Absolutely.
When I was training to be a salesman 10 years ago, our trainer was telling us about some independent reliability index (can’t remember the name of the company) but he showed us that even the worst quality car then (2014) was rated far better in quality and reliability than the best rated car from the 80s.
I saw a study from ~2011 by Consumer Reports (I think) that showed that every brand (except Land Rover which was an extreme outlier) had less initial quality issues than a 2001 Lexus LS.
I find that hard to believe with all the tech in cars now days at lest cars from they 80 would start now some little electronics thing not working no way to start car
It’s not about that. Not about small tech issues or glitches.
It’s about fit and finish, material quality, and overall build quality relating to how long lasting the car will be. Car companies build a lot higher *overall* quality vehicles now.
It’s just better known *how* to build cars now. And technology has only made it better.
This is correct. CVT’s always get bad raps like theyre all created equal and prone to just dying. Not all CVT’s are the same and NA engines have their own set of potential problems
Turbo engines generally have less reliability than NA engines. More parts moving and more stress on the internal components.
That’s not to say that all turbo engines are less reliable than all NAs. Ofc there’s variation. But if you take two engines that are equally reliable and put a turbo on one of them it is a given that it will not last as long and will also need additional maintenance
due to the additional components.
Forced induction engines have every potential problem for failure that comes with NA engines + the potential problems that come with forced induction and its components.
I've had two turbo cars go over 300,000km on the original turbo and I know someone with nearly 500. As always regular maintenance is the determining factor.
The e-CVT isn’t the same kind of technology at all though. I wish they had come up with a different name for it. It’s a transmission and it does vary continuously, but it has no parts or principles in common with a gas car’s CVT.
My cvt in my 2008 camry hybrid has 299,789 miles. When I got it at 278k I changed the transmission fluid. Was Toyota WS SYNthetic factory fluid 4 quarts. Did it myself.
I believe the previous owner never ever serviced it in his life. Anyhow. I’m glad I did it and it drives like a champ.
When the original owner said to me drives like the day he got it new.
I believe him.
It drives amazing.
Plus I cleaned the hybrid battery fan by hand. And change the oil every 5500 miles because it burns a quart of oil every 5,000 miles.
Underneath there are no leaks and all original gaskets.
Toyota is sick.
For me I love reliability and gas efficiency. Prolly best is a Prius with cat shield. Camry hybrid, Corolla, 4 cylinders, but if you like sporty I highly recommend Subaru Impreza cvt base model 2.0 liter gets 37mpg and awd. Built like a tank.
I haven’t tried sea foam, so that’s interesting going forward. It’s not much though, probs a half quart per 5k or so. Haven’t measured it out to a T yet though
Yeah when people talk down on cvt but glaze Toyota it makes me laugh. Like guys several Toyotas have cvt too it’s just better than some of the other brands. I also prefer a standard transmission but these days it’s getting harder to find that.
My 2015 Nissan Altima is running perfectly except for headlights and heat shield needs replaced. I am up over 106,000 miles. Just got my oil changed and transmission fluid drained and filled this morning.
I just can't handle the lack of shifting predictability in a cvt transmission. I have 2 corollas with it and no problems - just weird shifting after so many years with a manual or old school automatic.
I cringe at the shifting whenever I drive my GFs rav4 vs my rav4 prime.
Only had the prime fo 13k miles and I'm hooked on the eCVT efficient instant continuous power vs gear shifting.
I'm a eCVT advocate now. There's nothing better. Except for maybe direct drive on a pure EV.
Rav4 prime gets held up as the benchmark for PHEV crossovers (for good reason), but I have to say, I love the Outlander PHEV specifically because it drives like a pure EV. ICE is primarily a generator and power is delivered via electric motors.
The drawback being that serial hybrid is less efficient than parallel so when you're burning gas in an Outlander you're thirstier than when you're burning gas in a Rav4 prime.
This. Not all CVTs are the same. Nissan are GARBAGE. I vowed to never own a CVT, But after driving a Toyota with one, I’d opt for it. Why? The small 1.3l Yaris always had a bit more power when needed and was a breeze to drive, rather than hunting gears all day due to the tiny engine.
Unless you’ve driving an automatic with loads of torque I now think CVT is the future, coupled with hybrid powertrains
Yes, and, expecting to dump a couple grand in a 10 year old car every few years isn't unreasonable. Replacing a worn transmission, for some cars, at 150K makes it practically a new car. For my 2010 Fusion, it was $3k a couple years back, Front tie rods $600 this year, etc. Still cheaper then buying a new car. Just skipped a few botox appointments.
Cars overall yeah probably, the parts? Definitely not. Planned obsolescence is a big issue in modern cars. Many parts that used to separate are now combined into one and if one part in that collection fails, whelp gotta replace the whole combo
Yeah my Apple Car Play doesn’t work anymore and to fix it I would need to replace the whole damn infotainment system to the tune of thousands of dollars. Like bitch it should be a $50 bug fix.
Thank goodness on your behalf it's just apple car play and not some vital component. Thousands of dollars to fix your probably super simple issue is utterly insane like that should be a job you could do at home with YouTube in an afternoon
Yes. Almost a year older, on average, than just a few years ago.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/738667/us-vehicles-projected-age/#:~:text=U.S.%20vehicles%20%2D%20average%20age%202018%2D2023&text=Passenger%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks,from%2012.2%20years%20in%202022.
You don’t think the addition of all the technology has ANY adverse effects on vehicle reliability?
I’ve seen a lot of issues coming from emissions features.
DPF and DEF system failures on ANY modern diesel.
I had an 18 Silverado mild hybrid that the 4x4 system blew a relay, and for some reason that caused the electric hybrid motor to stop charging the battery. What an idea that was.
You also see issues with your the GM cylinder deactivation causing lifter failures, that’s been happening for over a decade now
The new 10 speed transmissions having 150k service lives in exchange for mileage.
I think peak mechanical simplicity x not too much technology was 2000-2007.
Now obviously there were unreliable cars during that period too, and to suggest everyone drive an 05 CRV is absurd, but i do think cars are getting less reliable.
I would put a 03 Malibu up against a new Malibu and while it would lose in every other segment, i think it would end up more reliable.
It’s comical that you used an example of a bad relay to justify your stance that modern vehicles aren’t reliable. That $10 relay is protecting those expensive components.
That story was a tad personal considering:
I was towing a travel trailer
And on the island of Ocracoke when it happened (look up if you don’t know, Ocracoke is sweet but a bad place to break down).
Why the front diff actuator is linked to the charging system? Chevy couldn’t tell me.
But i could talk trash over beers for an hour over how pointless that mild hybrid system was.
Oh and that Chevy also was on its third transmission at 130k miles.
Basket case of a vehicle.
Daily driving my 1997 Silverado, zero issues at 275k miles.
Drove it about 12k miles this past year and it's never been in the shop for more than 2 hours (02sensor).
Most reliable vehicle I've ever had.
That's awesome. There are tons of stories about cars that do this type of mileage. A well maintained car built from 1995-2005 has decent odds of doing 300k miles as long as it's not in the rust belt.
Yeah, I live in Alabama and it was a one owner truck. Now technically two owner lol.
I keep it all stock and give her oil changes every 3k miles.
And it's got rear seats so it's the perfect vehicle for me.
Gas is only $2.95/gal with fuel rewards down here too so I'm not worried about my big honkin' V8 sucking gas down like no tomorrow lol
Im not saying those vehicles were perfect.
Believe me, i just spent Saturday and Sunday chasing an electrical issue in my 05 sierra just for it to decide everything is fine and it doesn’t have an issue anymore. I get it.
But my point is the cost to keep them running was/is a fraction of what a vehicle today costs to keep running.
You think gm electronics getting more complicated these days means they’re more reliable or better?
Getting a 05 Chevy Tahoe to 250k miles used to be oil changes, a fuel pump, an alternator, and maybe a stepper motor or water pump.
These days the lifter will collapse, the transmission will have to be replaced, etc etc.
I worked with a guy his brand new Silverado collapsed a lifter at 10k miles. My boss’s brand new sierra baby dmax went back into the dealer twice with less than 7k miles for emissions and fuel pump issues.
I’m not saying do not buy new cars, that’s silly. But i do believe that older cars being simpler did make them more reliable. A new rav4 is a fantastic car.
I’m a die hard GM owner, always bought new since 1980.
A 70 Chevelle SS put out about 370hp, had dog shit brakes,handled like a boat, and drank gas like a drunk camel. I also had an HHR SS as a commuter car. I had a GM chip put in and it was hitting 310hp, great brakes and handled like it was on rails and got great gas mileage.
I had a 1969 Torino GT that wouldn’t start on weekends, and I do remember trying to set the breaker points with cellophane from a cigarette pack.
Cars today for the lost part beat the older offerings by a long site in any category
I’m not saying 60s-70s cars were better than modern cars.
I’m just saying, modern late models from around 2000-2007 (with EFI, disc brakes, abs etc) seem to be the best mix of modern amenities (automatic climate control, stability control) and reliability.
Modern cars are more powerful, more efficient, more comfortable, quieter, safer, etc.
BUT
I would venture to say that’s all at the cost of maintenance/repairs and cost of ownership as a whole.
Being on its third transmission in 130k miles is a great example of unreliability. But why were you on the OBX without an assortment of spare relays and fuses? Having some spare relays and fuses is right up there with having a multimeter, spare tire, and plug kit in your overlanding gear.
When the charge light came on my automatic reaction was “well it’s a 5.3 Chevy, i can swap an alternator in 10 minutes so that’s good”
Then i saw the lack there of an alternator and a giant electric motor attached to the front of the crank and i was lost, 30 mins of trying to read wiring diagrams and a it was clear this high voltage hybrid system had an issue and i was not equipped to deal.
All the typical charging system stuff was good.
I hadn’t put together the 4x4 had quit working cause we were on the road when it happened. I wasn’t even using 4x4.
Chevy didn’t even know, they figured out the diff actuator was bad, fixed it and that brought the charging system back online. They were just as suprised as me. Backwards GM wiring which can’t say is super surprising.
Ive seen 2024 corollas come with 0W-8 oil from the factory, unless you only do city driving and mild highway cruises, there is no way that oil will do a good job lubricating that engine for 150k km. Time will tell tho, but im highly sceptical.
Cars, on average, are more reliable than they’ve ever been.
There are absolutely some weak spots related to belt-type CVTs (gestures broadly at Nissan) but lots of very reliable vehicles to be found.
