Reputations

[Guest peter]

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-17 10:19 PM

 

What was the shelf life of an Austin Maxi, or a Ford Cortina, , ah happy days, spending most weekends adjusting the tappets, or the points gap,new brushes in the starter motor, just to be able to get to work the next week, and not to mention all the P38, and P40 progress eh,

Oh! Happy days eh. I can still smell the aroma of P38 in my nostrils now. Not forgetting putting on the brakes on a Ford Classic and the headlights fall out of their rusted out housings. (lol)

[dawki]

Before I bough my Mercedes motorhome I believed they had a reputation for being a reliable van, and the owner wouldn't suffer some of the problems that other base vehicle seem to suffer with these days.

 

Five and a bit years old and not one single problem, so far the reputation I was lead to believe Merc vans had seems to be true.

 

Every base base vehicle should go this lenght of time with no problems, but this clearly is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mel B]

Whilst I totally support people keeping old vehicles going there is ONE thing that certainly cannot be denied as being much less 'acceptable' when compared to newer ones, and that is the safety aspect. For example newer vehicles have crumple zones, better brakes, air bags, ABS, XYZ (or whatever the other incarnations are!). If you choose to keep an older vehicle going then good for you, they may be 'easier' to work on (although parts are not always readily available and they can take a lot more TLC - I speak from experience!) but please do NOT keep on saying that they are any better than the new ones, whilst I absolutely love some of the older vehicles, I'd rather be safe I'm afraid and have at least some of the newer safety measures! :-D

[bolero boy]

As my only two motorhomes have been on the X/250 chassis im not sure how far back before then safety items like ABS and airbags were available. I think its bad that you still have to order a passenger airbag on some new models :-o

As a parallel, my 2002 110,000 mile Audi (my old company car) had driver and passenger airbags, side airbags, head/roof airbags, ABS, traction control, and all manner of other technological safety and comfort items. This was 11 years ago, so it is classed as old by many (even me) but it may have been only a few years before that none of these were available or, possibly, only available on some (premium?) vehicles.

I suspect older motorhomes, possibly even 7 or 8 years old, may not even have a drivers airbag pr ABS?

[sshortcircuit]

dawki - 2013-12-18 10:58 PM

 

Before I bough my Mercedes motorhome I believed they had a reputation for being a reliable van, and the owner wouldn't suffer some of the problems that other base vehicle seem to suffer with these days.

 

Five and a bit years old and not one single problem, so far the reputation I was lead to believe Merc vans had seems to be true.

 

Every base base vehicle should go this lenght of time with no problems, but this clearly is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, how many miles has it done as this is a major factor in assessing reliability?

[Guest pelmetman]

Mel B - 2013-12-18 11:12 PM

 

Whilst I totally support people keeping old vehicles going there is ONE thing that certainly cannot be denied as being much less 'acceptable' when compared to newer ones, and that is the safety aspect. For example newer vehicles have crumple zones, better brakes, air bags, ABS, XYZ (or whatever the other incarnations are!). If you choose to keep an older vehicle going then good for you, they may be 'easier' to work on (although parts are not always readily available and they can take a lot more TLC - I speak from experience!) but please do NOT keep on saying that they are any better than the new ones, whilst I absolutely love some of the older vehicles, I'd rather be safe I'm afraid and have at least some of the newer safety measures! :-D

 

The question is Mel ....... are they more reliable and will their longevity be compromised by their complexity? ;-)..............

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Dave you still don't get it do you,people like newer stuff, that's the top and bottom of it, but...................

 

I note from the repair invoices in my Fiat based Rapido, it had OSF wheel bearing at 18,658 miles, NSF at 23,447, new clutch assembly at 26,766,( mind you it has got a tow bar on the back, mmmm ) and various bits and bobs.

In comparison my old 2002 Avensis when I gave it to my daughter was still on every bit of original equipment, even including the spark plugs...............mileage 127,000, please Toyota, make a motorhome base chassis. ;-)

[pepe63xnotuse]

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-19 9:13 AM

 

Dave you still don't get it do you,people like newer stuff, that's the top and bottom of it, but...................

 

I note from the repair invoices in my Fiat based Rapido, it had OSF wheel bearing at 18,658 miles, NSF at 23,447, new clutch assembly at 26,766,( mind you it has got a tow bar on the back, mmmm ) and various bits and bobs.

 

In comparison my old 2002 Avensis when I gave it to my daughter was still on every bit of original equipment, even including the spark plugs...............mileage 127,000, please Toyota, make a motorhome base chassis. ;-)

 

Mike, as your Avensis was 11+years old, that sort makes Dave's point to a degree though doesn't it. I wonder how many more temperamental, techy bell'n'whisltes have been added to them over the last decade?...

