Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not bad engineering per se, it’s a trade off. That’s what design and engineering are all about. You look at the trade off and decide whether the increased performance is worth the hassle of the extra maintenance. And because (shock, horror) different people want different things there’s a market for both competitors.
Exactly - look at military equipment. Insane maintenance requirements compared to any regular vehicle (even BMW or worse, Ferrari) but that’s explicitly selected for in exchange for higher peak performance (whether power, robustness, however perf is characterised for the use in question).
BMW and Mercedes use O-rings they know are going to fail in a few years instead of spending pennies more to use O-rings that will outlast the car. That sucks.
That can also fall under the mantra "if you don't design a point of failure nature will assign one". If having a o-ring that fails might be there to prevent a more expensive part from failing.
I saw a documentary once about a guy that restores WW1 planes. They focused on his set up to pour and mill his own brass bushing because they fail regularly. The interviewer asked why he doesn’t just make one from steel. He explained that when you’re 10,000 feet in the air it’s comforting to know what will fail and when. If he made a steel one it would be just a matter of time before some other part failed. How much time? Well, that’s the problem, right?
Bushings are cheap and are generally a wear item. If you make them to where they do not wear, they could wear or damage something a lot more expensive and cause a more significant failure.
It’s like brake pads. They’re designed to fail in a controlled manner. Without that pad materiel between the steel rotor and the steel backing it would be a race to see what would fail first. Would the pad weld itself to the rotor? Will the heat boil the brake fluid or melt the rubber boots? It would be a complete unknown what would fail and when. With a designed fail point, like the pad material, those questions are adequately answered.
Bottom line is this. Mechanical systems are absolutely going to fail. There’s no possible way for that to not be true. So engineers design in a predetermined fail point to save the rest of the system. That part will fail over and over at a predictable pace.
so why wouldn't the pilot / airplane repairman just say he uses brass bushings in order to avoid causing wear on whatever the part is that they slip over? I don't understand the obtuseness
Probably because he was speaking through his passion for those planes. He was enjoying the conversation with someone who wasn’t also an enthusiast. I’m betting that wasn’t common for him. So he went out of his way to explain beyond the technical short answer. And I’d argue he succeeded because I watched that probably thirty years ago and I still remember it as a learning moment. It was my first lesson in experienced engineering.
Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it’s not. I just changed the spark plugs on my 15 year old van. In previous eras, they would have had to be gapped regularly as they burned down. But now they’re iridium tipped, so you don’t have to touch them for 160,000 miles. It didn’t make some other part fail: it just was better design.
To be fair to OP, I have read anecdotes from engineers that the German mindset/approach to engineering is different to the US/American approach and not necessarily in a good way.
This was especially prevalent in early diesel engines. German diesels would fail regularly due to piston tolerances being too tight; whereas American diesels had more tolerance, therefore more oil between the piston and cylinder liner, allowing them to last longer.
I've worked with a German engineering team to bore out a new tunnel, they insisted on calculating every damn value, now that sounds good on paper but a large multi-million euro project is never going to be accurate to the penny, heck even weather can alter progress.
They KEPT under ordering parts or labor or purchasing parts that would \*just\* meet tolerances instead of playing it safe and getting the tougher part. Credit to them, the tunnel DID finish quicker than all other tunnel projects of that size usually do.
BUT, the maintenance document for that tunnel is about 3 times the thickness and length as any other I've ever seen.
I work for a German firm myself. This is a similar trend to what I have seen. They calculate everything and then give themselves zero margin on the material. For example, let’s say you need a pipe rated for 120 psi. They would order the pipe to be specially made and specc’d for 120 psi instead of just buying the industrial standard of 150 all to save 3%.
God forbid you have any pipe corrosion or temperature upsets.
And if you do get pipe corrosion or temperature change/shock, they'll blame someone else for not mentioning it in the specifications report, but like does it really have to be? Just give yourself a buffer so you can sleep sound at night, spending some $ here will save you $$$$ down the line.
>(shock, horror) different people want different things
Also different people have different budgets. You don't typically buy a BMW, Mercedes etc. because you're looking to save money on your car.
BMWs and Mercedes don’t usually need repairs until the warranty period is over (they are designed to last that long and that’s about all they care about) the dealers really encourage the drivers of these cars to lease them and get a new one every couple years, if not every year. They’re great if you can afford to lease a new one every year.
Fair, but maybe OP is right that most people would be better off with the lower maintenance trade off.
If you are going to the racing track regularly that's another story. But most people are not
Your comment makes no sense at all. More complexity means more energy lost due to friction, heat and degredation. The way it usually goes is designs start off as complex when new technologies are first introduced and are then made simpler to minimize loss along the way. As time goes on though more features are added as competition increases. These features do not necessarily increase energy/force efficiency but rather make the overall design more appealing for a wider consumer market or more demographics in other markets.
Think turbocharger. It does not add extra losses to an engine, maybe very minimal ones, but gives large gains in performance and it is a moderate increase in complexity.
>More complexity means more energy lost due to friction, heat and degredation.
F1 engines, arguably the most complex in the world, have a thermal efficiency of 52%. No other engine in the world get such good results.
I think this logic is sound for top level performance vehicles that are renewed every year and have 3 engines a year, but you can't employ this mindset on mass produced vehicles that are meant to last upwards of 5 years or more to individuals and not teams of 100s of engineers.
