New Fords

Here's the place to chat about all things classic. Also includes a feedback forum where you can communicate directly with the editorial team - don't hold back, they'd love to know what they're doing right (or wrong of course!)
Message
Author
User avatar
JPB
Posts: 9818
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: New Fords

#11 Post by JPB » Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:02 am

rich. wrote:we got a house instead
Sensible fella! :thumbs: My main home is a 1972, Willy Leech-built semi that was erected as part of a scheme that was almost revolutionary, back in the day, for its aerodynamic efficiency at the expense of headroom, this because long before the Government invented climate change, this coast was already used to being blasted by gales.

As for build quality of new cars on an objective level; it's generally atrocious! Penny pinching measures are apparent in every aspect of (for example) that VW's construction, the dash and front door cards were made from a relatively pleasant, rubbery feeling plastic but the ones at the back were made from something that Proton wouldn't have used back in the eighties, when their cars had strips of plastic instead of hinges for glove holes and ashtrays, etc. I get why VAG do this, it's because in spite of the MK7 being bigger than an Austin Maxi there's no room at all behind the driver's seat with someone long legged driving ergo nobody will ever really have time to study just how nasty the materials are.
When I bought the current old car, I did so without having any memories of how they drove or their build quality so was able to compare it objectively to the appalling quality of moderns that I (and others at work) have owned and surprisingly often rejected, a common phenomenon these days compared to during the seventies and not just because it was harder to do then.

The DPF issues that are so widely publicised are a useful tool for makers as they tend to be more newsworthy than the actual problems with new cars. DPFs are fine if people allow them to regenerate actively and the Golf (presumably others too these days) does this regardless of whether the operator wants it to happen because you can turn the key, remove it, leave the car and go indoors and the car will finish the regen then shut itself down and go to sleep. But a few garages up in the islands refuse to sell new Diesels as their roads aren't long enough to allow cars to regenerate passively and all of a sudden, these Daily Mail loving and seventies worshipping enclaves are spearheading a frankly pointless movement to kill off the Diesel as an option. This is all very well but while folk are moaning about DPFs, they're having the wool pulled over their eyes about the actual reliability and quality of other stuff. The only reason that some people consider new motors to be more reliable in general is that the vast majority of new car keepers are running the cars on 3 year finance plans and as such, never own the car so aren't as well placed to go down the legal route to reject their shabbily assembled money pit, this because most - perhaps all, who knows - such plans are full with precise and inescapable small print that provides very specific penalties and escape terms which make rejection an expensive action to see through. And no, I'm not saying that rejecting a car bought outright is going to leave the owner without a single financial disadvantage but as long as it's cheaper than the equivalent period worth of depreciation, it's not too devastating.
Kia, Hyundai and the Maruti brands are supposedly among those that are genuinely good these days and even their punters are finding some issues caused mostly by wiring that's on its limit, cheap electronics and the attendant problems with lead free solder, suspension so hard yet so badly damped that yes, these cars might be brilliant on a smooth, flat, well made Asian super highway but not on the potholed cart tracks that pass for roads in the UK these days.
Maybe the fact that my only truly satisfactory new car was the 1987 FSO 125P 1500 - that I bought from the dealer in Reading back then - is significant? I ran that for a few months and, when a suitably good example of the A60 Farina came along, sold the Polski back to the dealer at a profit because they were short of cars to sell and mine still looked and worked as well as a new one.
Try that with any modern car since the first year's production of the BMW Mini and you'll be laughed at by blokes who wear Paul Smith and carry an unused set of golf clubs in their boot "just in case".

Thanks to work, where one of my duties involves placing the next generation of Mech & Prod engineers, I get to see at first hand the things that are causing cars of all brands to make unscheduled returns to the dealers' workshops as my students are working in these establishments for their practical experience and yes, in spite of the this and the haters' views I still managed to buy cars that failed and what's more I'll gladly admit that the smell of fresh upholstery turned me.
:x