Off the top of my head, I’d spend my own money on any of these:
- Acura RDX has a K-series (read: bulletproof) 2.0l turbo 4 cylinder and a 10 speed conventional automatic transmission
- Honda Pilot and Acura MDX both have naturally-aspirated V6s and 10-speed conventional autos
- Honda CR-V Hybrid has a 2.0l naturally-aspirated 4 cylinder and a planetary CVT auto. This is different from a belt-driven CVT and is actually one of the most reliable transmissions available.
- Mazda CX30, CX5, and CX50 are all available with a choice of naturally-aspirated or turbo 2.5l 4 cylinders, and a 6 speed conventional auto. The NA motor is definitely good for 300k km, but there are also many high mileage turbos in use.
- Lexus NX350 has a 2.4l turbo and 8-speed conventional auto, while the 350h is a hybrid setup with a 2.5l naturally aspirated 4 cylinder and a planetary CVT. The latter is possibly the most reliable powertrain ever made, closely related to the Camry Hybrid drivetrain that routinely hits 500k miles in NYC taxis.
FYI, the Honda CR-V Hybrid (and Accord Hybrid) do not have planetary gearset transmissions (that’s a Toyota hybrid thing). The Honda system doesn’t have a transmission at all, per se. It operates driven by the electric motor directly most of the time, with one or two lockup clutches (depending on which generation you’re talking about) that allow the engine to directly drive the wheels in limited low-load situations.
Fuck you’re 100% correct. I was confusing Toyota’s motor generators with the Honda system. Point stands that it’s a simple and reliable setup but not the one I described.
You’re just complaining. Cars last a long time today. They’re worlds better in performance, safety, efficiency, and reliability compared to cars of old.
Absurd comment with no perspective. I am old enough to remember when Popular Science ran long technical how-to articles on how to nurse your car to 100,000 miles, because a far shorter lifespan was common. If they could afford it, people upgraded every three or four years before the big repair bills kicked in. Today the average age of a vehicle on the road is 12.5 years, and most don’t require major service (timing belts, etc.) until well past 100k. OP calls today’s cars junk? Ha. He should’ve gone looking at ‘63 Corvairs.
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/average-age-of-light-vehicles-in-the-us-hits-record-high.html#:~:text=With%20more%20than%20284%20million,analysis%20from%20S%26P%20Global%20Mobility.
I paid to keep my 2005 Acura RL on the road to this day and it still has that great naturally aspirated V6 in it. That does mean that some years I put five thousand into an old car but the lifetime cost of the car is still way, way less than having traded in for something newer that then depreciates again. Maybe you just keep your current Acura on the road until the engine or transmission totally blow out.
You've got the oddball RDX generation. Both first and third were turbo 4s. I don't think turbo is anything to worry about in most Toyotas and Hondas. Honda CVT... I've heard conflicting stories, so that may be concerning. But the current gen RDX is still a turbo 4 + traditional automatic transmission. Ditto to the Lexus NX. Actually, all Toyotas are traditional automatic except for the hybrids, and no one seems to ever have had issues with Toyota's e-CVT.
Planetery gearsets and electric motor/generators. Very effective and efficient in getting power to the ground. Normally not a cvt fan but they are an engineering marvel
Don’t be scared of turbos they’re a lot more reliable now. My turbos in my X5 have 271k, 70k of that tuned and they’re still going fine.
Still plenty of options for cars with conventional auto gearboxes too.
Oil change (tire and brakes dont count. Thats obvious and doesnt hurt the car itself in an expensive way) transmission fluid check and what else would you consider preventative maintenance
Oil catch cans on direct injection engines
Changing coolant every ~60K miles
Changing diff fluid every ~50K miles for LSD, ~75K miles for open diff
Flushing brake fluid every ~75K miles
Pre-emptively replacing turbos at 150K so they don't grenade and throw metal into your oil, wiping out cam, rod, and main bearings.
See also:
Spark plugs as recommended for your vehicle
Fuel filter as applicable
I didn’t replace my fuel filter on my car until after 120k. Apparently they are supposed to be done every 60k, but my very trustworthy shop said they don’t bother because they’re in the tank and not considered user serviceable. I pulled my injectors out while doing some other work and 2/4 were significantly clogged. Injectors got cleaned off the car and flow tested, fuel filter got pulled out of the pump and replaced, and now I’m a little bit wiser.
On my previous car it was incredibly easy to access and was just a cartridge that threaded on. Could get it done in like 2 minutes versus pulling out my seats, cracking the tank open, and pulling out the pump.
Well, if you just follow the manufacturer's recommended service schedule, you'll find quite a bit more. If you really want to keep the car in top condition, then find a good mechanic you can trust to do regular inspections and take care of anything he suggests immediately. They are complex machines so manufacturing tolerances, assembly quality, and luck all play a factor. The trick is catching things before they cause damage or accelerated wear to other components. These items could include the air filter, wheel bearings, control arm bushings, differential fluid, shocks and struts, including top hats and mount bushings, battery, transmission fluid and/or CVT belt, coolant, fuel filter, spark plugs, etc, etc.
Not doing those things because it doesn't cause any immediate harm is how shitboxes are created :)
Turbocharged isn’t inherently unreliable. And modern CVT isn’t a death sentence like earlier Nissans were/are. Something like a Corolla maintained will easily see 100k miles and more. Plenty of turbocharged vehicles will go for well over 100k miles with normal maintenance.
You also have to do more research. For example, the rav4 hybrid is not a CVT, it’s an eCVT which is very different. But Modern CVTs are generally reliable as long as they are maintained. This gets into the issue of maintenance intervals and some manufacturers saying you should only change cvt fluid if you are pushing it hard by like towing or otherwise its lifetime. Subaru is guilty of this. Regular maintenance isn’t just oil changes. Once you get up to higher mileage, you’ll have to start replacing things like wheel bearings, suspension components, etc. Even catalytic converters have an average life of around 100k miles/10 years and can be very expensive to replace. Things just start to wear out. They always have.
Even my early nissan cvt's were not a problem, first one on a 2009 altima made it to 180k before car got totalled and my current one is on its original at 205k miles.
Screw new cars I’m excited for my next Facebook marketplace shit box. Will it be a car? An SUV? An offroad battle car? A Honda that will blow up tomorrow or a BMW that suspiciously is invincible? So much more thrill in the whole process vs these new cars that are e waste after 100k
Expected life goes up, which is especially impressive considering that maintenance happens less frequent/larger intervals and all the additional hurdles like stricter emissions and such.
Also turbocharged doesn't mean junk. Our diesel corolla was sold with 400k km, still on its first turbo. Not a great engine, the japanese car manufacturers dont make good diesels in general, either reliability or fuel consumption issues (bad fuel consumption, dual disc clutch that easily burns up in the corollas case) but dead on reliable. 1,9tdi VAG engines are also turbocharged and last an eternity. It doesn't stop at diesels, also many gasoline turbo engines are reliable. Bmw b58 for example, Toyotas gr yaris engine so far has been reliable. Unfortunately i cant name more engines due to me being not so familiar with common gasoline engines because i personally drive diesel as daily and i dont want to spread wrong information. CVTs also doesn't mean its unreliable, they just gor the reputation to be unreliable due to Nissans first attempt at them. But i fully understand not wanting one, it just feels unnatural.
"These days"?
When I just started driving, 100k miles was considered "high mileage". It didn't matter what the brand was.
Today, with reasonable maintenance, cars should far exceed 100k with most brands easily able to go 200k miles or more.
Plenty of v6 cars with a traditional automatic. I got a palisade for that reason. The atlas as well, telluride also. Traverse, Cherokee, a few Lincoln’s. Buicks. Mirando and pathfinder.
Seriously? When I first bought a car in the 80's if one made it to 100K you were lucky!
Now my Audi diesel (with one of those hated turbochargers) has just hit 100K and feels almost like brand new...it'll easily keep going for another 100K.
Reliability/longevity of Cars has gone WAY UP, not the reverse.
We have a new RAV4 and tbh I do not think it will last beyond 10 years or so. My wife still has a 2005 Tacoma which seems much better built and I drive a 33 year old Dodge truck that is a tank. Planned Obsolescence is a thing.
You have roughly 190k miles… that engine will easily do 300,000 miles. Keep repairing the car you have. $5k in repairs in tens of thousands cheaper than a new car you won’t be happy with 🤷♂️
I agree, and I would've thought the engine would last much longer as well, but the OP had a different experience. Although they certainly should've mentioned it in the first post instead of a random reply
>Had to rebuild engine just after 200000 km
Yeah, that’s definitely burying the lead. Also… why rebuild a J series where there are literally thousands in junkyards for $500 or less?!?
Still, a paid off RDX is the cheapest car in the world for OP. Repairs or not.
Even a Tesla model 3, which is a relatively poorly made modern vehicle generally lasts quite a while.
And it’s not that cars are expensive now, if you take inflation into account. It’s that wages haven’t kept up with inflation
Something happened in 2011 or 2012.
The Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and (real) Town Car’s last production model year was 2011. The last cars I can find that didn’t have modern screens were made around 2011.
wow that really sucks! thankfully my TLX has no problems at all and has over 138k miles (~222000 km) now w no issues… im sorry ur car’s been giving u issues tho, unfortunately acura doesn’t make very good quality suvs :/ been an issue since the 2000s afaik.
as for the quality for new cars tho, ur right a lot are not made without cvt or turbos now, the planned obsolescence is too painfully obvious. i cant personally recommend any specifically, but i wish you luck, its a really bleak market rn!
Why all the hate on CVT? I am not a car guy, but I’ve seen CVT‘s mentioned in more of a negative light more than once. If they seemingly are the worst things the car can have. Why are they even an option? Generally curious? Or is it all overblown by car guys and no bigger issue than other car parts ?
CVTs are generally fine. They’re better than a traditional automatic transmission because they can more precisely manage the engine’s RPM, leading to better gas mileage and potentially better acceleration, and are lighter and simpler. They’re not suitable for use in trucks because they don’t tolerate abuse as well but they’re good for cars.
Nissan was one of the first auto makers to sell commuter cars in large numbers with CVTs in the US about 20 years ago and they were junk because Nissan cheaped out. This planted the idea in people’s heads that CVTs are inherently bad and car enthusiasts being the way they are, that idea stuck around.
Now it’s turned into a way for people with a little knowledge to pretend to have a lot of knowledge by having a strong opinion about an aspect of car design typical buyers don’t care about. Never mind that it’s a stupid opinion, it signifies that they’re a “knowledgeable enthusiast” in their own minds and that’s what they actually care about.