 

My ratty '01(200,000 mile) Hiace, seems simple and pretty bomb proof(although, I've recently had to have the rear diff dropped out and a bearing renewed.Total cost...just £180! ;-)).

 

BUT it does seem from another age, as far as "refinement" is concerned, it's a bit noisy and the ride is quite harsh etc. compared to the later transit/X250/ Renault we've had(...having said that, it's a 200,000 mile works van and has probably been thrashed for most of 'em..)

 

I would agree that it's a pity that Toyota aren't players in the european van/base vehicle market.....

 

 

 

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Oops!

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pepe63 - 2013-12-19 10:00 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-19 9:13 AM

 

Dave you still don't get it do you,people like newer stuff, that's the top and bottom of it, but...................

 

I note from the repair invoices in my Fiat based Rapido, it had OSF wheel bearing at 18,658 miles, NSF at 23,447, new clutch assembly at 26,766,( mind you it has got a tow bar on the back, mmmm ) and various bits and bobs.

 

In comparison my old 2002 Avensis when I gave it to my daughter was still on every bit of original equipment, even including the spark plugs...............mileage 127,000, please Toyota, make a motorhome base chassis. ;-)

 

Mike, as your Avensis was 11+years old, that sort makes Dave's point to a degree though doesn't it. I wonder how many more temperamental, techy bell'n'whisltes have been added to them over the last decade?...

 

My ratty '01(200,000 mile) Hiace, seems simple and pretty bomb proof(although, I've recently had to have the rear diff dropped out and a bearing renewed.Total cost...just £180! ;-)).

 

BUT it does seem from another age, as far as "refinement" is concerned, it's a bit noisy and the ride is quite harsh etc. compared to the later transit/X250/ Renault we've had(...having said that, it's a 200,000 mile works van and has probably been thrashed for most of 'em..)

 

I would agree that it's a pity that Toyota aren't players in the european van/base vehicle market.....

 

 

 

 

 

yes it does reflect Dave's point, but ignores what the sales people know, we all tend to like newer stuff, I was able to do all the things I can do now in my old pop top ex GPO commer van, but would I want to do it now............. :D now shall I get that new 42 inch smart tv for Christmas, despite the fact the same programs are on it that are on my old TV :D

[pepe63xnotuse]

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-19 10:17 AM

 

.. now shall I get that new 42 inch smart tv for Christmas, despite the fact the same programs are on it that are on my old TV :D

 

Just make sure it hasn't got "sensors", which will shut it down(into "limp mode"?) if they detect any dust or fluff in the back. (lol) with the only way to "reboot" it being to book it in with an "authorised dealer"... (lol)

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pepe63 - 2013-12-19 10:36 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-19 10:17 AM

 

.. now shall I get that new 42 inch smart tv for Christmas, despite the fact the same programs are on it that are on my old TV :D

 

Just make sure it hasn't got "sensors", which will shut it down(into "limp mode"?) if they detect any dust or fluff in the back. (lol) with the only way to "reboot" it being to book it in with an "authorised dealer"... (lol)

 

 

yes I know where your coming from, the last one we bought was from John Lewis ( 5 year guarantee ) it started playing up, an engineer was sent, he diagnosed main board was US, quoted JL £460 to supply and replace, when in fact the TV had cost 20 quid less than that ;-)

consequently JL sent us a new one. ;-) a bit more for the landfill.

[AliB]

bolero boy - 2013-12-19 8:50 AM

 

 

As a parallel, my 2002 110,000 mile Audi (my old company car) had driver and passenger airbags, side airbags, head/roof airbags, ABS, traction control, and all manner of other technological safety and comfort items. This was 11 years ago, so it is classed as old by many (even me) but it may have been only a few years before that none of these were available or, possibly, only available on some (premium?) vehicles.

I suspect older motorhomes, possibly even 7 or 8 years old, may not even have a drivers airbag pr ABS?

 

Agree, same as my 1999 Volvo V70 has all the safety features. My only problem with old cars is the pollution. Modern engines are much cleaner.

 

Still I try and cycle for most town journeys. So when I am not dishing out the polution I am breathing it in.

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-19 9:13 AM

 

Dave you still don't get it do you,people like newer stuff, that's the top and bottom of it, but...................

 

I note from the repair invoices in my Fiat based Rapido, it had OSF wheel bearing at 18,658 miles, NSF at 23,447, new clutch assembly at 26,766,( mind you it has got a tow bar on the back, mmmm ) and various bits and bobs.

In comparison my old 2002 Avensis when I gave it to my daughter was still on every bit of original equipment, even including the spark plugs...............mileage 127,000, please Toyota, make a motorhome base chassis. ;-)

 

I don't feel so bad now :D.................My wheel bearing did 70k before it needed replacing............and that I suspect was down to my wheel nut saga *-)............