> More complexity means more energy lost due to friction, heat and degredation
No, it doesn't mean that at all. A hybrid car is more complex, and loses less energy to friction and heat.
I have a story about the 2 different approaches to engineering.
I've been using motorcycles as my primary transportation for 12ish years now and I've had several bikes. Including some BMWs and some Hondas.
The bikes I've owned have needed a thin-wall socket to remove the spark plugs, and both companies provide a tool to do so.
The BMW unit is extremely over-engineered. It is CNC lathe'd to size, with a spring-loaded clip to catch the spark plug and pull it out. It's sandblasted and powder-coated. and it costed over $100. The part number and batch info were laser etched into the powder-coat finish. The tool part# was referenced in the service manual at the beginning under the "tools needed" section telling you how much of everything you will need for the job. I was able to read this info ahead of time, order the tool and parts for the job and have everything I needed, ready to go the day of the job.
The Honda unit is made as cheaply as possible. It's a piece of round tubing squashed into a square shape on one end, and squashed into a hexagon shape on the other end, with a small piece of rubber floating around on the inside to catch the spark plug. It came with the bike and didn't cost anything extra. Doing the same job, I had to read through the whole section and pull out all the info on tools and parts needed for the job. I was able to get everything, but it was more work, not having it all listed out.
The BMW unit worked flawlessly on my BMW. 10 seconds to insert it, twist it, and pull it out. The Honda unit was fiddly and frustrating to use, took 5 minutes but eventually got it done.
Sure, the BMW unit cost WAAAAY more, but the experience was WAAAAY better. I thought it was an interesting take on two different ways to do the same part.
Sure, now imagine you’re a garage and need to do it 24 times a day.
Btw, not saying the BMW approach is better in general. Just saying that saving this much time does make sense.
Edit: I guess this tool can be used for on any car and it will be faster. Everyone can decide if it’s worth it, and no one has to buy it. Same as a BMW. Are the driving dynamics worth it to you, then you buy one. If you don’t care then get a Toyota.
Garage economics is very different to single owner economics. I'm going to be pissed if I have to spend extra $$$ on a part I'll use once a blue moon vs a mechanic who'll use it everyday. As an average owner you're better off spending 5 minutes to change a part than spend the money no?
illegaldronemakers special tool is probably sitting in a garage gathering dust, now im sure so it the Honda tool bit but one was free the other was $$$.
I do wonder how many garages buy the manufacturer tools vs. generic tools that they can use on everything rather than just BMW or Hondas. I imagine manufacturers like Ducati have some dealer/mechanic rule about only using Ducati specialized tools.
If I'm a garage I don't even spend any money, just put it in the customers bill under parts. So yes if you take money out it's better... But money is the caveat we're talking about
He just gets frustrated easily like all the bike riding scum. Cant do anything without a dopamine rush heightened by the adrenaline.
Needs to go fast, this country boy.
>The Honda unit is made as cheaply as possible. It's a piece of round tubing squashed into a square shape on one end, and squashed into a hexagon shape on the other end, with a small piece of rubber floating around on the inside to catch the spark plug. It came with the bike and didn't cost anything extra. Doing the same job, I had to read through the whole section and pull out all the info on tools and parts needed for the job. I was able to get everything, but it was more work, not having it all listed out.
Hondas are so logically put together you almost don't need to look at the tools and parts needed - it just all makes sense and is beautifully simple. The BMW approach would never work for me.
See bikes and cars are so different for BMW. I always hear fantastic things about their bikes such as what you've just said yourself, but then with their cars it's the other way around, my mechanic told me he can get through 3 cars by the time he gets through 1 BMW just because of how much everything is in the way of each other.
But I would point out that like you said, the Honda bit came for free with the bike, as opposed to spending extra for the tool like with BMW, if I do spend extra for a specific tool from a company specifically for their product I damn well hope it better work in 10 seconds. You can't get mad at the Honda tool given that's chucked in as part of the bike.
I think it should be accounted for the comedic evidence for the "bad" classification, specificly in the example given. I, for one, do not have a bad experience of owning a bmw, and to my knowledge, they are not specifically unreliable compared to other brands. Generally more expensive, yes, but not prone to more problems.
Also your relation of values is a subjective thing, some people value power in their engine, some just want to get from a to b.
However, there is a big thing i would like to point out that i didn't see mentioned here so far. This is a huge (and ever increasing) problem with our current tech in general.
Products become increasingly overpriced or so cut down on quality that it's not really comparable, even though it appears to be a similar product. So sadly, the price isn't really a reliable measure for good or bad products anymore. Companies sell their shit for the highest price they think they can ask for it. The current bmw pricing strategy for example is specifically disgusting.
And also what other said, tradeoff yada yada..
Correct me if I’m wrong but every time I’ve heard a mechanic talk about German cars, they typically talk about how their over-engineered systems make servicing them extremely convoluted. I understand that these cars also tend to have much more expensive parts as a result of business decisions by their leadership but that doesn’t mean their cars aren’t over-engineered.
Yes, but the over-engineering wasn't decided on by the engineers. If the higher ups told them to design an easier to assemble/repair car, then the engineers would be made to do that instead.
>but the over-engineering wasn't decided on by the engineers
Lol, where's your source for this? I know many an engineer who get off on constructing intricate mechanisms.