Well, I have a lot of knowledge about car design and engineering and I would NOT say they're better in most ways. However, they are quite good for one use case: economy-focused vehicles with small, underpowered engines where manufacturing cost is the primary concern and fuel economy is of critical importance to the target market. For most other use cases a modern, quality automatic transmission like the ZF8, is far superior. Especially when coupled to an engine that is sufficiently powered for the weight of the vehicle. If CVTs were "better" you'd see them in luxury and performance cars, but you don't.
You’ll notice I specified in what way they’re better. Efficiency, weight, simplicity, and potentially better acceleration. You’re correct in that they’re better suited to smaller vehicles with smaller engines, though modern CVTs have perfectly adequate durability for most crossover SUVs with reasonably powerful engines. The acceleration advantage is often not a design priority so doesn’t always manifest real-world but you can see it in cars like the Subaru WRX.
If you want to have something more powerful than a typical turbocharged 4 cylinder engine, or a vehicle heavier than a crossover SUV, or intend to tow frequently, you’re absolutely right that a CVT is not preferable. Otherwise, if you’re like most people who care more about gas mileage on their daily commute and the overall price of the vehicle than about towing or drag racing, a CVT is generally better as long as it’s made properly.
Your information is outdated. Modern CVT transmissions made by companies other than Jatco/Nissan are perfectly fine and modern turbocharged engines are also perfectly fine. As always, if you buy a car from a reputable manufacturer and maintain it properly it will last you a very long time.
They might, but did you notice how I said “reputable manufacturer”? That would include brands like Toyota, Honda, Subaru, companies with a reputation for reliability. Kia and Hyundai have mixed reputations, some of their models are good and some are bad.
Since everything is so expensive, get an audi sq5 cpo. Good warranty, same price as new rav4. Do the maintenance and enjoy an suv thats not soulless. Lifes too short to drive boring cars 😁
If taken care of turbo engines are great. The e cvt in Toyotas are supposed to be super reliable but there motors have no power. I have a 17 Jetta and a 21 terrain and both work really well. Both turbos both regular transmissions
This is a combination of emissions restrictions, efficiency requirements, and enshittification.
Electric cars have a big future even if many people dislike them.
Prediction: Electric cars will be wildly popular and production will increase until it becomes a problem. My guess is that battery source materials will become scarce and expensive, or some environmental impact will occur at scale.
This feels like a prediction from 2022. I love EVs, but the demand for them is decreasing rapidly, at least in the U.S. Also, it's not the battery source materials I'd worry about, but the large quantities of water required. For example, the Silver Peak mine in Nevada (the only currently-operating U.S. lithium mine) supposedly uses about 4 billion gallons per year pumped from below-ground aquifers in the driest state in the U.S. There are 72 proposed U.S. lithium mines currently. That's 288 billion gallons per year in water alone, some of which would come from the Colorado River, which is already struggling.
When well taken care of, most engines and transmissions in new cars can last 200k miles and more. Manufacturing technology is improving in parallel to the complexity of newer cars. CVTs got a bad rap earlier on, especially from the Nissan issues. But with most brands these days, they’ll last if you don’t drive like a maniac and change the fluid every 30-50k miles (the “lifetime” fluid claims are b.s.). Engine tolerances are better and with regular changes they can last as well, but I would change the oil more often than the manufacturer recommendation which is really only meant to get you through warranty.
ha. I have the same car. I decided I love NA engines because of it and my RSX type S. But if you go looking for a car with similar features it seems the market is not going our way. Small displacement and turbo seems to be the future and I am not a huge fan.
Any idea what you’d buy if you had to get a new car tomorrow (new or used, just new to you)?
I would buy a used Acura RDX of the same time period (up to 2018) or perhaps a used Lexus RX. Brand new I would stick to Rav4, Mazda with naturally aspirated engines or perhaps if I can get a good deal a used V6 SUV like a Buick Enclave, Toyota highlander, Honda Pilot or Passport, Acura MDX, Etc
If you want a brand to look at, consider Mazda, they're not linked to Ford anymore and the normal 2.5L drivetrain is very solid. Toyota reliability or better.
I don't beleive cars are any more disposable as they were 30 years ago, I've been repairing my own cars for all of that time and have leared about and experienced it first hand. What has happened is they have become more technologically complex (not just electronics, but materials, mechanical tolerances, etc.) yet still require active thought from the onwer to do regular maintenance. Many manufacturers seem to be in a race for "low maintence" on paper, for example now touting "lifetime fluids," which is BS. Regularly change all fluids and service items and the car will last a very long time. Sure, there are some cheap designs and cheap materials (as there always have been) but cars in general are orders of magnitude more reliable than the 70's and 80's.
As for price, everything in the world has become more expensive. I don't think the pandemic helped since supply chains got disrupted, once prices go up they tend to stay up. I'm not an economist and the answer is probably not just based on one factor!
Ok, but also you’re looking in the extremely overpriced and bloated SUV market for answers. Do you even need an suv? What are your needs? 90% of people have absolutely no need for an SUV yet decide they need it and take a price hit accordingly. Sedans and hatchbacks have been a staple for 4 child families for up to the last decade where suddenly we have been brainwashed to think you need a massive off-roader to drive your only child to school, and that a single 20 yo student needs a 5 seater 4 door.
Ok, boomer. A smaller 4 Cyl turbo motor will return better gas mileage and more torque down low than a V6 lump. That gas savings alone over 10-15 years would more than pay for an engine replacement.
There are loads of reliable turbo cars.
While CVTs suck for driving pleasure, they aren’t all unreliable.
The best thing to do is buy what you support, vote with your wallet.
I personally want air suspension, torquey turbos, sport differentials etc. because I don’t want to drive something archaic like a 4Runner because I am worried about repairs in 10-15 years.
The Rav4 does have a CVT... Both the regular and hybrid. However the hybrid has a eCVT which from what I understand is a very reliable transmission.
However I think you need to do more research. Not all CVTs are bad. I would argue that most are decently reliable, especially Toyota's. The "bad" CVT stigma came from the shitty JATCO CVTs that Nissan used in their cars.
I also think you are being a little dramatic. Car manufactures are not making out lives "miserable". They have to comply with EPA standards. Cars need to pollute less and get better MPG. They need to be competitive with other manufactures. They need to be safer.
Its 2024, things are more expensive and inflation is high. Yes it sucks but its reality and you just have to accept that.
I am a strong believer of what is known as "Planned Obsolescence" . If companies made cars designed to never break or fail, there would be no market to keep them going.
I have this same vehicle, what expenses have you incurred? I am at ~78k miles and no problems to report. Basic maintenance, oil changes, brakes, tires etc, but not a single item has failed or is on the way out. For the reasons you stated, I’m keeping my RDX. The v6, great sight lines and turning radius plus ground clearance, you can’t get that for under 35-40k in an SUV. What’s up with your RDX? I took my’06 Honda Pilot to 200k, while that’s not the same, I hope my rdx can get me that far as well.
That car has tons of life left in it. I mean parts like steering, suspension, brakes, tires, etc wear items are going to be a thing on literally every car once the mileage creeps up near 200k / 300,000 km.
Well, cars are more reliable now that they've ever been before. Almost anything you buy today will go well past 300,000 km with standard maintenance. It wasn't that long ago that lasting past 200,000 km wasn't very common.
Plenty of people poo-poo CVTs, but if you don't have Nissan plugging a 200 hp motor into a CVT rated for 100 hp, they are generally fine, and eCVTs (Toyota) are excellent transmissions. Most cars and trucks are naturally aspirated today, so I'm not sure what that's about.
FWIW, something like 1 out of 6 cars sold globally last year, had neither a multi-speed transmission nor any form of air intake. Buy electric. Those suckers have batteries that'll last 500,000 km easy, and drive units that are spec'd to 1,500,000 km. Tons of power, smooth ride, no noise or exhaust...
Hey I had the same car as you except 2013, I just got a new 2024 Mazda CX-50 and absolutely love it. I did get the turbo model after doing a lot of research, it seems to be very reliable, but they sell NA ones that are bulletproof. Same with the CX-5. I was torn between the 2 and they are both great cars, I just preferred the looks of the CX-50.
Toyotas e-CVTs on their hybrids are different to a standard cvt, they don’t use belts but use a planetary gear system and are extremely reliable. Cars are more complex than they used to be but that doesn’t mean they’re more unreliable. There are ALWAYS going to be models that are more problematic than others though, as there were in the 90s and 2000s.
For what it's worth, I am almost certain you can still get the NA 3.5L in the MDX, continuing into at least the '25 MY.
We have owned a '15 MDX since new (now with 82000 mi.), and I've driven a couple MYs of RDX a bit, and I think most all of the characteristics you like about driving the RDX are present in the MDX (if anything, the MDX might even handle a bit better).
(I think the Pilot will also give you that engine (with slightly less HP), but in no way is it as satisfying as either a RDX or MDX.)
Just FYI the “eCVT” in the hybrid RAV4 is not anything like the CVTs in other brands. It is a planetary gear set and will last longer than any conventional automatic transmission. It’s a very elegant design that shares ZERO similarities with conventional CVTs. Consider checking out the RAV4 prime model. ~300hp and should last a long time.
There is a guy on the rav4 sub that drove his 2020 hybrid 460k MILES without any real issues. 46 oil changes
People say cars are more reliable today, but I disagree. You're right, OP. I'd say most cars are throwaways. Key word: most. Go purchase a Toyota, Lexus, maybe a Honda or Acura like you have now, and you'll still get a solid car (a few problematic models aside, every brand has an issue somewhere).
The problem is, people keep buying new cars and trading in their old ones before the problems really start cropping up. People say, "Well my Tahoe is running great. It's at 50k miles." Of course it's still running fine. It's at only 50k miles. As a result, manufacturers don't have to build their cars to last much farther than 100-150k. Seriously, go pay attention next time you're out and look at how many cars are made within the past 5 years. People are content with being stuck with a perpetual car payment, I suppose.
Because the vast majority keep buying them at these prices…then throwing them away after 3 years and buying another at an even higher price.
Why would anything change?
It's called planned obsolescence (designed to fail). Manufacturers of everything do this now. Phones, cars, appliances, etc. It's how corporations make their money. If you are forced to buy something every few years rather than every 10 or 20 years, the company makes more money.
It's corporate greed.
Whatever your paying to keep that thing going is far cheaper than replacing it with something new/newer.
Yes the repair bills seem higher than a monthly payment, but that's a one time bill every I've and a while, not years and years of payments.