[Rayjsj]

pepe63 - 2013-12-19 10:00 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-12-19 9:13 AM

 

Dave you still don't get it do you,people like newer stuff, that's the top and bottom of it, but...................

 

I note from the repair invoices in my Fiat based Rapido, it had OSF wheel bearing at 18,658 miles, NSF at 23,447, new clutch assembly at 26,766,( mind you it has got a tow bar on the back, mmmm ) and various bits and bobs.

 

In comparison my old 2002 Avensis when I gave it to my daughter was still on every bit of original equipment, even including the spark plugs...............mileage 127,000, please Toyota, make a motorhome base chassis. ;-)

 

Mike, as your Avensis was 11+years old, that sort makes Dave's point to a degree though doesn't it. I wonder how many more temperamental, techy bell'n'whisltes have been added to them over the last decade?...

 

My ratty '01(200,000 mile) Hiace, seems simple and pretty bomb proof(although, I've recently had to have the rear diff dropped out and a bearing renewed.Total cost...just £180! ;-)).

 

BUT it does seem from another age, as far as "refinement" is concerned, it's a bit noisy and the ride is quite harsh etc. compared to the later transit/X250/ Renault we've had(...having said that, it's a 200,000 mile works van and has probably been thrashed for most of 'em..)

 

I would agree that it's a pity that Toyota aren't players in the european van/base vehicle market.....

 

 

 

 

 

I echo all of the above, My 1997 Toyota Rav4 did over 170,000 miles over 13 years, never needing ANY repairs, Battery, rear shock absorbers, brake discs and pads, wiper blades. serviced it myself, after the warranty ran out. Towed my caravan off of many a muddy field, always started, never left me stranded, even got me out of deep snow. My definition of 'Reliable transport' . It was worth every penny.

I now have a Yaris, and would only buy Toyota cars.(you can keep your BMW's,Mercedes and Audi's) If they made a van chassis,and someone put a c/b body on it , I would be very tempted. Ray

[Brock]

Mel, I'm not sure I agree entirely with you on the safety aspects.

 

New vehicles have tremendous passive safety features such as airbags that improve your chance of surviving a crash. However, I wonder whether progress on active safety - to stop you crashing in the first place - is having a positive impact to the same extent except when it comes to road design such as improving dangerous bends or setting lower speed limits.

 

Whilst old vehicles are generally poor on passive safety - I'd prefer to be in a new Fiat than an old Commer in the event of a crash - they are pretty good on active safety because you have to drive them carefully to avoid the often fatal consequences of crashing. There is research suggesting people in modern vehicles have lowered their driving standards because they feel safely cocooned in passive safety systems.

 

The solution to reducing road deaths to almost zero is not additional passive safety features but in the active safety feature of a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel and the removal of seatbelts and airbags etc. That will make drivers behave more sensibly, stop crash scams, and eliminate whiplash claims. It may not be a socially acceptable approach.

 

Whilst logic and engineering will overwhelmingly support the view that newer vehicles are safer than older vehicles, once you introduce human behaviour such as attitude to risk when driving, it is not as clear cut.

 

Some of the german manufacturers [and maybe UK ones] highlight the passive safety of their vehicles as part of their commitment to building a quality reputation.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

Brock - 2013-12-19 9:57 PM

 

Mel, I'm not sure I agree entirely with you on the safety aspects.

 

New vehicles have tremendous passive safety features such as airbags that improve your chance of surviving a crash. However, I wonder whether progress on active safety - to stop you crashing in the first place - is having a positive impact to the same extent except when it comes to road design such as improving dangerous bends or setting lower speed limits.

 

Whilst old vehicles are generally poor on passive safety - I'd prefer to be in a new Fiat than an old Commer in the event of a crash - they are pretty good on active safety because you have to drive them carefully to avoid the often fatal consequences of crashing. There is research suggesting people in modern vehicles have lowered their driving standards because they feel safely cocooned in passive safety systems.

 

The solution to reducing road deaths to almost zero is not additional passive safety features but in the active safety feature of a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel and the removal of seatbelts and airbags etc. That will make drivers behave more sensibly, stop crash scams, and eliminate whiplash claims. It may not be a socially acceptable approach.

 

Whilst logic and engineering will overwhelmingly support the view that newer vehicles are safer than older vehicles, once you introduce human behaviour such as attitude to risk when driving, it is not as clear cut.

 

Some of the german manufacturers [and maybe UK ones] highlight the passive safety of their vehicles as part of their commitment to building a quality reputation.

