Over engineered cars are pushing technicians away

I guess I kind of agree with the thesis, although in turn auto technician is gradually becoming an increasingly skilled job and pay is (probably not quickly enough) generally increasing as well. Of course, this is frustrating to consumers as dealer repair costs become astronomical. In some ways the market is working as intended as especially used cars from manufacturers with perceived easier repair and maintenance (Honda, Toyota) now command an enormous premium, at least in the US.

The specific comment is terrible, though:

> Come to find out, all new Elantras use a lens on a servo to adjust the focal point of the light to simulate just having an extra bulb in the head lamp assembly.

It's unlikely this adjusts the focal point, it's more likely it's just a shutter, although this is neither here nor there.

Regardless, this is a normal way to construct high beams with HID bulbs and there's a real engineering reason for this: HID lights shouldn't be short-cycled as they need to warm up before they reach brightness, plus cycling rapidly wears the bulb and ignitors out. So, having a separate bulb is not plausible for HID high beams which need to flip on and off quickly.

Some cars with LED headlights _are_ often switching back to simpler housings without shutters and adjustable lenses, since they're cheaper and easier to build.

This is a case of engineers engineering solutions, not engineers making things "hard" for no reason.

Most profit is nabbed by shop owners, by an insane degree (unless you are owner AND operator).

Optimizing for cost, weight & performance often comes at the cost of repairability. Buyers compare cars on measurable statistics so they'll buy the one that is cheaper, faster etc.

Watch a Sandy Munro video and see the design details that get a lot of praise. The gigacasting is a nice example: great for performance and manufacturing, but bad for repair. Or, the car not having a separate floorpan and mounting the seats etc directly to the battery casing. Or the octovalve. These are great for everything except repairability.

I guess I break the mold. I buy Toyota/Lexus that are inferior on stats today, but will be fine in 15 years while the other competitors build this year will have been in a scrap yard for 10 already.

I do homework on "unreliable" cars, take good care of them (regular oil changes, preventative maintenance, etc.) and they survive me thrashing them constantly without issue.

The real secret finding what specific platforms/engines/transmission packages have earned a track record for being reliable.

Most Toyotas sold are their reliable models so they get a good track record, but Toyota has put out some poor engines even in cars otherwise known as being reliable, like the Camry

BMW has had some extreme stinkers like their early hot V V8, but there's also BMWs that package the B58 and ZF8, which make such a reliable combo that they're in a currently sold Toyota.

I recommend anyone buying a car and worried about reliability search their specific engine and transmission to find issues, and avoid first generations with no track record because a very common story is a refresh fixing a design flaw in an first revision

The reason a lot of things appear to be re-invented is that its Resume Driven Development but applied to auto head lights. Or blame product people for needing to come up with something even though the product is probably “done” from a consumer standpoint of fulfilling the needs. Smart refrigerators come to mind.

I keep watching stuff on youtube where people find really old cars, like 50-60 years old, and they walk thru what needs fixing to get it running. Sometimes they add some gas to a 50yo engine in a barn find and replace spark plugs and it fires up, its really amazing.

Man I sound like my grandfather lamenting about “they don’t build them like they used to”.

It's very true, though. There's something to be said about technology you can build without a huge capital investment. With maybe $50k worth of tools and materials you could probably build a vehicle from ~1980. You can't manufacture them at scale, and if you factor in your time it won't pay out, but you could in principle get it done with accurate drawings.

Proprietary software, though, is a huge moat. And the complexity that comes with it. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to build more modern cars as one-offs, except that the systems are so locked down

I love my bicycle for this reason - I can do 100% of the maintenance and repairs myself (short of welding a cracked frame, but I could take everything off and swap it to a new frame). Almost all parts are standardized and available from third parties, even in case the original manufacturer goes under. And of course the whole thing cost less than that headlight assembly.

Anyways, I think the reason software follows this path is cost - rather than pay an engineer for optimization you have them work on new fancy features, and just expect the user to buy a faster machine. As computers get faster/cheaper this applies more and more.

I think cars will become either disposable or large assemblies will need to be replaced in full.

I'm reminded of how the tv repairman disappeared.

TVs too integrated to fix easily, too complicated to fix economically.

I get how mass manufacturing works but it's crazy too seeing people walk on the side of a massive parking lot where cars are just sitting there not used (not sold yet).

The integration also leads ro low prices though: A bug trinitron used to be $1500-$2000. Today you can get a 4k TV that is twice as big, much cheaper to run, and beats the 1080i that the largest tubes could support 20 years ago. The lower upfront coat just wins, especially when technology keeps improving so fast you'd rather get the new thing than repair the old one at, say, half the price

yeah, but we're talking about cars. Do we want to make cars disposable? Should people throw away their car every 12 years when parts are no longer made or the battery dies?