But ask the older, more experienced hands in any major dealership's service department whether their brand is truly reliable or well built and if you've known these folk for any length of time and they can trust you to keep your gob shut, they'll tell it like it is and advise you to spend the cash on something else. Anything else in fact, such as a 12 month taxi voucher, a rail card if you have trains that stop in your area or a motorcycle, apparently they're genuinely better these days. Even better than my CX500? :shock: Surely not. ;)
And don't assume that gadgets make a good car better. The reverse is true.
:lol:
TerryG wrote:Ford's 1.0 ecoboost is a bad new car. They are utterly gutless. Ford claim the same power as a 1.6 but they have so little torque you need to change down to get over a speedbump :S
"Torque", to the owners of such devices, is an Android app that tells them how much fuel their horrid little excuses for engines are wasting! And yes, a good Reliant kitten will leave a new Focus 1.0 Ecoboost standing up any hill from a standing start. As would a decent 1098cc Minor, a 2CV, a 1960s Fiat 500 (OK, maybe not..) or a well piloted Raleigh Chopper.

Is it wrong to overtake an Ecoboost Focus on a 3 lane (two up, one down) section of the - famously mainly uphill :? - A68, then pull back in to the left lane and slow - accidentally of course - to a crawl before booting the kickdown switch in my proper car, with a real engine, so leaving the Focus' driver waving at me with a special waving finger and shouting obscenities at his sackless P.O.S?
John, If it's old & badly broken, chances are I've owned it. :|

3xpendable
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:03 am

Re: New Fords

#12 Post by 3xpendable » Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:42 am

TerryG wrote:Ford's 1.0 ecoboost is a bad new car. They are utterly gutless. Ford claim the same power as a 1.6 but they have so little torque you need to change down to get over a speedbump :S
I have driven a Fiesta with the 1.0 Ecobbost and didn't find it TOO bad, but yes torque is non-existent. It's like the 1.25 Zetec Fiestas when they came out..pretty nipy for a 1.2 but only if you red lined it all the time.

When I get a Mondeo, I think I'll go with the 2.0 Ecoboost. I;ve driven a 1.5 and it was ok, but I can't help thinking that as I want to kEep the car a long time that the engine will wear out. I'd rather lose a bit of economy and have a less worked motor. The people who have 2.0's I know moan about the economu and say get the 1.6/1.5, but its very much how you drive it. If you drive a 2.0 hard like a 1.5, yes the 1.5 will be less of a drinker. But drive the 2.0 sensibly compared to having to rag the 1.5 and I get there is very little difference. I'm still getting low 40's on my run to work in my Mk3 2.0 Duratec.

I have to say, the park assist system is fantastic. So much so my mum is considering getting a Ford next!
Currently classic-less.

3xpendable
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:03 am

Re: New Fords

#13 Post by 3xpendable » Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:49 am

What you have to remember JPB is two things. Sadly 1. Cars are made to be consumable items these days, run for 150,000 miles then be thrown in the bin. 2. Gadget sell cars. For example I and a number of people I know in the business have driven and agreed that a Mazda 3 is better built than a Golf. BUT we know more than one person who has bought a Golf over say the Mazda because it has more funky gadgets or 'better dashboards'...it's just the way this generation is. They don't look at buying quality, they just want the newest and flashest looking car possible, especially with age related plates in this country. Why do you think Dacia are doing so well?

I strongly believe if they ever did away with the age rlated system in the UK, it would decimate the new car sales industry.
Currently classic-less.

suffolkpete
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:54 am

Re: New Fords

#14 Post by suffolkpete » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:44 am

History wrote:If a 100 new cars of different makes are compared and accessed in order then there will be a number one best car snd a number 100 worst car. The difference betwèn the two will be quite narrow. When it gets to the top 10 cars then its gets so subjective that any of the top 10 could be number 1.
Rather like my late grandfather used to say about beer "There's no bad ones but some's better than others." The trouble with modern cars is that while they don't often go wrong, if they do it's beyond the wit of the local grease monkeys to mend them, or the cost of replacement parts is so high that repair is uneconomic, even if you can do it yourself. Cars used to be scrapped when they rusted to bits now I see the scrappie's lorry going by with sound-looking still shiny cars. A lot of the lightness of the fittings in modern cars is driven by a desire to reduce weight in order to meet fuel consumption targets.
1974 Rover 2200 SC
1982 Matra Murena 1.6

User avatar
JPB
Posts: 9818
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: New Fords