 

 

In the mid 1980s 5,500 people were killed every year on our roads. In 2012, despite a massive increase in the number of vehicles and miles driven the figure had come down to 1750.

 

Britain now has one of the best road safety records in Europe.

 

People die for various reasons such as drink driving or aggressive driving, but of the 1750 deaths only 300 were caused by careless driving, which rather contradicts your theory that people drive sloppily because they are cocooned in a safety bubble.

 

Incredibly, 200 of the 1750 were because seat belts weren't being used!

 

There are may reasons of course for the drop in fatalities, greater focus on drink driving and speeding, better designed roads and lower speed limits, but the main contributing factor is the vastly improved design and safety features of modern cars.

 

Your steering wheel spike is an old chestnut and I know you're not serious. If you are and it's ever adopted I hope that no one runs into you head-on and catapults you into the spike. It would be a shame to die when you're either stationary or driving safely and within the limit!

 

 

[Mel B]

Brock - 2013-12-19 9:57 PM

 

Mel, I'm not sure I agree entirely with you on the safety aspects.

 

New vehicles have tremendous passive safety features such as airbags that improve your chance of surviving a crash. However, I wonder whether progress on active safety - to stop you crashing in the first place - is having a positive impact to the same extent except when it comes to road design such as improving dangerous bends or setting lower speed limits.

 

Whilst old vehicles are generally poor on passive safety - I'd prefer to be in a new Fiat than an old Commer in the event of a crash - they are pretty good on active safety because you have to drive them carefully to avoid the often fatal consequences of crashing. There is research suggesting people in modern vehicles have lowered their driving standards because they feel safely cocooned in passive safety systems.

 

The solution to reducing road deaths to almost zero is not additional passive safety features but in the active safety feature of a 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel and the removal of seatbelts and airbags etc. That will make drivers behave more sensibly, stop crash scams, and eliminate whiplash claims. It may not be a socially acceptable approach.

 

Whilst logic and engineering will overwhelmingly support the view that newer vehicles are safer than older vehicles, once you introduce human behaviour such as attitude to risk when driving, it is not as clear cut.

 

Some of the german manufacturers [and maybe UK ones] highlight the passive safety of their vehicles as part of their commitment to building a quality reputation.

 

 

Ah ... a Jeremy Clarkson fan .... *-)

 

Driver 'risk' can only account for so much ... you haven't seen how pelmetman drives his Horace have you!!! I think he's the one who taught the Stig how to power-slide!!!! (lol) :D

 

[bolero boy]

AliB - 2013-12-19 11:08 AM

 

bolero boy - 2013-12-19 8:50 AM

 

 

As a parallel, my 2002 110,000 mile Audi (my old company car) had driver and passenger airbags, side airbags, head/roof airbags, ABS, traction control, and all manner of other technological safety and comfort items. This was 11 years ago, so it is classed as old by many (even me) but it may have been only a few years before that none of these were available or, possibly, only available on some (premium?) vehicles.

I suspect older motorhomes, possibly even 7 or 8 years old, may not even have a drivers airbag pr ABS?

 

Agree, same as my 1999 Volvo V70 has all the safety features. My only problem with old cars is the pollution. Modern engines are much cleaner.

 

Still I try and cycle for most town journeys. So when I am not dishing out the polution I am breathing it in.

My TDi still rates as reasonably 'green' and does almost 50mpg. Still on the original clutch, exhaust, wheel bearings etc. was also on the original battery (working perfectly) until my daughter 'forgot' to run it for me while we were away for 4 months last autumn. It does need new discs/pads next service.

Car worth about £1500-£2000 bit to replace with todays equivalent £30000 ish! Like it too much to change.

Not good at throwing away stuff that works...have a wonderful 32" Panasonic CRT TV which was our main tv, then got moved to our bedroom when we got a large flatscreen a few years ago, has now slipped into the second bedroom due to us getting a more manageable slim one for our room. Trouble is, these things are massive.....could do with chucking but the picture is soooooo good....

 

[AliB]

bolero boy - 2013-12-19 11:30 PM

.....could do with chucking but the picture is soooooo good....

 

Careful Chris, Dave will be along with a "Progress eh" posting

[lennyhb]

Well if we are bragging about old cars - my wife's 1999 Hyundia has had less than 500 quid spent on it in the 10 years we have had it, most expensive bill was a new cam belt at £110 didn't bother to change that until it was 10 years old, had to have a new battery at 8 years. Last year was it's first ever MOT failure on corroded brake pipes cost me a few quid in bits and 50 quid for a little man for labour as I couldn't be bothered to crawl underneath it.

I try not to do anything to it, working on the theory it will blow up one day and we can buy her a nice shiny new car. Theory not working damn thing just keeps going on and on.