Apparently the average car is about 12 years old hone it's scrapped; so we basically are already there.

If by making everything more reliable but hard to repair, they'd reliably go 12 years before exploding, I think it'd be a net win, as long as we had adequate recycling options available.

The average age of a vehicle on the road in the U.S. is 12.6 years. The total number of vehicles registered in the past 20 years is only up about 20%, so the average age of a vehicle being scrapped is more like 23 years. That also doesn't account for the fact that many older vehicles that are deregistered aren't even scrapped, they're sent to Mexico or overseas for a second life.

The massively lower repairability of modern cars, especially from sensors and airbags is going to significantly lower this lifetime IMO.

Unless cars become extremely cheap (they have done the opposite), it will never be acceptable for them to be disposable. Materials and processes are better than ever yet cars are becoming less repairable. Manufacturers deliberately make things difficult to repair to encourage people to buy new cars, but that only goes as far as people will tolerate it. We aren't talking about pocket change. A new car is usually in the top two largest purchases anyone makes, and they really should be built to last at least 20 years. There's no reason why they can't be built to last 50 or 100 years, or indefinitely (with repairs).

I have some faint hope that scout will go the other way:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/scout-wants-to-build-evs-you-c...

Aptera too https://aptera.us/giving-you-the-right-to-repair/

Both interesting. Will they be surveillance free, or at least optional?

Aptera's been trying to make a car for 15+ years now.

I applaud the sentiment, but this has about as much impact as a random blog.

Transportation has a higher demand for reliability and maintainability than our entertainment devices.

Not every "innovation" is positive. A 2% efficiency gain with 300% maintenance cost and 25% lifespan is a major loss.

Let's act like responsible engineers here and remember what our job is. We are supposed to be creating tools with longevity & utility that improve welfare. We are not here to create toys and infotainment for people.

The tools are in our hands people. Quit placing blame on marketing, customers. Take responsibility for the control that you wield.

> We are supposed to be creating tools with longevity & utility that improve welfare. We are not here to create toys and infotainment for people.

The same can be said for b2b SaaS (which is where I work), and yet...

For some reason we've lost the core concept of what makes a tool good. I think there are a few components (not an exhaustive list):

1. When you are using a tool it disappears. You don't know you're using it.

2. It grows with you and doesn't infantilize you. As you get more skilled it gets more useful, not more limiting.

3. It never changes.

Giving the computer nerds the ability to change and tweak tools while they're in the customer's hand has yielded disastrous consequences. Now everything is a subscription and users are treated like idiots.

I really appreciate your thoughts on this. Tools are key engagement with the world. A good tool is empowering , and a poor tool is demoralizing. I'm glad there are others pondering this issue.

Engineering is just means to an end. In most cases the end is: make money.

That typically involves minimizing labor (engineering / R&D) costs. That’s why you see solutions implemented in a quick / scrappy way even though it’s often obvious a better solution exists from the end user perspective… the chosen solution was the best solution for the actual objective: maximize profits.

People need to justify their role. As such they change things around or add complexity, even if user benefit is questionable. And why wouldn't you add some planned obsolescence for good measure?

The “enshitification” applies to everything, as basic functionality is harder or almost impossible to improve features are added as a sales driver together with lower price points, as you can imagine corners needs to be cut as the metrics take in account sales AND profit. General public doesn’t take in account (they’ve driven to think that way) durability or repairability, they just pay a lease so cars have become disposable.

This emphasis on leasing must be a short term fixation. Once companies move onto more mature generations of vehicles, the upgrade cycle will lengthen pushing more people toward ownership.

> This emphasis on leasing must be a short term fixation

It is an inevitable consequence of modern rabid capitalism. The 99.99% shall own nothing in our name, while the 0.001% enjoy their life on the rent every single one of us has to pay for the privilege of existing.

More and more of basic life necessities are gated away behind subscriptions (and yes, I am counting a basic computer with an office program suite as such), or they are rapidly depreciating assets, and what remains gets bought out by the rich in fire sales during economic crises (remember the "for sale / foreclosure" signs 2008ff?) - and the frequency of the latter has only increased.

Of course this all has an end game because eventually people will have no money left to even lease these things, but by then those who are in power and enjoying their life will be long gone.

Leasing is mostly just a financing model for people who like to have new cars. It hasn't been economically sound for individuals maybe ever. The shortest I've owned a new car was 5 years and that's because it was a dog from Dodge.