#15 Post by JPB » Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:02 am

3xpendable wrote:Why do you think Dacia are doing so well?
I know this one, the answer is James May and his tireless enthusiasm for the Sandero! :D I must admit that I'd just as soon buy a Dacia - if I had to choose between it and its equivalent Renault, Gawd forbid - because badge snobbery becomes a non-thing when the two badges in question are Renault and Dacia. :lol:
And yes, before someone picks this up I did love my R12s, VCU284T followed by VBW723T, and raided scrapyards for Dacia 1310s to get their heavy duty sump guards, their alloys, their three dial dashboards and their tombstone seats to "upgrade" my five speed, 17 Gordini engined 12 Estate with its strut front suspension conversion, its crazy torque steering ways and its ability to try and kill me at least once a week, now I'd miss out the climbing up piles of broken Cortinas to reach a Dacia and just go to the dealership. Were that dealership not part of the same group as the ones that always failed to fix the Golf's odd vibrations. (heater hoses rubbing at the bulkhead, identified when my feet got wet and started to smell of antifreeze..)

I tried out one of the Mazdas when I was car shopping back in 2013 and found it very pleasant indeed but was swayed by the gadgets :oops: and that the Golf was cheaper on the day than the Mazda with a similar arsenal of tech, but I had also owned a few MK2 and MK3 Golfs and found those to be good cars, so the "availability error" (as deceased psychologist Stuart Sutherland labelled this buying phenomenon in his book "Irrationality") was what tripped me up that time, and possibly when I bought the wee Smart fortwo, as a friend's 200,000 mile ex-resort example was a great thing that's going yet and has never suffered from a broken frame, broken interior parts or a broken windscreen caused by that broken frame.
Maybe I'm just luckier with old cars and that's why I love them as I do?


http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1051 ... ationality

suffolkpete wrote:
History wrote:If a 100 new cars of different makes are compared and accessed in order then there will be a number one best car snd a number 100 worst car. The difference betwèn the two will be quite narrow. When it gets to the top 10 cars then its gets so subjective that any of the top 10 could be number 1.
Rather like my late grandfather used to say about beer "There's no bad ones but some's better than others." The trouble with modern cars is that while they don't often go wrong, if they do it's beyond the wit of the local grease monkeys to mend them, or the cost of replacement parts is so high that repair is uneconomic, even if you can do it yourself. Cars used to be scrapped when they rusted to bits now I see the scrappie's lorry going by with sound-looking still shiny cars. A lot of the lightness of the fittings in modern cars is driven by a desire to reduce weight in order to meet fuel consumption targets.
I agree with the part about beer! Mmm, beer. :drool: I also appreciate the weight saving thing but cannot help feeling that, had not all cars become progressively heavier as a result of the production engineers' desire to make them safer when they hit each other, then the accountants' desire to save cash would have had less of an influence on the choice of other materials used and the engineers would have managed to introduce some velour, wood, Rexine and proper carpet to these ever expanding new cars.
I blame whoever it was who first decided that human beings were essentially incapable of not crashing into solid objects and/or into each other, that way cars could have remained lighter, kept their larger glass areas to the benefit of safety and remained a good four to seven inches narrower than the average family hatchback has become since the early years of the current century with no tangible loss of interior space.
John, If it's old & badly broken, chances are I've owned it. :|

User avatar
TerryG
Posts: 6750
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:54 pm
Location: East Midlands

Re: New Fords

#16 Post by TerryG » Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:58 pm

My local garage was shocked that I was prepared to spend over a grand on all new suspension and 4 new Michelin boots for a 10 year old focus with (at the time) 175,000 miles. They were even more shocked when it was back for it's MOT a month later with a gorgeous leather interior (that I got from a scrapped 2009 model).
"Why are you spending all this money on such an old car?" Because it never breaks down, gets me to and from work every day and it's cheaper to fix it than buy something newer.
Interestingly the same garage tells me to keep my "spare" MK1 every year as it's a good reliable car. the MK2 seems to be its unloved little brother.

It was in the garage to have the work completed as all the bolts securing each rear suspension component were rusted solid to the sleeves within the bushes so the rear sub frame needed to be removed so they could be cut out.

