New and the Old

Well, got to say I don't have much. I agree with your comments the modern 4x4 machine is a remarkable bit of engineering. The days of diff locks, locked hubs and manual gearboxes have certainly moved on. I think one area that needs a massive overhaul is the fuel industry and the inconsistency of particularly diesel fuel quality between the different companies. The other interesting observation is the smaller engines yet having more torque, the new dual cabs are a great example of this with much better fuel economy as well.

I reckon all the tech is great, but your question should be how long do you plan on keeping the vehicle. Today's tech is limited to a lifespan of x, What x is open to conjecture . Perhaps it is not the motor that karks it first perhaps it maybe the electrically assisted oil pump that disintegrates beforehand that leads to a blown motor. A couple of autos before warranty due to a poor design of cooling ( existed in various forms for 10 + years ) .
In this day and age of high turnover own it for 2 years and it is someone elses problem it is very hard to judge but I would be surprised if we see the days of 500,000 k vehicles that were common place in the past.
Still yet to see Ford come out and advise an oil change on their auto," FILLED FOR LIFE " says it all .

Slow one - All you have to remember is yesterdays vehicles were low tech and high tolerance.
Todays vehicles are high tech and low tolerance.
They won't tolerate the variance in operating conditions, or put up with abusive treatment that the old vehicles did.

Old Bosch-type mechanical fuel system injectors have a single orifice that tolerated dirt and carbon buildup - and water in the fuel.
CR injectors have multiple orifices that are extremely fine.
They clog up, and stick, and wear, with carbon from combustion, and with varnish and gums that come from the fuel, which is heated to higher temperatures in CR injectors.
They operate at such high pressures they can suffer from shattering of the highly hardened components if even the tiniest amount of water or dirt gets into the injector.
You need to clean CR injectors very regularly - as little as every 50,000kms.
The clearances in the CR injection systems between the pintle and body are around 2.5 microns - one ten-thousandths of an inch.
Even the tiniest amount of fuel varnish will affect injector performance adversely.

The early diesel bangers suffered from dirty oil rapidly, because they were gutless and everyone drove them flat to the floor, to keep them percolating at highway speed - or to keep up the pace, if you were towing.

The old mechanical fuel systems in the Jap vehicles were controlled by a butterfly valve in the intake manifold - and the variation in intake vacuum was measured by an aneroid (a diaphragm) attached to the fuel pump rack.
Low vacuum from wide open throttle saw the rack permanently slammed to the firewall and kept there.
This led to constant overfuelling - evidenced by the trail of constant black smoke pouring from your exhaust, that everyone behind could see - but you couldn't.
This constant overfuelling saw lots of carbon produced - and half went out the exhaust and the other half went down past the rings - turning your oil black and thick, within 5000kms!

Todays engines produce less smoke and carbon, because computers control the fuel injection more precisely.
However, todays EGR systems are a solution to emissions that we can do without. They are a constant source of trouble with carbon buildup - so no real gain on that front.

There's way too much plastic in todays vehicles. It breaks too easily and it degrades with heat and time.
I hate the stuff being used in radiator tanks and in important switches and engine and transmission solenoids.
Ford auto tranny experts will tell you that you should never run Ford/ZF transmissions at more than 93 deg C (200 deg F) or you will incur problems with plastic solenoids starting to melt.

There is little doubt that modern technology has produced improved engines, transmissions and performance.
Better materials in new types of steels and cast irons, and alloys, have resulted in superior performance and lower wear rates.
Newer oils have substantially improved lubricating abilities, and the newest engines and transmissions would have not been able to be produced without them.

The downside of all the latest technologies is a need for a plethora of sophisticated diagnostic equipment that the older vehicles didn't need.
Then there is the feature that no-one repairs anything any more - they just replace components and panels.
Major damage results in write-offs that would appall the old folks. You send the vehicle to the scrapper and go buy another one.