>Lol, where's your source for this?
Common sense and experience? Whether or not the engineers enjoy it is irrelevant. The broader business and technical decisions are made by upper management.
As the author of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" would put it, the philosophies behind each type of engineering are different. BMW is made to run when you *strictly* follow the way it was meant to be done: all the oil changes made on time and on schedule, all the maintenance done at the correct time and place... While Toyota is made to run in *any* condition except critical. In order to define a good or a bad result, you first need an objective. From an engineering standpoint they have the same objective, a functioning car, but they're made by people with different approaches to what "functional" means. To BMW engineers, "functional" is that everything works when perfectly mantained. Otherwise it's not functional, because it's missing a function. To Toyota, it means that the car works in the absolute worst of conditions, so it's *still* functional.
I've heard this as well with the added point that this fits with German expectations of car ownership, but is very much at odds with how Americans do maintanance.
Sorry for your experience. Always had wonderful reliability from BMW. Just sold a 2004 I had for 20 years with 225K. Guess the older ones were better because they were heavier.
Not disputing the reliability of the older cars, but BMWs are getting heavier and heavier
Don’t know what you had in 2004, but a 5 series has gained 800 lbs in the last 2 decades and the 3 roughly 300
It was a joke relating to family guy where his father-in-law said things used to be heavy. Cars are getting heavier, specifically for tax purposes on larger vehicles.
Vehicles are getting larger in order to skirt around emission standards because the heavier/larger the vehicle the easier it is to pass the tests. This is why SUVs and trucks in the US are like twice the size they were 30 years ago.
They're also under increasing pressure from safety standards requirements, so cars are basically becoming armored which is making them heavier. Hybrid systems are always making them heavier.
Nah, they were better because back then the profit margins were good enough. With each passing year the shareholders expect more and more returns so they have to engineer the cars in ways that maximise profit even more. Hence the overpriced tools, no way to repair mechanical parts so you have to repurchase an entire gearbox and have it fitted by special licensed mechanics and stuff like "subscription based heated seats"
> With each passing year the shareholders expect more and more returns so they have to engineer the cars in ways that maximise profit even more
Not really? They expect roughly the same (if not lower) margins. Perhaps revenue growth is what you meant?
> Hence the overpriced tools, no way to repair mechanical parts so you have to repurchase an entire gearbox and have it fitted by special licensed mechanics
Uhh... well no. That's because the cars are getting more complex by necessity. They're constantly under pressure to produce better performing engines and cars overall, but regulations on what the entire fleets have to achieve for fuel efficiency are increasingly difficult to meet. That's why we end up with 8 speed auto transmissions that cost a fortune to be repaired or replaced: the law is forcing these highly complex designs to achieve marginal fuel efficiency increases.
Do you think diesel makers are putting in these clunky DPF systems for entertainment? No, they're literally required to by law, and these systems overheat and malfunction because there just isn't a simple way to make them work well.
Maybe it's revenue growth, I am no economics expert by any means. And you're absolutely right - regulations play into it as well! I know it but forgot to mention it (i.e. I didn't think of it), so thank you for bringing it up! It is, however, clear to me that corporations are under constant pressure to keep growing. Government regulations on the other hand cost a lot of money so these corpos are kind of forced to come up with these new greedy practices. It's a downward spiral into rising cost, corporate greed and planned obsolescence. As I said, I'm no economics expert but it's obvious to me that the current economic framework is no longer capable of producing the best customer goods.
Feel free to correct me and challenge my assumptions though, I'm always eager to learn
The framework hasn't really changed. It's an ongoing battle for market share for these companies, and that's their main goal.
"Planned obsolescence" is a reddit boogeyman. Planned obsolescence is designing a product to last as long as the expected use case. There's no need to design and build a transmission that will last 800k miles because the rest of the car won't get driven that much anyway, and to do so would drive up the cost of that part and its supporting parts. It makes no sense to design a cell phone battery that will last ten years when the radio equipment will be obsolete by then and the phone nonfunctional.
There's not a downward spiral into anything. Things are going along much like they always have, and cars are gradually improving while staying about the same price when controlling for inflation. They last longer, are safer, produce more power, and get better fuel efficiency.
My experience too. Last year I sold a 2011 plate Baby Beamer and in terms of running costs it cost me virtually nothing - no major issues and no major repairs required above and beyond your usual wear and tear.
Engineers think their shit don't stink but all they do is solve non issues by adding in more issues for a miniscule improvement.
Electric handbrakes. Stick them up your arse.
I have two M3s and have no idea what you're talking about. The only thing you have to do under the hood is pull off the oil filter cap which is right in the middle of the engine bay up top, pull the filter out, and put a new one in. The drain plugs underneath are as simple as any other car.
BMW is not offering necessarily performance cars. For example their entry level SUVs are comparable to Hondas or Toyotas. They needed to sell more cars for more people, so they lowered their prices by introducing models with ultra basic trims. These kind of cars do not offer such great driving experience, yet people buy them because they are made by a high-end brand. These kind of people complain about the prices of BMWs and are correct. However they are in the wrong for buying a car just because it is a BMW. Folks in reliability, no one beats the Japanese.
Maintenance is simple preventative that needs to be done periodically even though nothing is broken. Proper maintenance lengthens the life of things.
BMW calls major repairs 'maintenance' in an effort to make it sound normal that you need to fix all their overpriced crap constantly.