It is probably easier to run a modern car on a shoestring than a 60s one as you can get every bit from your local scrappy where as finding a scrapped classic is getting rare.

Even if I had the money to buy something shiny and new it would be difficult to justify on the grounds that the first years depreciation would pay for a REALLY nice used car that would drop in value much more slowly.
Understeer: when you hit the wall with the front of the car.
Oversteer: when you hit the wall with the back of the car.
Horsepower: how fast you hit the wall.
Torque: how far you take the wall with you.

mr rusty
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Harlow, the birthplace of fibreoptic communication, as the town sign says.

Re: New Fords

#17 Post by mr rusty » Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:59 pm

Talk about rose tinted specs!! :lol: let's go back in time to the sixties and seventies.....an average motor then was very lucky to see 100000 miles....most of them were gone, corroded to nothing, generally worn out, by the 10-15 year old age. All my cars back then were cheap time expired absolute heaps!
These days, a modern motor can easily knock off 100k in its first two or three years, no problem at all. Oils are a lot better, engine manufacture tolerances are a lot better, cars are just better all round. Mrs R's Korean diesel, 10 years old now, runs fine, no problems, well on its way to 200k, we've taken it all over Europe. It just works, no dramas, dull as ditchwater, but you know its always going to start and do the job. I do the cambelt every so often, discs and pads, ive done one wheel bearing, I service it, and that's it- no rust, no wiring issues, its just easy..... And that's all that people want!

Thing is, in real terms cars are very cheap now, so much cheaper than they were 30 odd years ago, they are essentially disposable, my dad wouldn't have dreamt of being able to afford a new car when I was a kid, these days, most people who are working can easily buy a new car should they choose to do so.
1968 Triumph Vitesse Mk1 2 litre convertible, Junior Miss rusty has a 1989 998cc Mk2 Metro, Mrs Rusty has a modern common rail diesel thing.

tractorman
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:22 am
Location: Wigton, Cumbria

Re: New Fords

#18 Post by tractorman » Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:09 pm

^^^WHS

As I wrote earlier, I spent a heck of a lot of time under cars and car bonnets in the 70s (and I wasn't working in a garage). OK, a modern Golf's rear door card is rubbish - what about the hardboard that BL used on the Maxi (and others)? Most of the ones I saw were starting to rot after two or three years. A VW garage's storeman once said he preferred the Maxi (he'd worked for a BL garage at one time) but the problems with BL stuff were keeping the oil in and the water out. Much of the cheap lightweight and nasty-looking trim is there because legislation requires much more recycled and recyclable materials to be used in modern cars. The Mk4 Golf was so much nicer inside than the Mk5 is as they could use better materials. And no, I don't like the Mk5 interior at all; however, I do like being able to change the renewable element oil filter without having to crawl about on the ground and have oil pouring down my sleeve (our Maxis all had replaceable element filters)

Golfs have always had poor legroom in the back The Maxis were far better in that department, partly at the expense of boot space, though the back seat squab used to push against the back of the front seats when you wanted to have a decent load area! The Mk2 Golf was worse and the current (Mk5) Golf is even more annoying as the squab is fixed (I assume because of the child safety seat fixings). IIRC, the MkIV Polo has the same external dimensions as a Maxi - but I'd far prefer a Maxi's internal space in a car that size!

Our local garage can work on pretty well any make of new car - they spend a small fortune (for a two-man band) on diagnostic stuff so that they can keep up to date. OK, they might have a job to find the diagnostic socket at times, but they look after Phil's 2010 Transit and 2012 Scenic without too much hassle.

There's nothing clever with the DPF on my older Golf - no self-regenerating after I switch the ignition off (Phil's 1995 Mitsubishi used to "run on" to cool the turbo). However, it doesn't cause me any trouble - especially if I use the more expensive diesel - as it tells me to drop down a few gears for a while and soon clears enough for me to get home without having to do a run up and down the M6! Come to think of it, apart from a door catch, a pair of tyres and an oil change, I have done nothing to the Golf since the new engine was fitted last year.