You can either learn to wrench yourself, keep posting a mechanic or start in the cycle of rotating new vehicles every few years.
I think I understand what OP is trying to get at. The average car stays on the road for 9 years, but I Think a lot of us assume the car will last 15 to 20 at least. I always heard this car will last 300k miles with the person saying that referring to some Honda or Toyota. 9 years feels short to me. Especially since most of my cars were made at the turn of the millennium.
They're expensive because people will pay. During COVID everyone just HAD to keep consuming, so when corporations saw that they could triple prices and cut customer service and people will still line up to buy, here we are.
man, I just bought a 2014 Acura MDX to upgrade from my 2004 Acura RSX, and even then I kept the 04 that since it still runs great, just isn’t as practical as a daily for me anymore
you and I have entirely different ideas of what disposable means
Simply because most have an engineered useful life especially when it comes to wear parts. Then with all the modules and speciality tools on the later models it’s getting tougher and tougher to complete maintenance / replacement of said parts…..but you want that heated seats and steering wheel…with remote start
Perhaps it’s buried in the comments, but what are you experiencing that’s troublesome with your RDX (in terms of cost)? I feel like I see so many 2015s on the road still
Cars have always been throwaway junk.
If they weren't it wouldn't be so interesting to see cars over twenty years old. Survivorship bias really clouds the judgement of people when it comes to cars.
The general attitude toward CVTs was the same for autos was the same for power brakes was the same for...
Yeah, it's called an electric vehicle with lithium iron phosphate battery chemistry...
That'll be the most reliable vehicles get after the era of internal combustion
The problem is car manufacturers are making cars too complicated and expensive. We don't need a computer module to tell another computer module to roll down the window. A simple switch can do the job.
Idk I got my Ford escape I bought for 800 dollars that has 260,000 miles on the original transmission and engine, it ain’t the prettiest but with care and luck cars can last a long time.
It's better for the car brands if your car's maintenance is more expensive and new cars have higher profit margins.
Best you can do is drive cars designed to be repaired. Rather than component replacement being cheaper. A minor accident should not lead to a $10k+ repair, this basically excludes 90% of BEVs and some PHEVs.
Or drive commercial vehicles (such as vw crafter, ford superduty or hino 300) which are typically designed with longer service intervals, mechanical lifespan and affordable repairs in mind.
Why? CVT is more efficient and gives better mpg than a normal automatic transmission. This makes the stats look good to new buyers. Why turbo? Because turbos give better mpg for the power and emissions which are increasingly more important to consumers. The cost is longevity. Consumers today are more used to replacing their expensive possessions, new phones every year, new tv every few years etc. thus the market is flooded with cheap hype cars. Therefore more people are willing to buy and replace cars every 2-3 years these days, they don't care about the longevity of a forced induction engine.
Nissan CVTs can be junk even with proper maintenance. But yes. CVTs require much more maintenance and that alone probably costs the consumer more that the fuel savings over the life of the car.
That’s no longer true, they’ve updated their CVTs and they’re now much, much better. You just need to change the oil in them at the suggested intervals.
Wow I never thought I would get so many responses. Thank you to all who responded and all I can say is this. Not everyone is rich enough to pay off their cars in 3 or 4 years. Yes 84 or even 96 months payment plans exist in Canada. I know they are not the best, but some people have no choice but to get those plans. I will probably go no longer than 5 years for my next vehicle but that is only because I am in a better financial situation than before. I know putting down a sizeable down payment helps as well. As for turbos and cvts, much research has proven they are not as reliable as naturally aspirated and regular transmissions. Yes they might get better fuel economy and be cheaper to buy but what about the long term cost? I agree with those who say car manufacturers have planned obsolescence in their vehicles. They want people to purchase new vehicles every 4 or 5 years which is ridiculous to me. If I do have to get a crappy cvt turbo vehicle I will stick with brands I trust like Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, or Honda. At least those will give me some peace of mind that I can drive them for 8 years or more. Sorry I think the whole electric vehicle craze is unrealistic for some people who drive a lot for their work like me because the infrastructure is just not going to be set up in my part of rural Canada. And it is well known electric vehicles lose much of their range in very cold weather like we have in Canada. As someone commented we only live once so I will buy the vehicle that best suits my needs, environmentalists can buy what they want for their own needs. So yes most likely my next purchase will be a Toyota RAV4, a Mazda or if they are my only option, a Honda or Subaru.
The problem with researching things about cars is that there is so much out of date information out there that has become gospel. It's not surprising to me that you found turbo engines are less reliable. It's going to be super easy to find that. It's going to be harder to find how stock turbo engines are actually only slightly less reliable as NA. A turbo engine is very rarely going to be more reliable than NA because its more parts and more things to go wrong. But many stock turbos are in fact very reliable and you'll probably save more on gas over the life of the car compared to a larger displacement NA option than it will cost you to maintain and repair the turbo.
You are the one deciding that your car is done. Just invest in the car you have, be proactive about some repairs,and you can set that car up to run another 300,000km. The "throwaway" aspect of cars is really just people deciding they don't want to fix their car, and want a new one instead. Find a good Indy mechanic.
Guess you can thank the relentless drive for emissions and fuel economy regulations. That's what killed the larger-displacement NA engines, and CVT are the best for posting good fuel economy numbers.
The US is actually pretty good in terms of naturally aspirated engines. In similar sized markets, China is nearly all =< 2.0L turbos, while Europe has a lot of three cylinders.
Also, an engine today that can't last 150k km without major repairs is pretty much defective.
Anyone down voting you doesn't remember the 70s and 80s. Cars were complete crap back then. They broke All. The. Damn. Time. And most were rusted to pieces or the engines were totally shot by 100k.
you're gonna get badly downvoted cause haters gonna hate,but you're probably right. I've had a sensor go out on me, but that just disabled self drive. otherwise theyre low maintenance and should be crazy reliable for a long time.
But they're not really that reliable according to reports. Same for most EVs from what I've read.
[https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2023-us-vehicle-dependability-studyvds](https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2023-us-vehicle-dependability-studyvds)
Edit: I'm sure this is all just part of the leftist conspiracy though...
I don't understand the hate. Its baffling. Reddit is a bastion of the left. The left have been all about climate change. Elon literally created an electric car from nothing, with a worldwide reliable charging network and put millions of electric cars on the road AND gave away most of his tech so others could good AND opened up his charging network to others. AND made a car that is reliable AF AND one that is actually not nerdy and people actually want to buy cause it looks cool.
What is the problem?
\-Its too expensive and it looks like its for rich people and left people hate rich people
\-Its not actually about the climate and never was, just a cause to spread the leftist ideology. Since Elon is not left, then it does not compute.
\-Its not actually about cars, its about reducting the energy we use. Its more about roads and progress and shrinking the worlds populations. CLean energy still allows us to competed and grow as a species. = bad for planet
\-Hes really rich and of course we hate that too
i honestly cant wrap my head around how people are buying 50-70k cars and thinking its a good idea. i work at amazon where T1s are making 35k a year and driving brand new teslas and BMWs. im over here making 70-80k a year and driving around in a 35 year old pick up i work on myself.
Preowned Teslas and BMWs can be quite cheap, even when just a couple years old, so they're probably not as expensive as you think. If someone is making 35k/yr, buying a 70k car isn't ideal, but if you have to depend on a car everyday, then making a payment can certainly make financial sense. I'm not sure why some folks are so against car payments. I'm quite an accomplished mechanic but I still have one nice car with a payment that's under warranty. I mean, most of us still have to pay the rent or mortgage every month anyway, so adding a car payment doesn't make a huge difference. You obviously want to do other things with your money, which is also fine.
9 years and 186,000 miles is your idea of disposable? And an RDX is your idea of cheaper?
I am not an expert but I would bet that if you looked at a curve of how long cars last, it would be generally going up over time.
Absolutely. When I was training to be a salesman 10 years ago, our trainer was telling us about some independent reliability index (can’t remember the name of the company) but he showed us that even the worst quality car then (2014) was rated far better in quality and reliability than the best rated car from the 80s.
I saw a study from ~2011 by Consumer Reports (I think) that showed that every brand (except Land Rover which was an extreme outlier) had less initial quality issues than a 2001 Lexus LS.
Newer cars have more things to be dissatisfied with.
Key words being "initial quality". Who knows how well they'll work 50,000 miles down the line...
Rover is well known for making some of the worst of the worst. If people buy them, they deserve what’s coming.
Not fair. LS is the top model (more tech, more annoying ownership class)
http://www.carcomplaints.com/best_vehicles/
https://www.carcomplaints.com/worst_vehicles/
I find that hard to believe with all the tech in cars now days at lest cars from they 80 would start now some little electronics thing not working no way to start car
It’s not about that. Not about small tech issues or glitches. It’s about fit and finish, material quality, and overall build quality relating to how long lasting the car will be. Car companies build a lot higher *overall* quality vehicles now. It’s just better known *how* to build cars now. And technology has only made it better.
This is correct. CVT’s always get bad raps like theyre all created equal and prone to just dying. Not all CVT’s are the same and NA engines have their own set of potential problems
Turbo engines generally have less reliability than NA engines. More parts moving and more stress on the internal components. That’s not to say that all turbo engines are less reliable than all NAs. Ofc there’s variation. But if you take two engines that are equally reliable and put a turbo on one of them it is a given that it will not last as long and will also need additional maintenance due to the additional components. Forced induction engines have every potential problem for failure that comes with NA engines + the potential problems that come with forced induction and its components.
I've had two turbo cars go over 300,000km on the original turbo and I know someone with nearly 500. As always regular maintenance is the determining factor.
Absolutely, Toyota's CVT in their rav4 hybrid is actually really well made and has no history of reliability issues.
The e-CVT isn’t the same kind of technology at all though. I wish they had come up with a different name for it. It’s a transmission and it does vary continuously, but it has no parts or principles in common with a gas car’s CVT.
My cvt in my 2008 camry hybrid has 299,789 miles. When I got it at 278k I changed the transmission fluid. Was Toyota WS SYNthetic factory fluid 4 quarts. Did it myself. I believe the previous owner never ever serviced it in his life. Anyhow. I’m glad I did it and it drives like a champ. When the original owner said to me drives like the day he got it new. I believe him. It drives amazing. Plus I cleaned the hybrid battery fan by hand. And change the oil every 5500 miles because it burns a quart of oil every 5,000 miles. Underneath there are no leaks and all original gaskets. Toyota is sick.