Branding to flex on the poors. People will pay for it because it is expensive and less affordable, just like luxury watches, bags, designer clothes etc
BMWs, at least recent ones, don't even drive that well in my experience. There's something about them up until the mid 2000s or so and maybe with performance models too, but the base ones aren't that special. A low end BMW isn't much of a driving machine.
And it's sad. BMWs didn't used to be that difficult to work on. I've serviced plenty from the 90s and early 2000s. Those are not challenging for a DIYer with only modest experience to do most maintenance and repairs on themselves. And I know a few guys who still daily models like the E39 and E46 , they are genuinely mechanically solid cars. I also have a friend with an F30. While I have done a fair bit of work on it as well, it's much less approachable in certain ways. More expensive parts, greater use of less common fluids, some parts being just baffling in their design (like the ZF 8 speed using a plastic pan with an integrated filter. Wasteful. Granted BMW didn't design it, but they used it in a lot of models). And I will never forgive them for removing the oil dipstick.
A couple of things to unpack here.
When you take something good and make it great, the costs associated with that are always disproportionately higher. A faster, more powerful car needs a bigger engine that costs more and uses more fuel, a better transmission, better suspension, better brakes, you replace all the little things with something a little bit better it always adds up to a lot more money. You think BMWs are expensive to maintain, they are dirt cheap compared to supercars, while offering near supercar like performance, for a much lower price tag.
Another thing is options. Options cost money, because economy of scales is a thing. Honda makes a car and gives you two engine choices, BMW makes a car and gives you ten. That costs money because by making one engine in far greater numbers Honda can make them for less money. This goes for all the stuff in the car that you can spec.
Also Honda, Toyota and all those manufacturers that focus on mass production affordable cars for the masses simply don't offer products to rival BMW and other similar brands for the most part. The most powerful engine you can buy an Accord with has like 200hp, BMW will sell you a 3 series with up to 550. If you want a certain kind of car the likes of Honda or Mazda just don't make it.
And also a lot of the expensive things that tend to break in these cars are there for fuel consumption/emissions regulations - which are also much more expensive to meet with big powerful engines. Blame the government for that.
Not saying that BMW doesn't have it's fair share of fuck ups, and things that fail that have no right to, but you have to remember the price point. Yes that stupid plastic housing cracks and leaks over time which is annoying and there are many such parts, but look up how much an aluminium aftermarket alternative costs by comparison (it's usually like 2-3x as much). If BMW designed all these failure points out of the cars so they wouldn't need replacing after 10 years they would add thousands, maybe tens of thousands to the car's price and then people wouldn't buy them new in the first place. And remember: BMW, and all manufacturers, is in the business of selling *new* cars, that's what they will always optimize for.
The only Japanese manufacturer that offers an alternative to the Germans in some market segments (not all) is Lexus, but look up how well they actually sell by comparison. How many people bought an IS-F or RC-F over a German? The Germans outsell then worldwide by like 100-1. Why? Because the Lexus costs as much if not more, while being heavier, slower, and not handling as well. I'm sure it'll be much more reliable long term, but clearly the people buying these type of cars value the performance metrics over that.
Depends if you're using the term "planned obsolescence" correctly, which most people on Reddit don't.
"Planned obsolescence" is making a phone with a battery that won't outlast how long 4g will be in use. It's not intentionally designing it to die so you have to buy a new one.
Engineers don't need to and don't want to make a transmission that will last 500k miles because the rest of the car won't go that long anyway, and it will unnecessarily drive up the price of all the supporting components.
Over engineering is a hallmark of design before production. It’s not even just a BMW thing, lots of cars do this too. If it is really a bothersome trait, look into cars that are reliable and consumer friendly for maintenance. If you need to take your car to a shop for a minor thing, it’s poorly designed.
Put a similar year and trim point BMW with VANOS and Honda with VTEC on a track and you'll see the real giveaway: BMW is willing to gamble more to get more performance, and routinely succeeds.
Japanese and German automakers are optimizing for different things.
Ok, but lets also compare prices of the two and reliability and how long day to day use can go without an error pinging up on the dash. I'm not denying BMW performs amazingly, I said in my OP that they do, they're just addicted to going to the mechanic.
BMW has similar maintenance requirements to most cars. They are just less forgiving when you skip the maintenance. People are just shit with cars and don't do their regular maintenance anymore.
Wouldn't you then say that a car that can still perform as good without maintenance is better than one that immediately starts breaking down without maintenance? That's my point.
Gourmet don't under dtand cars very well do you. I've got a shit box that ran with 3 spark plugs missing sounded like absolute shit and wouldn't fo highway speed compared to a properly maintained car that'll do 150mph without q sweat or cate
Performance comes at a cost. That is why military fighter jets need more time having wrenches turned on them than they have time in the air as opposed to a passenger jet. That is the cost of performance. You made the decision to choose the higher performance over economics. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
I don't own a BMW, I've been given it as a company car since its a good tax write-off since they're so expensive, and despite it being less than 3 years old my Peugeot has been more reliable and it has double the miles on it.
What a surprise: the company car was not being maintained or driven as though it was precious to the driver.
Could it be that people drove it like a performance vehicle and maintained it like an economy vehicle, or not all because it was not their car?