I do love the Daily Wail - they always have a campaign or a story about what not to eat (or what to eat) to stop you from getting Alzheimer's! I stopped getting it the day Mother died and I don't miss it. However, there is a genuine concern about NOX - one thing that DPFs have done is increase NOX emissions!! Tier IV (or V?) is supposed to stop NOX - using Ad-blue (a urea-based additive if memory serves) as per many modern farm machines - and some Citroens(?). Some of the "sales people" (selling Tier IV or V that is - not the vehicles) say that these new engines produce NO emissions!! Unfortunately, nobody mentions the next Tier when going on about how diesels kill you as it means that the scaremongering is pointless (assuming all moderns are scrapped as quickly as some here suggest!)

User avatar
JPB
Posts: 9818
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: New Fords

#19 Post by JPB » Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:23 pm

Why don't more in the industry use AdBlue I wonder? A tankful lasts for, what, around 15/20k miles, a bottle to replace the saturated solution is a tenner at Halfords (I was in for a can of their contact solvent.. :oops: ) so must be cheaper elsewhere and the system doesn't need the rare metals required for DPFs, or does that not matter when there's still a cat?

Rose tinteds here? not where the current modern is concerned, no, because it's Japanese and as such, works because nobody told it that there was an alternative. Best of both worlds, modern performance with "WTF is that?" looks when we go to shows with it. The Golf had reached the point where it used half the Diesel and I only got to use the remainder! :lol: I bought the grey thing two months ago and have since covered 3,000 miles without its using a single drop of engine oil, coolant, PAS fluid, final drive oil or ATF and I'd happily admit that none of my BL stuff would have been allowed to park in my space at work because of incontinence but all I said was that a 25 year old car these days is modern in every way that it matters, yet doesn't have the troublesome gadgets or the cereal packet build quality. Its rear legroom is just as poor as that of the Golf but then my comment about the Maxi's exceptional space has nothing to do with any perceived absence of real quality in [the Maxi's] build, though at least the Maxi had wood and, in pre-1 1/2 HLs (though not in later HLSs, why, BL?) some leather on the dashboard and steering wheel. OK, so the hardboard substrate found under the vinyl, carpet, leather, etc. on any door card of the era would ship water but only if the cheap sheet of polythene to its rear was compromised by the fitment of door speakers or by taking the trim off to reseat the drop pane into its channel.
MK7 (Golf) had a folding backrest but not the base cushion in the torsion beam-equipped models, which is most probably a safety-related thing and also makes it hard to lose the seat belt stalks under the seat, or am I the only one who does that?

But many modern cars are most certainly not built well, they're simply built equally badly whether it's a Wednesday lunchtime or a Friday night. Only the cheaper brands that I mentioned appear to be a genuine step in the right direction and then only by being almost as well screwed together now as the Washington-built Bluebirds were at the start of Nissan production there back in the '80s.
I think that the Bluebirds that remain in use as private hire cars have actually outlasted all of the Sierras now, yet both are in many cases into their late twenties. As Mr Rusty said, modern cars tend to be dull but as far as better oils are concerned, their benefits apply equally to today's assortment of 25 year old cars which, as experience is showing me, are modern enough to cover vast mileages and besides, didn't we think that A60s and their ilk were dull when the roads were wick with the things back in the eighties?
Maxi seats were on the soft side for sure, but at least they stayed that way through the typical 170,000 plus miles that Dad's eight company Maxis covered each from 1969 through 1984 when the last (and the only troublesome one) finally went off to the auction, the constant dribble of suspension fluid marking its territory as the staff at TTVA pushed it into the ring. On Maxi seats, why did only the passenger seat revolve to make getting in easier? BL can't help with the answer now but I always wondered that.

Image

:ugeek:
John, If it's old & badly broken, chances are I've owned it. :|

kstrutt1
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:55 pm
Location: essex

Re: New Fords

#20 Post by kstrutt1 » Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:35 pm

You still have dpf with the urea based systems, the dpf virtually eliminates particulates, the urea reduces nox so you have both, diesel after treatment nowdays costs as much as the engine!


Ref comment about 1.0 ecoboost,

Not my experince, I have one in a fiesta it's superb it's not got the torque of a diesel but far better than a 1500 non turbo I was diving last week, and if you wind it up the sound is great, only downside is the fuel consumption is nothing liked advertised, getting around 45 mpg, but that seems to be the case with most moderns.

It would make a great transplant in a mini or minor.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest