normal cars have 12volt electrical systems, the new EV's operate 800 volts or more.

Pretty sure EV’s have a safety switch to remove before you work on them.

 

[Huntn]

Not sure exactly what he means by 'drivetrain bushings leaking grease'....but I'm not a mechanic. A failed strut or CV joint often leaks grease, but a transmission or engine seal failure would produce oil or ATF leaks, not grease. I could have the entire engine on my Fiesta replaced for $4500 though, so whatever it is they are quoting for is a major repair. A replacement CV half-shaft should only cost a couple hundred bucks for the part, and install is not going to result in thousands of dollars of shop time.

If its under warranty they will push the price as much as they can. Free money for them and whatever they do its a bonus for @Huntn. But agree it does sound like they are taking the pee. @Nütztjanix is our regular mechanic, so perhaps he can enlighten us.

I'm not a mechanic but rather an automotive engineer, but still:

I don't know of any „drivetrain bushings“ that cost $4000 to replace — at least not on a Fiat 500.
I don't know the average american cost, but that seems definetely on the high side.

I’ll get a clarification on what is leaking grease and cost $4k to fix…

 

[Huntn]

I'm not saying rail transport isn't good for long distances. It's the problem of when you get to the destination. Local mass transit in every US cities is not feasible. So, when people get to the state/city they are going, they will still need a vehicle. Also, taking a train from one quadrant to another in the US just takes too long (even with high speed trains). This is why we have airplanes. Yes, Airplanes fall into "mass transit."

It simply would cost too much to build/maintain a NYC level of mass transit within every major US city. It works really well in NYC, because NYC is built upwards, not outwards. Any outward built city like Houston can take more than an hour and a half driving at 80 mph WITHOUT traffic to get across (Houston metroplex, basically Harris County). Mass transit is expensive, it is only cost effective to develop as a way to get people in and out to small work area. It is designed as a spider web to bring all the workers to one area.

I live and work in the NYC area. NYC is one of the best mass transit systems in the world. All subways are designed to bring people into Manhattan. If you live and work in Brooklyn, but live in one end of BK and work in the opposite end of BK, it can be quicker to take the train into Manhattan then find your way back to BK, it can take 2-3 times as long taking the bus. It can take you hours to get across BK using mass transit. While it would take you 30-40 minutes to get to most places in Manhattan.

I use to take the Long Island Railroad to work. Again, if you don't live in walking distance of the trains, it is impossible to get to the trains using mass transit. So, now you need a car. I live by the Hicksville station, if I want to take the train directly south of me (5-6 miles south), I have to take the NYC bound train to Jamaica (Queens, NYC) switch trains then take the west bound train to Wantagh. This would take me 2 hours. And I can basically throw a rock and be in NYC.

For major cities, i could easily see them not allowing private vehicles and instead put in a subway system if not already there, or a fleet of automized transport vehicles, which should cut down on traffic congestion immensely. Houston would be a good example of the megalopolis issue where there large distances within the city limits, really it’s more suburbs than downtown. They could ban private vehicles in the immediate town town area although I acknowledge that would not address 6M people moving around the entire city limits area.

There was a good comparison in National Geographic several decades ago that compared Chicago to Paris, at the time they both had the approx same number of residents, but Paris was 25 square miles and Chicago was 200 square miles, illustrating amplify that building up is much more efficient than sprawl.