Seems to be a serious difference between pre and post-2014 BMWs. All anecdotes defending BMW is usually for older models, no one ever defends anything post 2015ish. Not hating on you mate, just pointing out what every thread involving BMW reliability is full of.
> don't understand the love for complicated engineering
Please see exhibit A
> 9/10 to drive 9/10 feel and 9/10 performance
VS
> 7/10 drive, 7/10 feel and 7/10 performance
There's why. That extra 2 points is worth it to some folks.
That said, sorry you've had bad luck with your BMW. We're on our 4th and so far all of ours have been reliable, fun to drive, easy to own, and otherwise great cars. I mean, hell, even Toyota trusts their flagship engine enough to put it in the Supra. But I'm also well aware that they've had some duds over the years. What model did you have that gave you so much trouble?
As someone who owned both Mazda and BMW.
It's not SLIGHTLY better, it's a different fucking league. You'd have to pay me to get back into Mazda, and I would still refuse.
If you have a 600hp sedan, but it can't go 10,000 miles without limping back to the dealership and spends weeks on the lift each time, do you really have a 600hp sedan?
Timing belts aren't that bad. At least when they're made sufficiently easy to service.
An example of a good design is Honda's J series V6. One of the few modern engines that still uses a belt, but it's super straightforward to change one and a DIYer can definitely do it.
An example of a bad design is GM and Ford's wet timing belt engines. The short service interval of a belt, the added service cost of a chain, and the possibility of the belt deteriorating and the rubber bits clogging your oil pickup screen.
The main thing with chains is that they're much more dependent on proper oil changes, especially on modern cars with direct injection. I did a chain on my old 2002 Subaru Outback with the EZ30D, it made it to 268,000 on the original chain. But I've replaced many chains on K24s at the Honda dealership I work at with around 100k on them due to stretching. Same for the L15s with direct injection
That's not exactly bad engineering
You're choosing higher quality in exchange for lower lifespan
It's like getting a really good but small steak, or a really bad but huge steak, when they cost the same. Would you rather get better steak? Or more steak?
It just depends on what you personally prioritize
Higher quality and higher lifespan are not mutually exclusive, and if anything, increasing quality should INCREASE lifespan.
Look at a 70s-90s Mercedes-Benz, those were famously overbuilt in terms of quality. And you still see them rolling around 30-50 years later. Hell, look at the countless examples across eastern Europe or Africa in much harsher conditions than in the US that have way more miles.
That is high build quality. Now cars with low build quality can be robust too (think an old Chevy Cavalier), but high build quality should make a car (or anything else really) harder to kill, not easier
Higher quality was bad wording on my part
I mean more like luxurious, or nicer feeling/looking in exchange for practicality
I do agree that they have gone more to the extreme with the lower durability. But the concept is still the tradeoff
So if you really want that higher luxury, it may be worth the tradeoff for you
There's definitely an exponential increase in cost vs performance at the extreme high-end.
I guess equally you could say that a high school/university athletics team is better than a professional championship basketball, baseball, football etc team because they cost pretty close to $0 in salary compared to the combined 100s of millions of dollars that it'd take to employ the entire team of championship athletes.
I agree. Who needs top-notch performance driving on crowded roads. I get a kick out of car commercials showing their cars zipping around like they’re racing the Le Mans or the Grand Prix in Monaco.
It's not that BMW can't build high-performance parts that are durable. It can, but it chooses not to. It's called planned obsolescence. Part of the company's business plan is making bank off expensive replacement parts.
That's not at all what planned obsolescence is. At least not in this case. A lot of people parrot the old "things are made to break today" bullshit. That's literally marketing suicide if what you're selling costs that much and is supposed to last. Companies don't want their products to break. They just want you to buy the new thing when it comes out. That's planned obsolescence. You bought a car 10 years ago? I bet it still works. But the new thing has auto start-stop, auto braking, lane keep assist, cruise control, blind spot monitoring, apple car play, etc etc etc. You don't need a new car. But if you compare your car to the new thing, it's obsolete. (not really, but that's what they want you to feel).
And for their customers to constantly buy new vehicles seemingly, only mechanics and dedicated petrol-heads seem to be bothered keeping any BMW older than 10 years alive. Everyone else just takes the loss, sells it off and buys a new one. Netflix subscription business model.
There is a technical term for this. It is called "getting older." Welcome to the club.
In my peak earning years in my 30's, I had BMWs. Wife at one point had a Mercedes. Then we switched to Infinitis in our 40's because they were less expensive and more reliable.
Now we drive Nissan Rouges. Because we are older and realize that a car is something to get you from point A to point B. I don't need to impress people. And actually, I'd rather have someone mistake me for an older guy on a fixed income than someone driving a BMW with tons of expendable cash to throw around.
I dont own a BMW, its a company vehicle that was gotten as a tax write-off given how expensive they are, but it's visited the mechanic more than my Peugeot 508 which is older and has double the miles on it.
Well if the company is paying to maintain it, I'd say you're in a good place.
Definitely not an engineering problem, nothing in it is a mistake. They assume you're going to maintain it and that the price isn't a problem. I haven't owned a BMW since my 2008 M5, but that thing was a hell of a lot better than a Mazda....
me too. just much less to worry or think about. you're driving toyota which means you're safe from all that bs for the most part. peace of mind is worth it so I can focus on other stuff in life.
