BS: Automobile quality

Subject: BS: Automobile quality
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:41 AM

The link below indicate that some of the Hyundai models have slipped in quality since 2008 (they employed a former Toyota exec. In the mid 00s to improve quality (along with getting quality control Toyota quality control documents, and it seemed to have worked).

Any information to share on recent auto quality, or lack of it?


hyundai

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Ed T
Date: 05 May 14 - 06:39 AM

Diesel cars 

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:16 PM

I usually buy what the industry calls premium cars. However, my last car, sandwiched between a Jag S Type and my present BMW 5 series was a Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 diesel.

I fancied a 4x4 for a change and couldn't justify to myself why the ones I was looking at were twice the price of the Hyundai yet not twice the quality.

In just under 3 years and 50k miles, nothing went wrong, nothing buggered and other than a recall for the rear brake light line, just servicing trips.

The brand new one looks the part too, and I was happy enough with my "old" model.   I shall be keeping an eye out for future models but I did like it, and can see why they feel they can offer a full five year warranty.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:29 PM

A daughter has had a Santa Fe for several years and swears by it. The new ones seem even better; we hear no complaints here about Hyundai.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:51 PM

The Hyundai Santa Fe Sport AWD lists here at $27,000, 2.4 gasoline model, taxes and transportation included, and the Elite diesel somewhere over $40,000, but local dealers don't give the price.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 May 14 - 08:59 PM

This world cannot afford to have internal combustion engines, not if we don't want our grandchildren to use shanks' mare their whole lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:01 AM

Guest#

Shouldn't you be out hugging a few trees?

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 14 - 04:09 AM

I'm far from sure that that stuff about diesels is right. I have been hearing about invisible particulates - too small to be seen - causing lung problems. I have a friend who goes to Canada all summer every summer, and I gather that fuel line freezing is still a major problem for diesels in the Canadian winter, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 06 May 14 - 05:24 AM

Many years ago, you could stick a bit of petrol in the diesel tank to stop it waxing. The additives here are sufficient though. The other winter, -15 and ok.

Modern diesels, with the ludicrously high pressure injection systems, you can't add petrol or there will be tears at invoice time.

The diesel particulate filters on cars built to Euro V spec capture the health issue size ranges fairly efficiently. Granted, the huge engines on lorries and some buses can't filter at that level due to back pressure and the volume of exhaust.

I have driven diesel cars for many years, since the first decent car size (Citroen BX!) and never looked back. In fact Mrs Musket recently bought a Mercedes SLK with the Diesel engine. The torque is stunning and I enjoy driving it every bit as much as the Porsche Cayman I toyed with buying but decided one of us had to have a sensible car....

Back to Hyundai, if they put that 2.2 from the Santa Fe in a saloon, they'd have a winner.

Q. They only come with the diesel option over here. No petrol variant available.



To be fair Bridge, if manufacturers had done as much R&D on petrols as they have on diesels in recent years, we might get somewhere. But I have a large car that goes when you ask it to, fairly briskly out of corners too, and I get 50mpg. For a car almost 200bhp that's not a reason for looking at petrol. The intelligent auto box keeps you in the "narrow" torque band.

I looked at your favourite car Volvo but both their diesels in the V70 or S80 are old now and compared to the BMW or Merc, it shows in gruffness.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 14 - 06:09 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/03/smog-diesel-dust-particulates-saharan-dust

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 14 - 06:10 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-engine-pollution-premature-deaths-costs-nhs-billions

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Ed T
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:02 AM

Diesel fumes more damaging to health than petrol engines 

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 06 May 14 - 09:00 AM

Yes they are.

But not cars built to Euro V. Source - Public Health England.

That said, statistics of DPF efficiency etc are somewhat subjective. At this time, less than 10% of cars are EuroV or VI compliant and add lorries etc to the equation and the issue is huge.

But an issue that is being addressed. The story as ever focuses on the damage and skirts over the detail. What can we do about lorries and buses? Difficult. What can we do about cars? They already have done. Just got to wait for old Volvos to rust up beyond repair now.

Public health epidemiology is fascinating and I find it most useful in helping plan services. It isn't used as much as favours to MPs of course, and ministers will always veto good ideas for unexplained reasons, but the evidence based reasons for having x available in y location take this into account.

For instance, when you plot respiratory disease, you get clusters around areas of high volume traffic. Nothing new in the story. Just interesting to see how it is used to give money to newspaper barons. (Politically, The Grauniad thinks public transport is as good in the whole of The UK as it is in London, so relies on tree huggers for its profit. )

On that subject. Are you interested yet in my BSkyB shares Bridge? If you had taken them off me when I got them, they are up 53% since then. A good capitalist profit of £22,300.00.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:08 PM

Guidelines in both U. S. and Europe have reduced emissions from diesel cars by "99 percent" according to news reports.
Older diesels, and truck/lorry diesels, however, are common and have a broad spectum of emissions.