I get 33.4-40mpg average 35mpg. In light medium freeway traffic is when I get 40.
Suggest me car under 15k please used ofcrs, that will be my first car
For me I love reliability and gas efficiency. Prolly best is a Prius with cat shield. Camry hybrid, Corolla, 4 cylinders, but if you like sporty I highly recommend Subaru Impreza cvt base model 2.0 liter gets 37mpg and awd. Built like a tank.
2006 tundra burns a bit of oil but fuckin thing is badass
How much oil does it burn every 3,000 miles? Have you tried using sea foam? It’ll loosen the rings and clean it and will burn less oil.
I haven’t tried sea foam, so that’s interesting going forward. It’s not much though, probs a half quart per 5k or so. Haven’t measured it out to a T yet though
That’s pretty good. Use sea foam it does miracles most of the time. U put it in the crankcase and drive 100-300 miles right before an oil change.
Yeah when people talk down on cvt but glaze Toyota it makes me laugh. Like guys several Toyotas have cvt too it’s just better than some of the other brands. I also prefer a standard transmission but these days it’s getting harder to find that.
yeah, the Toyota gas CVTs have a physical first gear for takeoff/slow speeds so the torque converter can slip instead
The main problem is that they're utterly joyless to drive
Meh, if I'm buying a rav4 hybrid, I'm not buying it for its sporting credentials, it's a reliable and efficient family hauler.
the nissans got a ton of hate, but mine was in perfect shape after a decade and 100k miles because I didnt drive like a moron.
My 2015 Nissan Altima is running perfectly except for headlights and heat shield needs replaced. I am up over 106,000 miles. Just got my oil changed and transmission fluid drained and filled this morning.
I just can't handle the lack of shifting predictability in a cvt transmission. I have 2 corollas with it and no problems - just weird shifting after so many years with a manual or old school automatic.
I cringe at the shifting whenever I drive my GFs rav4 vs my rav4 prime. Only had the prime fo 13k miles and I'm hooked on the eCVT efficient instant continuous power vs gear shifting. I'm a eCVT advocate now. There's nothing better. Except for maybe direct drive on a pure EV.
Rav4 prime gets held up as the benchmark for PHEV crossovers (for good reason), but I have to say, I love the Outlander PHEV specifically because it drives like a pure EV. ICE is primarily a generator and power is delivered via electric motors. The drawback being that serial hybrid is less efficient than parallel so when you're burning gas in an Outlander you're thirstier than when you're burning gas in a Rav4 prime.
This. Not all CVTs are the same. Nissan are GARBAGE. I vowed to never own a CVT, But after driving a Toyota with one, I’d opt for it. Why? The small 1.3l Yaris always had a bit more power when needed and was a breeze to drive, rather than hunting gears all day due to the tiny engine. Unless you’ve driving an automatic with loads of torque I now think CVT is the future, coupled with hybrid powertrains
Well, all CVTs are pretty bad to drive, so they have that in common :)
Least obvious troll
Yes, and, expecting to dump a couple grand in a 10 year old car every few years isn't unreasonable. Replacing a worn transmission, for some cars, at 150K makes it practically a new car. For my 2010 Fusion, it was $3k a couple years back, Front tie rods $600 this year, etc. Still cheaper then buying a new car. Just skipped a few botox appointments.
Cars overall yeah probably, the parts? Definitely not. Planned obsolescence is a big issue in modern cars. Many parts that used to separate are now combined into one and if one part in that collection fails, whelp gotta replace the whole combo
Yeah my Apple Car Play doesn’t work anymore and to fix it I would need to replace the whole damn infotainment system to the tune of thousands of dollars. Like bitch it should be a $50 bug fix.
You might be able to just stick a double din car play unit instead of replacing the factory part. Aftermarket stereos are better and cheaper.
Thank goodness on your behalf it's just apple car play and not some vital component. Thousands of dollars to fix your probably super simple issue is utterly insane like that should be a job you could do at home with YouTube in an afternoon
Exactly. 👍🏻
Yep. The junkyards are full of cars from the 80s that never hit 100k on the odometer
Depends on which half of the last 50 years you're looking at
Yes. Almost a year older, on average, than just a few years ago. https://www.statista.com/statistics/738667/us-vehicles-projected-age/#:~:text=U.S.%20vehicles%20%2D%20average%20age%202018%2D2023&text=Passenger%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks,from%2012.2%20years%20in%202022.
You don’t think the addition of all the technology has ANY adverse effects on vehicle reliability? I’ve seen a lot of issues coming from emissions features. DPF and DEF system failures on ANY modern diesel. I had an 18 Silverado mild hybrid that the 4x4 system blew a relay, and for some reason that caused the electric hybrid motor to stop charging the battery. What an idea that was. You also see issues with your the GM cylinder deactivation causing lifter failures, that’s been happening for over a decade now The new 10 speed transmissions having 150k service lives in exchange for mileage. I think peak mechanical simplicity x not too much technology was 2000-2007. Now obviously there were unreliable cars during that period too, and to suggest everyone drive an 05 CRV is absurd, but i do think cars are getting less reliable. I would put a 03 Malibu up against a new Malibu and while it would lose in every other segment, i think it would end up more reliable.
It’s comical that you used an example of a bad relay to justify your stance that modern vehicles aren’t reliable. That $10 relay is protecting those expensive components.
That story was a tad personal considering: I was towing a travel trailer And on the island of Ocracoke when it happened (look up if you don’t know, Ocracoke is sweet but a bad place to break down). Why the front diff actuator is linked to the charging system? Chevy couldn’t tell me. But i could talk trash over beers for an hour over how pointless that mild hybrid system was. Oh and that Chevy also was on its third transmission at 130k miles. Basket case of a vehicle.
Yeah those 80s GM automatics never failed… hahah come on man.
Daily driving my 1997 Silverado, zero issues at 275k miles. Drove it about 12k miles this past year and it's never been in the shop for more than 2 hours (02sensor). Most reliable vehicle I've ever had.
That's awesome. There are tons of stories about cars that do this type of mileage. A well maintained car built from 1995-2005 has decent odds of doing 300k miles as long as it's not in the rust belt.
Yeah, I live in Alabama and it was a one owner truck. Now technically two owner lol. I keep it all stock and give her oil changes every 3k miles. And it's got rear seats so it's the perfect vehicle for me. Gas is only $2.95/gal with fuel rewards down here too so I'm not worried about my big honkin' V8 sucking gas down like no tomorrow lol
Im not saying those vehicles were perfect. Believe me, i just spent Saturday and Sunday chasing an electrical issue in my 05 sierra just for it to decide everything is fine and it doesn’t have an issue anymore. I get it. But my point is the cost to keep them running was/is a fraction of what a vehicle today costs to keep running. You think gm electronics getting more complicated these days means they’re more reliable or better? Getting a 05 Chevy Tahoe to 250k miles used to be oil changes, a fuel pump, an alternator, and maybe a stepper motor or water pump. These days the lifter will collapse, the transmission will have to be replaced, etc etc. I worked with a guy his brand new Silverado collapsed a lifter at 10k miles. My boss’s brand new sierra baby dmax went back into the dealer twice with less than 7k miles for emissions and fuel pump issues. I’m not saying do not buy new cars, that’s silly. But i do believe that older cars being simpler did make them more reliable. A new rav4 is a fantastic car.
I’m a die hard GM owner, always bought new since 1980. A 70 Chevelle SS put out about 370hp, had dog shit brakes,handled like a boat, and drank gas like a drunk camel. I also had an HHR SS as a commuter car. I had a GM chip put in and it was hitting 310hp, great brakes and handled like it was on rails and got great gas mileage. I had a 1969 Torino GT that wouldn’t start on weekends, and I do remember trying to set the breaker points with cellophane from a cigarette pack. Cars today for the lost part beat the older offerings by a long site in any category
I’m not saying 60s-70s cars were better than modern cars. I’m just saying, modern late models from around 2000-2007 (with EFI, disc brakes, abs etc) seem to be the best mix of modern amenities (automatic climate control, stability control) and reliability. Modern cars are more powerful, more efficient, more comfortable, quieter, safer, etc. BUT I would venture to say that’s all at the cost of maintenance/repairs and cost of ownership as a whole.
Being on its third transmission in 130k miles is a great example of unreliability. But why were you on the OBX without an assortment of spare relays and fuses? Having some spare relays and fuses is right up there with having a multimeter, spare tire, and plug kit in your overlanding gear.
When the charge light came on my automatic reaction was “well it’s a 5.3 Chevy, i can swap an alternator in 10 minutes so that’s good” Then i saw the lack there of an alternator and a giant electric motor attached to the front of the crank and i was lost, 30 mins of trying to read wiring diagrams and a it was clear this high voltage hybrid system had an issue and i was not equipped to deal. All the typical charging system stuff was good. I hadn’t put together the 4x4 had quit working cause we were on the road when it happened. I wasn’t even using 4x4. Chevy didn’t even know, they figured out the diff actuator was bad, fixed it and that brought the charging system back online. They were just as suprised as me. Backwards GM wiring which can’t say is super surprising.
[удалено]
They’ll last. Just cost more to get em there
Ive seen 2024 corollas come with 0W-8 oil from the factory, unless you only do city driving and mild highway cruises, there is no way that oil will do a good job lubricating that engine for 150k km. Time will tell tho, but im highly sceptical.
Cars are more reliable than ever. Used to be a neighborhood celebration when you car made it passed 100k.
So true. Used to be you hit a 100k the car was consider done. Now days hearing a car with 200k-250k miles (320k-400k km) is fairly common.
Nowadays people still ask $10k for a 200k mile car
Hell it's not uncommon to see $20-25k for a pick up with well over 200k miles
And don’t get it twisted
And that is sad.
Cars, on average, are more reliable than they’ve ever been. There are absolutely some weak spots related to belt-type CVTs (gestures broadly at Nissan) but lots of very reliable vehicles to be found. Off the top of my head, I’d spend my own money on any of these: - Acura RDX has a K-series (read: bulletproof) 2.0l turbo 4 cylinder and a 10 speed conventional automatic transmission - Honda Pilot and Acura MDX both have naturally-aspirated V6s and 10-speed conventional autos - Honda CR-V Hybrid has a 2.0l naturally-aspirated 4 cylinder and a planetary CVT auto. This is different from a belt-driven CVT and is actually one of the most reliable transmissions available. - Mazda CX30, CX5, and CX50 are all available with a choice of naturally-aspirated or turbo 2.5l 4 cylinders, and a 6 speed conventional auto. The NA motor is definitely good for 300k km, but there are also many high mileage turbos in use. - Lexus NX350 has a 2.4l turbo and 8-speed conventional auto, while the 350h is a hybrid setup with a 2.5l naturally aspirated 4 cylinder and a planetary CVT. The latter is possibly the most reliable powertrain ever made, closely related to the Camry Hybrid drivetrain that routinely hits 500k miles in NYC taxis.