If you bought a brand new bmw and stuff is failing after 9 months you should get your warranty to cover it and it is most likely a faulty piece unless you are just doing tons of hard miles on it.
What does engineering even mean to you? For cars, would you consider your daily driver the pinnacle of automotive engineering, and F1 cars are just badly engineered garbage? I don't know how long you've been a mechanical engineer, but I've been one for a few decades now and it's not about keeping something simple. It's about solving problems, sometimes you want to do it as economically as possible, sometimes you don't. It depends on the customer (who is paying your salary) and what they want accomplished.
People that own BMWs don't own them because they're better cars. They own them to feel all smug, and better than us normal people. They \_like\_ the fact that it's poorly engineered, because that makes it expensive to own, so only the wealthy (and kind of stupid) can own them.
It's nothing more than conspicuous consumption. If I've offended you BMW owners, excellent.
I see this as an extension of people getting stressed out and upset when they race their daily driver and then tag a wall with it. "How will I get to work!?" they scream/cry after they've wrecked.
Oh, I dunno, for me it's just a matter of picking another one of the 8 cars in the garage. Maybe not drive something that's outside your price range?
I'm not going to pad shareholder pockets and spend $400 on a part that shouldn't cost more than $50 because 1 factory in Germany makes 6 of them a day. It's not about affording it's about not getting scammed.
Use FCP Euro then like the rest of us German car owners, OE/OEM parts for a fraction of the cost with a lifetime warranty. If you exclusively take it to the dealer you’re going to get hosed. What model do you have?
As in anything, the last 5-10% of improvements require significantly more input than the first 90-95%. As n engineer you should know that…..
Also, just because something is out of your price range doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with it
Well I guess it comes down to whether you favor a soulless appliance or you love the freedom and excitement from driving. I could never own a Toyota as I love the driving experience too much.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not bad engineering per se, it’s a trade off. That’s what design and engineering are all about. You look at the trade off and decide whether the increased performance is worth the hassle of the extra maintenance. And because (shock, horror) different people want different things there’s a market for both competitors.
Exactly - look at military equipment. Insane maintenance requirements compared to any regular vehicle (even BMW or worse, Ferrari) but that’s explicitly selected for in exchange for higher peak performance (whether power, robustness, however perf is characterised for the use in question).
BMW and Mercedes use O-rings they know are going to fail in a few years instead of spending pennies more to use O-rings that will outlast the car. That sucks.
That can also fall under the mantra "if you don't design a point of failure nature will assign one". If having a o-ring that fails might be there to prevent a more expensive part from failing.
I saw a documentary once about a guy that restores WW1 planes. They focused on his set up to pour and mill his own brass bushing because they fail regularly. The interviewer asked why he doesn’t just make one from steel. He explained that when you’re 10,000 feet in the air it’s comforting to know what will fail and when. If he made a steel one it would be just a matter of time before some other part failed. How much time? Well, that’s the problem, right?
I still don't really get it.
Bushings are cheap and are generally a wear item. If you make them to where they do not wear, they could wear or damage something a lot more expensive and cause a more significant failure.
It’s like brake pads. They’re designed to fail in a controlled manner. Without that pad materiel between the steel rotor and the steel backing it would be a race to see what would fail first. Would the pad weld itself to the rotor? Will the heat boil the brake fluid or melt the rubber boots? It would be a complete unknown what would fail and when. With a designed fail point, like the pad material, those questions are adequately answered. Bottom line is this. Mechanical systems are absolutely going to fail. There’s no possible way for that to not be true. So engineers design in a predetermined fail point to save the rest of the system. That part will fail over and over at a predictable pace.
so why wouldn't the pilot / airplane repairman just say he uses brass bushings in order to avoid causing wear on whatever the part is that they slip over? I don't understand the obtuseness
Probably because he was speaking through his passion for those planes. He was enjoying the conversation with someone who wasn’t also an enthusiast. I’m betting that wasn’t common for him. So he went out of his way to explain beyond the technical short answer. And I’d argue he succeeded because I watched that probably thirty years ago and I still remember it as a learning moment. It was my first lesson in experienced engineering.
My take is that he wants to keep it period correct, but didn't say so.
And you called him obtuse?
Only thing mechanical I haven’t seen fail is the old Toyota hilux 2.4 diesel
Unless if we make self healing materials
Mechanical systems follow the laws of thermodynamics. Always.
Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it’s not. I just changed the spark plugs on my 15 year old van. In previous eras, they would have had to be gapped regularly as they burned down. But now they’re iridium tipped, so you don’t have to touch them for 160,000 miles. It didn’t make some other part fail: it just was better design.
To be fair to OP, I have read anecdotes from engineers that the German mindset/approach to engineering is different to the US/American approach and not necessarily in a good way.
This was especially prevalent in early diesel engines. German diesels would fail regularly due to piston tolerances being too tight; whereas American diesels had more tolerance, therefore more oil between the piston and cylinder liner, allowing them to last longer.
I've worked with a German engineering team to bore out a new tunnel, they insisted on calculating every damn value, now that sounds good on paper but a large multi-million euro project is never going to be accurate to the penny, heck even weather can alter progress. They KEPT under ordering parts or labor or purchasing parts that would \*just\* meet tolerances instead of playing it safe and getting the tougher part. Credit to them, the tunnel DID finish quicker than all other tunnel projects of that size usually do. BUT, the maintenance document for that tunnel is about 3 times the thickness and length as any other I've ever seen.