In terms of value and performance, we are far better off than our grandparents - who forked out huge sums to acquire vehicles that had poor brakes, poor steering, poor handling and crappy seats.
What they enjoyed was the ability to fix their vehicle when it stopped, and to abuse them mercilessly, which the old vehicles would tolerate.

In terms of roads and highways - the old folk would be stunned at what we have today.
This is where the comparison really ends - because we have such superb roads today, vehicles just last longer.
I often wonder how we'd go if we jumped into a time machine and took our current vehicles back to the 60's - and the roads and conditions of that era.
I don't reckon they would do as well as we'd like to think.

Cheers, Ron.

FWIW I read an engineer writing about oil life and he reckoned it's the additives that fail far earlier than the oil.
Of course oil picks up crud from the combustion process as well but modern filtration is much better than it used to be - if you pay for it.

hi
If every body is to believe that under normal conditions the Ford trans will do 240,000kms. This is very very unlikely . The oil and transmissions of recent are suppose to be better but not to that extent . Do people believe that the oil will keep particles in suspension for 240k.Just occasionally the oil does not suspend the particles ,there goes the tranny .. This service recommendation is excellent is if the owner is a little naïve. Great trans it still works does it not ..!!
50,000--60,000km oil filter and converter flush
oil additives still break down
Do Ford suggest EGR and or sensor cleaning NO
Do Ford inspect manifolds that fill with oil sludge /carbon NO
Can Ford install diff filler plugs at the correct height NO

Do modern car maker leave other items of there maintenance schedules YES

swampy

Maybe what we need to keep in mind is a term that became extremely unpopular when it was first coined.

"planned obsolescence" I think it was a concept first adapted to the auto industry by GM back in the 1930's

How long do you think Ford or any other vehicle manufacturer would keep going if we all kept our vehicles for 10 years and 500,000 k's minimum.

Remember the first object for any manufacturer is to make their product last long enough and require the minimum of maintenence and general running costs for a period of time long enough for customers not to desert them in droves, but not that long that they cost the Earth and last forever.

I get the feeling that some of us oldies don't like the idea that we can't just break out the spanners and with a few simple tools and materialS fix a stopped vehicle on the side of the road.
Personally I now carry a jack and wheel brace, a mobile phone and my membership card for the RAC.

Cheers
Pop

I think we are now in a situation where the fuel injected petrol motor is very mature and stable ...... the better examples are incridibly reliable, require very little attention and run for a lot of KM.

But it was not always the case ....... when they baught polution gear in in the 70's ..... some of the manufacturers .... Ford and Holden for example suffered badly ..... with some of their engines suffering badly from power and fuel economy loss compared to the previous models. .... other manufacturers ..... like the Japanese did not seem to suffer as badly, because their engines where already more modern, more efficient and the polution gear was not just bolted on as an after thaught.

Diesel in now in that sort of phase ....... the early petrol motors of the 60's and 70's where very simple and pretty reliable ..... but they still required regular service ........ the diesel engines on the other hand where already mature in their form of the time, and where an excelent proposition..... particularly when diesel was 2/3 the price of petrol.
We are now in the situation where the ever stricter polution controlls have been imposed on diesel ....... and the technology is still srtuggling to find its feet ....... it may be argued that the polution expectations have gone a step too far.
Diesel has always been known to have problems with contamination ....... this is why pretty much every diesel engine has a water trap.

I believe the polution problem with diesel is not the engine or its systems ..... but the fuel we run it on ...... and the fuel is the problem ..... it simply has not developed sufficiently to support the expectations of the diesel engine ....... witness to that is the VW immission test cheating scandal .....all the manufacturers are struggling to meet emmissions.

One other issue with common rail is the failure of all the light vehicle manufacturers to fit sufficient fuel filtration systems to their vehicles ...... they are all too keen to blame the fuel companies ...... but there will always be contamination issues with diesel fuel in its current form.
look at modern earth moving equipment and heavy transport ......you will see far more effort in the fuel filtration systems fitted.

We are seeing less problems with common rail than we did a few years ago ..... but I don't think common rail is as mature, stable or reliable as it should be

Cheers