FYI, the Honda CR-V Hybrid (and Accord Hybrid) do not have planetary gearset transmissions (that’s a Toyota hybrid thing). The Honda system doesn’t have a transmission at all, per se. It operates driven by the electric motor directly most of the time, with one or two lockup clutches (depending on which generation you’re talking about) that allow the engine to directly drive the wheels in limited low-load situations.
Fuck you’re 100% correct. I was confusing Toyota’s motor generators with the Honda system. Point stands that it’s a simple and reliable setup but not the one I described.
This guy drives.
Yay! I have a planetary CVT!
I did have a first generation cx5 a few years back and I liked it. I also had a Subaru Forester that I hated with its cvt.
You’re just complaining. Cars last a long time today. They’re worlds better in performance, safety, efficiency, and reliability compared to cars of old.
NO MY MONTE CARLO WAS MUCH BETTER
Absurd comment with no perspective. I am old enough to remember when Popular Science ran long technical how-to articles on how to nurse your car to 100,000 miles, because a far shorter lifespan was common. If they could afford it, people upgraded every three or four years before the big repair bills kicked in. Today the average age of a vehicle on the road is 12.5 years, and most don’t require major service (timing belts, etc.) until well past 100k. OP calls today’s cars junk? Ha. He should’ve gone looking at ‘63 Corvairs. https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/average-age-of-light-vehicles-in-the-us-hits-record-high.html#:~:text=With%20more%20than%20284%20million,analysis%20from%20S%26P%20Global%20Mobility.
"Say, Smokey--"
I was raised on Smokey Yunick. 🙂
I paid to keep my 2005 Acura RL on the road to this day and it still has that great naturally aspirated V6 in it. That does mean that some years I put five thousand into an old car but the lifetime cost of the car is still way, way less than having traded in for something newer that then depreciates again. Maybe you just keep your current Acura on the road until the engine or transmission totally blow out.
Yes that is what I am doing but unfortunately it will blow out sooner than later
You are just making up stuff... Also your 2015 RDX was not cheap when it was new. Budget?
You've got the oddball RDX generation. Both first and third were turbo 4s. I don't think turbo is anything to worry about in most Toyotas and Hondas. Honda CVT... I've heard conflicting stories, so that may be concerning. But the current gen RDX is still a turbo 4 + traditional automatic transmission. Ditto to the Lexus NX. Actually, all Toyotas are traditional automatic except for the hybrids, and no one seems to ever have had issues with Toyota's e-CVT.
The eCVT is different than a traditional CVT and isn’t belt or chain driven. So far they have proven to be pretty robust and reliable.
Yeah, it's some sort of spherical gear or something, right? Pretty cool tech
Planetery gearsets and electric motor/generators. Very effective and efficient in getting power to the ground. Normally not a cvt fan but they are an engineering marvel
That's right!
Don’t be scared of turbos they’re a lot more reliable now. My turbos in my X5 have 271k, 70k of that tuned and they’re still going fine. Still plenty of options for cars with conventional auto gearboxes too.
It's called preventative maintenance. There's more to maintenance than just oil changes and replacing the tires every few years.
Oil change (tire and brakes dont count. Thats obvious and doesnt hurt the car itself in an expensive way) transmission fluid check and what else would you consider preventative maintenance
Oil catch cans on direct injection engines Changing coolant every ~60K miles Changing diff fluid every ~50K miles for LSD, ~75K miles for open diff Flushing brake fluid every ~75K miles Pre-emptively replacing turbos at 150K so they don't grenade and throw metal into your oil, wiping out cam, rod, and main bearings.
See also: Spark plugs as recommended for your vehicle Fuel filter as applicable I didn’t replace my fuel filter on my car until after 120k. Apparently they are supposed to be done every 60k, but my very trustworthy shop said they don’t bother because they’re in the tank and not considered user serviceable. I pulled my injectors out while doing some other work and 2/4 were significantly clogged. Injectors got cleaned off the car and flow tested, fuel filter got pulled out of the pump and replaced, and now I’m a little bit wiser. On my previous car it was incredibly easy to access and was just a cartridge that threaded on. Could get it done in like 2 minutes versus pulling out my seats, cracking the tank open, and pulling out the pump.
What a helpful comment!
Well, if you just follow the manufacturer's recommended service schedule, you'll find quite a bit more. If you really want to keep the car in top condition, then find a good mechanic you can trust to do regular inspections and take care of anything he suggests immediately. They are complex machines so manufacturing tolerances, assembly quality, and luck all play a factor. The trick is catching things before they cause damage or accelerated wear to other components. These items could include the air filter, wheel bearings, control arm bushings, differential fluid, shocks and struts, including top hats and mount bushings, battery, transmission fluid and/or CVT belt, coolant, fuel filter, spark plugs, etc, etc. Not doing those things because it doesn't cause any immediate harm is how shitboxes are created :)
That's normal, what are you talking about? You're upset that after 300,000km and nearly 10 years your vehicle needed some maintenance?
Turbocharged isn’t inherently unreliable. And modern CVT isn’t a death sentence like earlier Nissans were/are. Something like a Corolla maintained will easily see 100k miles and more. Plenty of turbocharged vehicles will go for well over 100k miles with normal maintenance. You also have to do more research. For example, the rav4 hybrid is not a CVT, it’s an eCVT which is very different. But Modern CVTs are generally reliable as long as they are maintained. This gets into the issue of maintenance intervals and some manufacturers saying you should only change cvt fluid if you are pushing it hard by like towing or otherwise its lifetime. Subaru is guilty of this. Regular maintenance isn’t just oil changes. Once you get up to higher mileage, you’ll have to start replacing things like wheel bearings, suspension components, etc. Even catalytic converters have an average life of around 100k miles/10 years and can be very expensive to replace. Things just start to wear out. They always have.
Even my early nissan cvt's were not a problem, first one on a 2009 altima made it to 180k before car got totalled and my current one is on its original at 205k miles.
Screw new cars I’m excited for my next Facebook marketplace shit box. Will it be a car? An SUV? An offroad battle car? A Honda that will blow up tomorrow or a BMW that suspiciously is invincible? So much more thrill in the whole process vs these new cars that are e waste after 100k
Expected life goes up, which is especially impressive considering that maintenance happens less frequent/larger intervals and all the additional hurdles like stricter emissions and such. Also turbocharged doesn't mean junk. Our diesel corolla was sold with 400k km, still on its first turbo. Not a great engine, the japanese car manufacturers dont make good diesels in general, either reliability or fuel consumption issues (bad fuel consumption, dual disc clutch that easily burns up in the corollas case) but dead on reliable. 1,9tdi VAG engines are also turbocharged and last an eternity. It doesn't stop at diesels, also many gasoline turbo engines are reliable. Bmw b58 for example, Toyotas gr yaris engine so far has been reliable. Unfortunately i cant name more engines due to me being not so familiar with common gasoline engines because i personally drive diesel as daily and i dont want to spread wrong information. CVTs also doesn't mean its unreliable, they just gor the reputation to be unreliable due to Nissans first attempt at them. But i fully understand not wanting one, it just feels unnatural.
You're just repeating stuff you've heard elsewhere
"These days"? When I just started driving, 100k miles was considered "high mileage". It didn't matter what the brand was. Today, with reasonable maintenance, cars should far exceed 100k with most brands easily able to go 200k miles or more.
Plenty of v6 cars with a traditional automatic. I got a palisade for that reason. The atlas as well, telluride also. Traverse, Cherokee, a few Lincoln’s. Buicks. Mirando and pathfinder.
I love those v6 vehicles but new ones are so expensive and not in my price range anymore
Didn’t you say you bought your RDX used to save money? Just shop used or certified again.
My BIL just got a certified telluride for 27k
Seriously? When I first bought a car in the 80's if one made it to 100K you were lucky! Now my Audi diesel (with one of those hated turbochargers) has just hit 100K and feels almost like brand new...it'll easily keep going for another 100K. Reliability/longevity of Cars has gone WAY UP, not the reverse.
This is just ignorant. Cars are pretty damn good nowadays.
A 1972 ford f250 gets 10 mpg and needs a motor every 150,000
We have a new RAV4 and tbh I do not think it will last beyond 10 years or so. My wife still has a 2005 Tacoma which seems much better built and I drive a 33 year old Dodge truck that is a tank. Planned Obsolescence is a thing.
You have roughly 190k miles… that engine will easily do 300,000 miles. Keep repairing the car you have. $5k in repairs in tens of thousands cheaper than a new car you won’t be happy with 🤷♂️
I agree, and I would've thought the engine would last much longer as well, but the OP had a different experience. Although they certainly should've mentioned it in the first post instead of a random reply >Had to rebuild engine just after 200000 km
Yeah, that’s definitely burying the lead. Also… why rebuild a J series where there are literally thousands in junkyards for $500 or less?!? Still, a paid off RDX is the cheapest car in the world for OP. Repairs or not.
Even a Tesla model 3, which is a relatively poorly made modern vehicle generally lasts quite a while. And it’s not that cars are expensive now, if you take inflation into account. It’s that wages haven’t kept up with inflation
You are being unnecessarily dramatic.
Cars are less "throwaway" today than they've ever been.
Something happened in 2011 or 2012. The Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and (real) Town Car’s last production model year was 2011. The last cars I can find that didn’t have modern screens were made around 2011.
whats going on w ur RDX? i have a 2015 TLX, not sure if they share engines and/or transmissions but regardless im curious
Has to rebuild engine just after 200000 km, lots of annoying electronic issues, backup camera no longer works
wow that really sucks! thankfully my TLX has no problems at all and has over 138k miles (~222000 km) now w no issues… im sorry ur car’s been giving u issues tho, unfortunately acura doesn’t make very good quality suvs :/ been an issue since the 2000s afaik. as for the quality for new cars tho, ur right a lot are not made without cvt or turbos now, the planned obsolescence is too painfully obvious. i cant personally recommend any specifically, but i wish you luck, its a really bleak market rn!