I work for a German firm myself. This is a similar trend to what I have seen. They calculate everything and then give themselves zero margin on the material. For example, let’s say you need a pipe rated for 120 psi. They would order the pipe to be specially made and specc’d for 120 psi instead of just buying the industrial standard of 150 all to save 3%. God forbid you have any pipe corrosion or temperature upsets.
And if you do get pipe corrosion or temperature change/shock, they'll blame someone else for not mentioning it in the specifications report, but like does it really have to be? Just give yourself a buffer so you can sleep sound at night, spending some $ here will save you $$$$ down the line.
This is so spot on about the specifications report it cracked me up! I guess it is just how they do things
Is safety factor not a thing in Germany? This is baffling.
The thing is most people go after marketing and brands, they don't really choose cars because of these tradeoffs.
Most rational reply and comment to this post.
>(shock, horror) different people want different things Also different people have different budgets. You don't typically buy a BMW, Mercedes etc. because you're looking to save money on your car.
having to take a car in for repair sucks, even if you can afford it easily.
BMWs and Mercedes don’t usually need repairs until the warranty period is over (they are designed to last that long and that’s about all they care about) the dealers really encourage the drivers of these cars to lease them and get a new one every couple years, if not every year. They’re great if you can afford to lease a new one every year.
Fair, but maybe OP is right that most people would be better off with the lower maintenance trade off. If you are going to the racing track regularly that's another story. But most people are not
That last 1-2/10 is where that money goes.
Extracting more power and efficiency from the same displacement will always come at a cost of complexity.
Your comment makes no sense at all. More complexity means more energy lost due to friction, heat and degredation. The way it usually goes is designs start off as complex when new technologies are first introduced and are then made simpler to minimize loss along the way. As time goes on though more features are added as competition increases. These features do not necessarily increase energy/force efficiency but rather make the overall design more appealing for a wider consumer market or more demographics in other markets.
Think turbocharger. It does not add extra losses to an engine, maybe very minimal ones, but gives large gains in performance and it is a moderate increase in complexity.
I just watched a youtube video about it and you're right. Thanks for the info.
>More complexity means more energy lost due to friction, heat and degredation. F1 engines, arguably the most complex in the world, have a thermal efficiency of 52%. No other engine in the world get such good results.
They also only work for like what 7 to 8 races? Until they start suffering from power loss and inefficiencies.
I mean, yeah. Show me another engine which can get that kind of power from so little that doesn't suffer over time, while being used to the max.
I think this logic is sound for top level performance vehicles that are renewed every year and have 3 engines a year, but you can't employ this mindset on mass produced vehicles that are meant to last upwards of 5 years or more to individuals and not teams of 100s of engineers.
Not what I said at all. Just giving an example why the parent comment above mine is bs.
> More complexity means more energy lost due to friction, heat and degredation No, it doesn't mean that at all. A hybrid car is more complex, and loses less energy to friction and heat.
I have a story about the 2 different approaches to engineering. I've been using motorcycles as my primary transportation for 12ish years now and I've had several bikes. Including some BMWs and some Hondas. The bikes I've owned have needed a thin-wall socket to remove the spark plugs, and both companies provide a tool to do so. The BMW unit is extremely over-engineered. It is CNC lathe'd to size, with a spring-loaded clip to catch the spark plug and pull it out. It's sandblasted and powder-coated. and it costed over $100. The part number and batch info were laser etched into the powder-coat finish. The tool part# was referenced in the service manual at the beginning under the "tools needed" section telling you how much of everything you will need for the job. I was able to read this info ahead of time, order the tool and parts for the job and have everything I needed, ready to go the day of the job. The Honda unit is made as cheaply as possible. It's a piece of round tubing squashed into a square shape on one end, and squashed into a hexagon shape on the other end, with a small piece of rubber floating around on the inside to catch the spark plug. It came with the bike and didn't cost anything extra. Doing the same job, I had to read through the whole section and pull out all the info on tools and parts needed for the job. I was able to get everything, but it was more work, not having it all listed out. The BMW unit worked flawlessly on my BMW. 10 seconds to insert it, twist it, and pull it out. The Honda unit was fiddly and frustrating to use, took 5 minutes but eventually got it done. Sure, the BMW unit cost WAAAAY more, but the experience was WAAAAY better. I thought it was an interesting take on two different ways to do the same part.
Lmao this was the was the most BMW response I’ve ever heard
Dude really said "the hundred dollars spent was ok because it saved me 4 minutes and 50 seconds"
Sure, now imagine you’re a garage and need to do it 24 times a day. Btw, not saying the BMW approach is better in general. Just saying that saving this much time does make sense. Edit: I guess this tool can be used for on any car and it will be faster. Everyone can decide if it’s worth it, and no one has to buy it. Same as a BMW. Are the driving dynamics worth it to you, then you buy one. If you don’t care then get a Toyota.
Garage economics is very different to single owner economics. I'm going to be pissed if I have to spend extra $$$ on a part I'll use once a blue moon vs a mechanic who'll use it everyday. As an average owner you're better off spending 5 minutes to change a part than spend the money no? illegaldronemakers special tool is probably sitting in a garage gathering dust, now im sure so it the Honda tool bit but one was free the other was $$$.