Exception may be some European cars which have a reputation for very expensive dealer maintenance after the warranty period.

Mercedes dealers in particular are thieves. Mercedes-Benz of Boston tried to bait and switch me replacing an AC compressor on my 1999 E300D Turbo. Initial quote was $1750, after they had the car a couple days they made up some bullshit about the condenser being bad and said therefore it would be $5000. I told them to go fuck themselves, bought the necessary refrigerant handling equipment, and did it myself. This was 5 years ago. Still nothing wrong with the condenser.

IME it's 100% of the time better to buy whatever tools you need and do the necessary research to DIY than to take a car to a mechanic. And certainly never a dealership.

EDIT: Almost forgot. When I checked the pressure in the AC system after getting it home before working on it, it was super high. What I suspect they did (because I told them I wasn't going to pay their usurious rate) was just cram a bunch of refrigerant into the system from their recovery tank in the hopes it would blow seals and screw me over. So, yeah, avoid MB of Boston in particular.

If you don’t want to do your own maintenance, I’ve been told that you really need a good independent mechanic for German cars unless you want to spend a fortune.

At one point I did an event at BMW’s place in SC and was really tempted but came to my senses.

Yeah it's 100% true. A good independent mechanic you trust is very important if you're not DIY

I was seriously considering buying an Ineos Grenadier because I wanted a nice, modern, safe solid axle 4x4 with decent towing capacity that'll last 50 years or so, but the complexity of that B57/58 and the ZF 8spd, let alone all the other electronic trash like parking sensors, lane sensors, etc scared me off. Theoretically I might be able to keep it running on that timescale with standalone controllers for the transmission and engine but the complexity is just too much. Also, plastic intake manifold? Lmao.

So I bought an 80 Series Toyota. It only gets 1mpg less than the Grenadier. 30 years, all that complexity, and we gained 1mpg.

I'm working on a 1HZ-T swap. So I'll have a 1 wire engine with a nice simple aftermarket transmission controller, and an exhaust brake. I should be getting around 20mpg hwy when that's done and 100k+mi from a set of brake pads. I'm confident I'll be able to keep this running for 50yr.

>"So I bought an 80 Series Toyota. It only gets 1mpg less than the Grenadier. 30 years, all that complexity, and we gained 1mpg."

The Grenadier complies with many emissions, collision, and other regulatory requirements than the Toyota, and it probably costs less than the series 80 did new (compensated for inflation).

You could be right on all counts. But I'm 100% confident I can keep my 80 series running another 50 years with relatively minimal work (occasionally rebuilding things, maybe some rust repair if I get lazy about rust prevention, etc.)--I can at least predict and understand all the problems I'll encounter, and none of them includes trying to reverse engineer a CAN network.

I have very little confidence I'd actually be able to keep a Grenadier on the road forever. I suspect it's at most a 20yr car. We'll see maybe in 30 years I'll get a used one and prove myself wrong.

  > 30 years, all that complexity, and we gained 1mpg.

We also got far lower tailpipe emissions, less expensive manufacturing processes, far better rust prevention, and far better passenger and pedestrian safety features. Not to mention a more comfortable ride, almost zero water intrusion, lower cabin noise and vibration, less wind and tire noise, and longer lasting consumables such as plugs, oil, tires, and filters.

It’s absolutely insane to me what a government success story auto safety regulations have been.

They’re incredibly safer and yet the cost hasn’t gone crazy.

Cars have stayed the same "real price" or gone down over long periods of time. It really is a testament to industrial manufacturing.

Homebuilding regulations have had somewhat of a similar success, but the costs haven't stayed level - no economies of scale in manufacturing to exploit.

Yeah it's true, it's a shame the consequences are so severe though. E.g. $1200 to replace a plastic bumper because it has some silly backup camera in it. I don't mind getting out of my car once or twice every time I need to hook up the trailer, and I learned to parallel park 22 years ago. I have no need for a backup camera and don't want to pay the penalty of owning one.

But is it worth the price? I concluded I'd rather build a vehicle that's simpler and better than the one I could buy. And it's costing me about 20% as much to do so. And it'll burn a hell of a lot less fuel.

Simpler? Sure. Better? I spent years in garages modifying and building street legal vehicles. On very few metrics were they better than what you could buy, then or now. If better means quicker, sure, you could do that. But it won't be safer, cheaper, more reliable, more efficient, lower polluting, or more comfortable than what you could buy from Ford or Toyota or Subaru or Tesla.