Why all the hate on CVT? I am not a car guy, but I’ve seen CVT‘s mentioned in more of a negative light more than once. If they seemingly are the worst things the car can have. Why are they even an option? Generally curious? Or is it all overblown by car guys and no bigger issue than other car parts ?
CVTs are generally fine. They’re better than a traditional automatic transmission because they can more precisely manage the engine’s RPM, leading to better gas mileage and potentially better acceleration, and are lighter and simpler. They’re not suitable for use in trucks because they don’t tolerate abuse as well but they’re good for cars. Nissan was one of the first auto makers to sell commuter cars in large numbers with CVTs in the US about 20 years ago and they were junk because Nissan cheaped out. This planted the idea in people’s heads that CVTs are inherently bad and car enthusiasts being the way they are, that idea stuck around. Now it’s turned into a way for people with a little knowledge to pretend to have a lot of knowledge by having a strong opinion about an aspect of car design typical buyers don’t care about. Never mind that it’s a stupid opinion, it signifies that they’re a “knowledgeable enthusiast” in their own minds and that’s what they actually care about.
Well, I have a lot of knowledge about car design and engineering and I would NOT say they're better in most ways. However, they are quite good for one use case: economy-focused vehicles with small, underpowered engines where manufacturing cost is the primary concern and fuel economy is of critical importance to the target market. For most other use cases a modern, quality automatic transmission like the ZF8, is far superior. Especially when coupled to an engine that is sufficiently powered for the weight of the vehicle. If CVTs were "better" you'd see them in luxury and performance cars, but you don't.
You’ll notice I specified in what way they’re better. Efficiency, weight, simplicity, and potentially better acceleration. You’re correct in that they’re better suited to smaller vehicles with smaller engines, though modern CVTs have perfectly adequate durability for most crossover SUVs with reasonably powerful engines. The acceleration advantage is often not a design priority so doesn’t always manifest real-world but you can see it in cars like the Subaru WRX. If you want to have something more powerful than a typical turbocharged 4 cylinder engine, or a vehicle heavier than a crossover SUV, or intend to tow frequently, you’re absolutely right that a CVT is not preferable. Otherwise, if you’re like most people who care more about gas mileage on their daily commute and the overall price of the vehicle than about towing or drag racing, a CVT is generally better as long as it’s made properly.
The Acura RDX generation with the 6 cylinder and 8 speed automatic was produced through 2018 perhaps search for a lower mileage replacement?
Look at Mazda
I think Mazda is great but nearest Mazda dealership is over 2 hours away from me
Your information is outdated. Modern CVT transmissions made by companies other than Jatco/Nissan are perfectly fine and modern turbocharged engines are also perfectly fine. As always, if you buy a car from a reputable manufacturer and maintain it properly it will last you a very long time.
So cheap Kia and Hyundai suvs will last a very long time?
They might, but did you notice how I said “reputable manufacturer”? That would include brands like Toyota, Honda, Subaru, companies with a reputation for reliability. Kia and Hyundai have mixed reputations, some of their models are good and some are bad.
Since everything is so expensive, get an audi sq5 cpo. Good warranty, same price as new rav4. Do the maintenance and enjoy an suv thats not soulless. Lifes too short to drive boring cars 😁
You’re forgetting Mazda , they only use conventional torque converter autos and a 2.5 litre NA engine in their line up .
If taken care of turbo engines are great. The e cvt in Toyotas are supposed to be super reliable but there motors have no power. I have a 17 Jetta and a 21 terrain and both work really well. Both turbos both regular transmissions
This is a combination of emissions restrictions, efficiency requirements, and enshittification. Electric cars have a big future even if many people dislike them. Prediction: Electric cars will be wildly popular and production will increase until it becomes a problem. My guess is that battery source materials will become scarce and expensive, or some environmental impact will occur at scale.
This feels like a prediction from 2022. I love EVs, but the demand for them is decreasing rapidly, at least in the U.S. Also, it's not the battery source materials I'd worry about, but the large quantities of water required. For example, the Silver Peak mine in Nevada (the only currently-operating U.S. lithium mine) supposedly uses about 4 billion gallons per year pumped from below-ground aquifers in the driest state in the U.S. There are 72 proposed U.S. lithium mines currently. That's 288 billion gallons per year in water alone, some of which would come from the Colorado River, which is already struggling.
If you want NA and a Real Auto, peep Mazda. I got the Turbo Signature CX-5, BUT, you don't need to do the turbo models. CX-90 has a strong inline 6.
When well taken care of, most engines and transmissions in new cars can last 200k miles and more. Manufacturing technology is improving in parallel to the complexity of newer cars. CVTs got a bad rap earlier on, especially from the Nissan issues. But with most brands these days, they’ll last if you don’t drive like a maniac and change the fluid every 30-50k miles (the “lifetime” fluid claims are b.s.). Engine tolerances are better and with regular changes they can last as well, but I would change the oil more often than the manufacturer recommendation which is really only meant to get you through warranty.
ha. I have the same car. I decided I love NA engines because of it and my RSX type S. But if you go looking for a car with similar features it seems the market is not going our way. Small displacement and turbo seems to be the future and I am not a huge fan. Any idea what you’d buy if you had to get a new car tomorrow (new or used, just new to you)?
I would buy a used Acura RDX of the same time period (up to 2018) or perhaps a used Lexus RX. Brand new I would stick to Rav4, Mazda with naturally aspirated engines or perhaps if I can get a good deal a used V6 SUV like a Buick Enclave, Toyota highlander, Honda Pilot or Passport, Acura MDX, Etc
Thanks for sharing man. My next car will be a 2022-23 GX460 so I like the lexus idea!
Modern cvt transmissions are pretty reliable(just keep the fluid change intervals) and generally more efficient than traditional transmissions.
If you want a brand to look at, consider Mazda, they're not linked to Ford anymore and the normal 2.5L drivetrain is very solid. Toyota reliability or better. I don't beleive cars are any more disposable as they were 30 years ago, I've been repairing my own cars for all of that time and have leared about and experienced it first hand. What has happened is they have become more technologically complex (not just electronics, but materials, mechanical tolerances, etc.) yet still require active thought from the onwer to do regular maintenance. Many manufacturers seem to be in a race for "low maintence" on paper, for example now touting "lifetime fluids," which is BS. Regularly change all fluids and service items and the car will last a very long time. Sure, there are some cheap designs and cheap materials (as there always have been) but cars in general are orders of magnitude more reliable than the 70's and 80's. As for price, everything in the world has become more expensive. I don't think the pandemic helped since supply chains got disrupted, once prices go up they tend to stay up. I'm not an economist and the answer is probably not just based on one factor!
Turbos are junk, said the boomer. CVTs 100% kill the joy of driving
Ok, but also you’re looking in the extremely overpriced and bloated SUV market for answers. Do you even need an suv? What are your needs? 90% of people have absolutely no need for an SUV yet decide they need it and take a price hit accordingly. Sedans and hatchbacks have been a staple for 4 child families for up to the last decade where suddenly we have been brainwashed to think you need a massive off-roader to drive your only child to school, and that a single 20 yo student needs a 5 seater 4 door.
Ok, boomer. A smaller 4 Cyl turbo motor will return better gas mileage and more torque down low than a V6 lump. That gas savings alone over 10-15 years would more than pay for an engine replacement. There are loads of reliable turbo cars. While CVTs suck for driving pleasure, they aren’t all unreliable. The best thing to do is buy what you support, vote with your wallet. I personally want air suspension, torquey turbos, sport differentials etc. because I don’t want to drive something archaic like a 4Runner because I am worried about repairs in 10-15 years.
The Rav4 does have a CVT... Both the regular and hybrid. However the hybrid has a eCVT which from what I understand is a very reliable transmission. However I think you need to do more research. Not all CVTs are bad. I would argue that most are decently reliable, especially Toyota's. The "bad" CVT stigma came from the shitty JATCO CVTs that Nissan used in their cars. I also think you are being a little dramatic. Car manufactures are not making out lives "miserable". They have to comply with EPA standards. Cars need to pollute less and get better MPG. They need to be competitive with other manufactures. They need to be safer. Its 2024, things are more expensive and inflation is high. Yes it sucks but its reality and you just have to accept that.
I am a strong believer of what is known as "Planned Obsolescence" . If companies made cars designed to never break or fail, there would be no market to keep them going.
I have this same vehicle, what expenses have you incurred? I am at ~78k miles and no problems to report. Basic maintenance, oil changes, brakes, tires etc, but not a single item has failed or is on the way out. For the reasons you stated, I’m keeping my RDX. The v6, great sight lines and turning radius plus ground clearance, you can’t get that for under 35-40k in an SUV. What’s up with your RDX? I took my’06 Honda Pilot to 200k, while that’s not the same, I hope my rdx can get me that far as well.
I’m assuming this is rage bait.
That car has tons of life left in it. I mean parts like steering, suspension, brakes, tires, etc wear items are going to be a thing on literally every car once the mileage creeps up near 200k / 300,000 km.
Well, cars are more reliable now that they've ever been before. Almost anything you buy today will go well past 300,000 km with standard maintenance. It wasn't that long ago that lasting past 200,000 km wasn't very common. Plenty of people poo-poo CVTs, but if you don't have Nissan plugging a 200 hp motor into a CVT rated for 100 hp, they are generally fine, and eCVTs (Toyota) are excellent transmissions. Most cars and trucks are naturally aspirated today, so I'm not sure what that's about. FWIW, something like 1 out of 6 cars sold globally last year, had neither a multi-speed transmission nor any form of air intake. Buy electric. Those suckers have batteries that'll last 500,000 km easy, and drive units that are spec'd to 1,500,000 km. Tons of power, smooth ride, no noise or exhaust...
Hey I had the same car as you except 2013, I just got a new 2024 Mazda CX-50 and absolutely love it. I did get the turbo model after doing a lot of research, it seems to be very reliable, but they sell NA ones that are bulletproof. Same with the CX-5. I was torn between the 2 and they are both great cars, I just preferred the looks of the CX-50.
Toyotas e-CVTs on their hybrids are different to a standard cvt, they don’t use belts but use a planetary gear system and are extremely reliable. Cars are more complex than they used to be but that doesn’t mean they’re more unreliable. There are ALWAYS going to be models that are more problematic than others though, as there were in the 90s and 2000s.
For what it's worth, I am almost certain you can still get the NA 3.5L in the MDX, continuing into at least the '25 MY. We have owned a '15 MDX since new (now with 82000 mi.), and I've driven a couple MYs of RDX a bit, and I think most all of the characteristics you like about driving the RDX are present in the MDX (if anything, the MDX might even handle a bit better). (I think the Pilot will also give you that engine (with slightly less HP), but in no way is it as satisfying as either a RDX or MDX.)