Gasoline engines may have little advantage re NO emissions when new models are considered.

It is difficult to evaluate possible dangers, but high traffic volume areas are areas where respiratory disease incidence is high (McMusket, above).

The expense of replacement and/or conversions is a problem that people don't want to face.

China has shelved its proposed standards for diesel emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:18 PM

"Guest#

Shouldn't you be out hugging a few trees?"



Guest McMusket,

Shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about future generations?

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:06 AM

Yeah. I want them to enjoy the freedom of personal transport in the same way as I do.

This idea of sharing buses with smelly shell suits that spark never took off.

The anti car lobby isn't on ecological grounds, it is purely on chippy envy and misplaced concern. The most ecologically sound car I own is a 1968 E Type Jag. Despite the 12 cylinder engine and if I'm lucky 12 mpg, it is far more kind to the planet than a new Prius.

Stand behind a bus when it pulls out and see if you still like public transport.

Prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:17 AM

Musket - I am as bemused by the popularity of BSkyB as you are by pubic transport - and I worked on a number of the original contracts for it.

What is your rationale about your Jag - is it that the manufacturing environmental costs are long gone, which would also apply to my Volvos which are less rust-prone? I have been known to argue that Land Rovers (pre-Range-Rover period) are very ecofriendly because you can keep fixing them for ever so the eco-costs of manufacture are minimised. Or that the batteries on a Prius are a menace?   Or that you only drive it about 12 miles a year?

I'd prefer an early 3.8 E type FHC, but the V12s were nice if vulgar.

A good ecoweapon, recyclingwise, would have been the Africar if it used the classic VW flat four, although the modified 2CV gearbox would then have been a weak point and I think it would have been tricky to get 4WD out of the VW box.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:42 AM

Bang on Bridge. I thought of mentioning your old Volvos actually.

I wrote a paper for The Institute of Mechanical Engineers many years ago together with a guy from Toyota. Whilst the paper was about LEAN manufacturing, we took the opportunity of his in depth knowledge of the car industry to make a few calculations.

Based on Toyota at Derby, and bearing in mind that factory is quite efficient, and their knowledge of their raw materials coming in....   A typical car from them uses 92% of it's projected carbon footprint before it leaves the dealership.

In a way, I'd prefer the V6 as not all 12 fire till it warms up....   But once the giggle factor cuts in, (I have had retro brakes and suspension fitted so not quite original) I forgive it.

I drive about 500 miles a year and spend long winter nights in the garage playing with it. A hobby, fun and not exactly part of my car strategy. But a point verses the tree hugging argument all the same.

I am not bemused by the popularity of BSkyB, just embarrassed that the evil empire has made me some serious dosh. But that's Adam Smith for you eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 14 - 06:38 AM

That 92% figure is useful thank you. Time to go back to bat at the government about the 25 year rolling road-tax exemption.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Ed T
Date: 07 May 14 - 06:57 AM

Jag = Lucas electronics+iron oxide.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 12:11 PM

Too true Ed... Mind you my last day to day car but one was a Jag with Ford electronics, slightly better than Lucas!   When the outside temp probe went, I bought one for a Mondeo at half the price of the same thing for a Jag. The Jag one even had a Ford logo on it...

Another reason why I shan't go to heaven is that both doors and bonnet are pattern part aluminium and when I stripped it down completely, I had what was left cold dip galvanised. It isn't rustproof but it is as near as damn it...

Oh, I put electronic ignition, copper sandwich head gaskets, modified cam shafts and valves, inter cooler, better radiator and stainless exhausts, as well as valve seat inserts for unleaded.

That 92% is even more of an argument than it seems Bridge. The factory at Burnaston is very efficient and only gets it's raw parts, including steel, aluminium etc from European rolling mills. Look at Hyundai (err.. We are supposed to be talking Hyundai remember?) and their reliance on Chinese steel and aluminium.....   I bet the figure is even higher. Much higher.

If you ignore the carbon footprint of raw materials and assume zero when they hit the factory, you are still over 30%...,.

Subject: RE: BS: Automobile quality
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 May 14 - 12:24 PM

I swear by my 1972 BMW CS coupe. Actually, it is now in a son's hands. The best car I have driven.
At the time I bought it, I looked seriously at Jaguar, but found them uncomfortable in ride, and feel on mountain roads.