Modified vehicles can be completely reliable if you do it sensibly. More reliable, even, than factory. While the IDI 1HZ isn't the most optimal platform, I'm building my engine with 1HD-T rods aftermarket upgraded pistons which have proven successful in many other 1HZ-T builds. At the conservative no smoke 20psi tune I plan to run I'm confident it'll be fine, and I'll run a temp sensor in the head, EGT, and A/F meters to be sure. I'm using an efficient turbo (HX-30) with a massive FMIC. I'm building the A442F with upgraded valve body and torque converter, as well as a proven standalone controller. Running a large A/A transmission cooler as well. I'm not worried about reliability. I've also done a bunch of this stuff in other vehicles in the past and learned what works and what doesn't.

One thing I'm super excited to play with on this build is an exhaust brake. The transmission controller I plan to use will accept shift and TC lockup requests via CAN, so I'm planning on using a microcontroller to act as my "engine brake ECU" which will request downshifts, TC lockup, and increased line pressure when the brake is engaged. It'll also handle low speed shutoff. When the brake is disengaged it'll actuate the TV cable (using an extra cruise actuator and some power circuitry to run it) proportionately to boost. I'm not against computers in automotive projects in principle, I just don't much like ones I can't control.

Can't get an exhaust brake in a Grenadier, btw.

But seriously, why do modern engineers try to reinvent the wheel for everything??

this x1000.

80%￶ of everything done since '01 has been the result of crap makework bullshit jobs.

So I'm not looking up the numbers for this but to devils advocate...

Acceleration is way up since then, gasoline cars included. Crash tests are better. Collision avoidance and rear views make us safer as well. Reliability probably peaked already though.

Reliability peaked 2016. I would imagine if it stripped all the electronics you would find wonderfully tuned mechanical parts.

I am not a mechanic but modular systems are great. Transmission and engine. That's all I want in computers to be involved in.

The problem is all those wonderfully tuned, reliable, and efficient mechanical parts require millions of lines of source code and some really intricate wiring to make them move. And you'll never have the documentation or the source code to keep it all going. So that means it'll probably be scrap long before it has reached EOL mechanically.

You get what you measure. We measure part counts, cost, materials and very specific performance objectives.

Creating an end product that is elegant with intelligently integrated subsystems is not something we care about so it doesn't get done.

>What does windows 7 do that windows 10 doesn't? Why does the same web page need 60MBs to load when it only need 1-3MB 10 years ago.

Ads. And tracking code to serve you ads. And AI - that collects your prompts to serve you more ads.

\s

This is also why all of the auto union are against electric cars. Some person working in their garage will no longer be able to work on cars and get a job as a mechanic/technician and instead will need to have the experience of an engineer.

It's very similar to the horse/buggy and car arguments of years past.

Have you seen the inside of a modern ICE vehicle?

You pretty much need trade school to become a qualified mechanic anyways.

Additional, with trade school one can increase the amount they can get paid.

They educate on all vehicle types too, not just ICE.

My education is via YouTube and downloaded service manual, and I’m able to maintain my modern ICE car just fine. My hybrid scares me though. High voltage controlled by computers is nothing to play with.

There is a disconnect. And information on how to properly insulate and isolate away from the voltages that you may be dealing is also easily found.

It requires maybe a bit of research but it's not impossible.

Are you also able to rebuild your engine and transmission? Service every sensor on board your car? Have access to a diagnostic computer and dicern those codes?

I have a modern diesel truck and a 1988 Land Cruiser. I’ve been a mechanic since I was 14 (farm tractors) and was a helicopter mechanic and crew chief in the marines, then a transmission mechanic on cars during college. I’ve got a mechanical engineering degree.

The Land Cruiser requires a lot more of my time working on it, but it’s a dream. I can fix something in a couple hours. The diesel, it’s a nightmare. Everything sucks working in it. Access is horrible, I end up having to jack into the CAN bus all the time, I spent a while with an oscilloscope plugged into it a month ago, and I’ve had to write my own software to interact with it.

Modern cars are more computer than car, and they are pushing more and more towards being fixed like them. I’d rather work on an electric car… what wears out? The cooling system? A bearing? Simple.

The same overcomplex, proprietary computer surveillance systems infect all electric cars because they're all modern. They're all (for some reason?) connected to the internet, subject to OTA updates, and completely locked down to the end user. If a manufacturer would make an EV with open software and systems--no useless internet crap--for less than $100k I'd buy it tomorrow.

Serious question: why would auto unions care whether people can work on their cars in their garage or not?

Unions support whatever gets them dues.

Cars that have shorter service lives would probably be best for automotive workers' unions.

are you advocating or critiquing? i can't tell.

OP is advocating for developing efficient systems that are also easy to maintain. It is a valid concern.