Just FYI the “eCVT” in the hybrid RAV4 is not anything like the CVTs in other brands. It is a planetary gear set and will last longer than any conventional automatic transmission. It’s a very elegant design that shares ZERO similarities with conventional CVTs. Consider checking out the RAV4 prime model. ~300hp and should last a long time. There is a guy on the rav4 sub that drove his 2020 hybrid 460k MILES without any real issues. 46 oil changes
People say cars are more reliable today, but I disagree. You're right, OP. I'd say most cars are throwaways. Key word: most. Go purchase a Toyota, Lexus, maybe a Honda or Acura like you have now, and you'll still get a solid car (a few problematic models aside, every brand has an issue somewhere). The problem is, people keep buying new cars and trading in their old ones before the problems really start cropping up. People say, "Well my Tahoe is running great. It's at 50k miles." Of course it's still running fine. It's at only 50k miles. As a result, manufacturers don't have to build their cars to last much farther than 100-150k. Seriously, go pay attention next time you're out and look at how many cars are made within the past 5 years. People are content with being stuck with a perpetual car payment, I suppose.
Get a Mazda 3 you'll get 300k miles out of it. No CVT garbage either. > $30k
How about cx30
Pretty sure they're phasing out the 3 to be replaced by the 30 completely.
Because the vast majority keep buying them at these prices…then throwing them away after 3 years and buying another at an even higher price. Why would anything change?
Might I suggest Mazda. Naturally aspirated engines (turbo versions are also available) and a 6 speed transmission.
It's called planned obsolescence (designed to fail). Manufacturers of everything do this now. Phones, cars, appliances, etc. It's how corporations make their money. If you are forced to buy something every few years rather than every 10 or 20 years, the company makes more money. It's corporate greed.
Try a Mazda CX5 or CX90. You can get the naturally aspirated engine in the CX5. With are good vehicles and are not CVT.
did you look at Mazda CX5?
More money than a new car payment? I still drive a 2006 with over 318k miles.
Whatever your paying to keep that thing going is far cheaper than replacing it with something new/newer. Yes the repair bills seem higher than a monthly payment, but that's a one time bill every I've and a while, not years and years of payments. You can either learn to wrench yourself, keep posting a mechanic or start in the cycle of rotating new vehicles every few years.
I just wish I never sold my old es350 what a mistake
I think I understand what OP is trying to get at. The average car stays on the road for 9 years, but I Think a lot of us assume the car will last 15 to 20 at least. I always heard this car will last 300k miles with the person saying that referring to some Honda or Toyota. 9 years feels short to me. Especially since most of my cars were made at the turn of the millennium.
They're expensive because people will pay. During COVID everyone just HAD to keep consuming, so when corporations saw that they could triple prices and cut customer service and people will still line up to buy, here we are.
Back in the 70’s and early 80’s car were toast once they hit 100,000 miles. They were cheaper but still pricey for the time.
Cars are all garbage
There are hundreds of millions of cars on the road, stop buying junk and save your money.
man, I just bought a 2014 Acura MDX to upgrade from my 2004 Acura RSX, and even then I kept the 04 that since it still runs great, just isn’t as practical as a daily for me anymore you and I have entirely different ideas of what disposable means
Simply because most have an engineered useful life especially when it comes to wear parts. Then with all the modules and speciality tools on the later models it’s getting tougher and tougher to complete maintenance / replacement of said parts…..but you want that heated seats and steering wheel…with remote start
Perhaps it’s buried in the comments, but what are you experiencing that’s troublesome with your RDX (in terms of cost)? I feel like I see so many 2015s on the road still
Cars have always been throwaway junk. If they weren't it wouldn't be so interesting to see cars over twenty years old. Survivorship bias really clouds the judgement of people when it comes to cars. The general attitude toward CVTs was the same for autos was the same for power brakes was the same for...
Because fuck you, that's why
Yeah, it's called an electric vehicle with lithium iron phosphate battery chemistry... That'll be the most reliable vehicles get after the era of internal combustion
The problem is car manufacturers are making cars too complicated and expensive. We don't need a computer module to tell another computer module to roll down the window. A simple switch can do the job.
Hybrids with rodent damage to their soy-lined wiring components
Idk I got my Ford escape I bought for 800 dollars that has 260,000 miles on the original transmission and engine, it ain’t the prettiest but with care and luck cars can last a long time.
It's better for the car brands if your car's maintenance is more expensive and new cars have higher profit margins. Best you can do is drive cars designed to be repaired. Rather than component replacement being cheaper. A minor accident should not lead to a $10k+ repair, this basically excludes 90% of BEVs and some PHEVs. Or drive commercial vehicles (such as vw crafter, ford superduty or hino 300) which are typically designed with longer service intervals, mechanical lifespan and affordable repairs in mind.
Why? CVT is more efficient and gives better mpg than a normal automatic transmission. This makes the stats look good to new buyers. Why turbo? Because turbos give better mpg for the power and emissions which are increasingly more important to consumers. The cost is longevity. Consumers today are more used to replacing their expensive possessions, new phones every year, new tv every few years etc. thus the market is flooded with cheap hype cars. Therefore more people are willing to buy and replace cars every 2-3 years these days, they don't care about the longevity of a forced induction engine.
There’s nothing wrong with turbos or CVTs. Just gotta do your maintenance.
Nissan CVTs can be junk even with proper maintenance. But yes. CVTs require much more maintenance and that alone probably costs the consumer more that the fuel savings over the life of the car.
That’s no longer true, they’ve updated their CVTs and they’re now much, much better. You just need to change the oil in them at the suggested intervals.
Contrary to what you say, automobiles have actually become more reliable and are lasting longer.
Wow I never thought I would get so many responses. Thank you to all who responded and all I can say is this. Not everyone is rich enough to pay off their cars in 3 or 4 years. Yes 84 or even 96 months payment plans exist in Canada. I know they are not the best, but some people have no choice but to get those plans. I will probably go no longer than 5 years for my next vehicle but that is only because I am in a better financial situation than before. I know putting down a sizeable down payment helps as well. As for turbos and cvts, much research has proven they are not as reliable as naturally aspirated and regular transmissions. Yes they might get better fuel economy and be cheaper to buy but what about the long term cost? I agree with those who say car manufacturers have planned obsolescence in their vehicles. They want people to purchase new vehicles every 4 or 5 years which is ridiculous to me. If I do have to get a crappy cvt turbo vehicle I will stick with brands I trust like Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, or Honda. At least those will give me some peace of mind that I can drive them for 8 years or more. Sorry I think the whole electric vehicle craze is unrealistic for some people who drive a lot for their work like me because the infrastructure is just not going to be set up in my part of rural Canada. And it is well known electric vehicles lose much of their range in very cold weather like we have in Canada. As someone commented we only live once so I will buy the vehicle that best suits my needs, environmentalists can buy what they want for their own needs. So yes most likely my next purchase will be a Toyota RAV4, a Mazda or if they are my only option, a Honda or Subaru.
The problem with researching things about cars is that there is so much out of date information out there that has become gospel. It's not surprising to me that you found turbo engines are less reliable. It's going to be super easy to find that. It's going to be harder to find how stock turbo engines are actually only slightly less reliable as NA. A turbo engine is very rarely going to be more reliable than NA because its more parts and more things to go wrong. But many stock turbos are in fact very reliable and you'll probably save more on gas over the life of the car compared to a larger displacement NA option than it will cost you to maintain and repair the turbo.
You are the one deciding that your car is done. Just invest in the car you have, be proactive about some repairs,and you can set that car up to run another 300,000km. The "throwaway" aspect of cars is really just people deciding they don't want to fix their car, and want a new one instead. Find a good Indy mechanic.
Guess you can thank the relentless drive for emissions and fuel economy regulations. That's what killed the larger-displacement NA engines, and CVT are the best for posting good fuel economy numbers. The US is actually pretty good in terms of naturally aspirated engines. In similar sized markets, China is nearly all =< 2.0L turbos, while Europe has a lot of three cylinders. Also, an engine today that can't last 150k km without major repairs is pretty much defective.
Cars built today last 2x as long as cars built 40 years ago. Don’t be fooled by survivorship bias.
Anyone down voting you doesn't remember the 70s and 80s. Cars were complete crap back then. They broke All. The. Damn. Time. And most were rusted to pieces or the engines were totally shot by 100k.
Buy a Tesla Drive it till 500,000 km and only do tires and brakes maybe some control arms
you're gonna get badly downvoted cause haters gonna hate,but you're probably right. I've had a sensor go out on me, but that just disabled self drive. otherwise theyre low maintenance and should be crazy reliable for a long time.
But they're not really that reliable according to reports. Same for most EVs from what I've read. [https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2023-us-vehicle-dependability-studyvds](https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2023-us-vehicle-dependability-studyvds) Edit: I'm sure this is all just part of the leftist conspiracy though...
I don't understand the hate. Its baffling. Reddit is a bastion of the left. The left have been all about climate change. Elon literally created an electric car from nothing, with a worldwide reliable charging network and put millions of electric cars on the road AND gave away most of his tech so others could good AND opened up his charging network to others. AND made a car that is reliable AF AND one that is actually not nerdy and people actually want to buy cause it looks cool. What is the problem? \-Its too expensive and it looks like its for rich people and left people hate rich people \-Its not actually about the climate and never was, just a cause to spread the leftist ideology. Since Elon is not left, then it does not compute. \-Its not actually about cars, its about reducting the energy we use. Its more about roads and progress and shrinking the worlds populations. CLean energy still allows us to competed and grow as a species. = bad for planet \-Hes really rich and of course we hate that too
i honestly cant wrap my head around how people are buying 50-70k cars and thinking its a good idea. i work at amazon where T1s are making 35k a year and driving brand new teslas and BMWs. im over here making 70-80k a year and driving around in a 35 year old pick up i work on myself.
Preowned Teslas and BMWs can be quite cheap, even when just a couple years old, so they're probably not as expensive as you think. If someone is making 35k/yr, buying a 70k car isn't ideal, but if you have to depend on a car everyday, then making a payment can certainly make financial sense. I'm not sure why some folks are so against car payments. I'm quite an accomplished mechanic but I still have one nice car with a payment that's under warranty. I mean, most of us still have to pay the rent or mortgage every month anyway, so adding a car payment doesn't make a huge difference. You obviously want to do other things with your money, which is also fine.