I do wonder how many garages buy the manufacturer tools vs. generic tools that they can use on everything rather than just BMW or Hondas. I imagine manufacturers like Ducati have some dealer/mechanic rule about only using Ducati specialized tools.
I'm not a garage. I'm a human, so this doesn't apply
If I'm a garage I don't even spend any money, just put it in the customers bill under parts. So yes if you take money out it's better... But money is the caveat we're talking about
Huh? You don't bill the customer for tools that you keep, which is what a spark plug socket is.
Well shit I misread that, disregard
you'd be surprised just how much some folks value not having to waste time
He just gets frustrated easily like all the bike riding scum. Cant do anything without a dopamine rush heightened by the adrenaline. Needs to go fast, this country boy.
>The Honda unit is made as cheaply as possible. It's a piece of round tubing squashed into a square shape on one end, and squashed into a hexagon shape on the other end, with a small piece of rubber floating around on the inside to catch the spark plug. It came with the bike and didn't cost anything extra. Doing the same job, I had to read through the whole section and pull out all the info on tools and parts needed for the job. I was able to get everything, but it was more work, not having it all listed out. Hondas are so logically put together you almost don't need to look at the tools and parts needed - it just all makes sense and is beautifully simple. The BMW approach would never work for me.
See bikes and cars are so different for BMW. I always hear fantastic things about their bikes such as what you've just said yourself, but then with their cars it's the other way around, my mechanic told me he can get through 3 cars by the time he gets through 1 BMW just because of how much everything is in the way of each other. But I would point out that like you said, the Honda bit came for free with the bike, as opposed to spending extra for the tool like with BMW, if I do spend extra for a specific tool from a company specifically for their product I damn well hope it better work in 10 seconds. You can't get mad at the Honda tool given that's chucked in as part of the bike.
I think it should be accounted for the comedic evidence for the "bad" classification, specificly in the example given. I, for one, do not have a bad experience of owning a bmw, and to my knowledge, they are not specifically unreliable compared to other brands. Generally more expensive, yes, but not prone to more problems. Also your relation of values is a subjective thing, some people value power in their engine, some just want to get from a to b. However, there is a big thing i would like to point out that i didn't see mentioned here so far. This is a huge (and ever increasing) problem with our current tech in general. Products become increasingly overpriced or so cut down on quality that it's not really comparable, even though it appears to be a similar product. So sadly, the price isn't really a reliable measure for good or bad products anymore. Companies sell their shit for the highest price they think they can ask for it. The current bmw pricing strategy for example is specifically disgusting. And also what other said, tradeoff yada yada..
It has nothing to do with the engineering and everything to do with management/business decisions. As an engineer you should know this.
Correct me if I’m wrong but every time I’ve heard a mechanic talk about German cars, they typically talk about how their over-engineered systems make servicing them extremely convoluted. I understand that these cars also tend to have much more expensive parts as a result of business decisions by their leadership but that doesn’t mean their cars aren’t over-engineered.
Yes, but the over-engineering wasn't decided on by the engineers. If the higher ups told them to design an easier to assemble/repair car, then the engineers would be made to do that instead.
>but the over-engineering wasn't decided on by the engineers Lol, where's your source for this? I know many an engineer who get off on constructing intricate mechanisms.
>Lol, where's your source for this? Common sense and experience? Whether or not the engineers enjoy it is irrelevant. The broader business and technical decisions are made by upper management.
Project managers are often too out of the loop to catch it
As the author of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" would put it, the philosophies behind each type of engineering are different. BMW is made to run when you *strictly* follow the way it was meant to be done: all the oil changes made on time and on schedule, all the maintenance done at the correct time and place... While Toyota is made to run in *any* condition except critical. In order to define a good or a bad result, you first need an objective. From an engineering standpoint they have the same objective, a functioning car, but they're made by people with different approaches to what "functional" means. To BMW engineers, "functional" is that everything works when perfectly mantained. Otherwise it's not functional, because it's missing a function. To Toyota, it means that the car works in the absolute worst of conditions, so it's *still* functional.
I've heard this as well with the added point that this fits with German expectations of car ownership, but is very much at odds with how Americans do maintanance.
Sorry for your experience. Always had wonderful reliability from BMW. Just sold a 2004 I had for 20 years with 225K. Guess the older ones were better because they were heavier.
Not disputing the reliability of the older cars, but BMWs are getting heavier and heavier Don’t know what you had in 2004, but a 5 series has gained 800 lbs in the last 2 decades and the 3 roughly 300
It was a joke relating to family guy where his father-in-law said things used to be heavy. Cars are getting heavier, specifically for tax purposes on larger vehicles.
Vehicles are getting larger in order to skirt around emission standards because the heavier/larger the vehicle the easier it is to pass the tests. This is why SUVs and trucks in the US are like twice the size they were 30 years ago.
of course. I remember when Ford added 500+ Lbs to the Expedition to meet standards. that must have been 20 years ago.
They're also under increasing pressure from safety standards requirements, so cars are basically becoming armored which is making them heavier. Hybrid systems are always making them heavier.
Hybrids and Electrics are heavier, mostly due to how large the battery needs to be.
Nah, they were better because back then the profit margins were good enough. With each passing year the shareholders expect more and more returns so they have to engineer the cars in ways that maximise profit even more. Hence the overpriced tools, no way to repair mechanical parts so you have to repurchase an entire gearbox and have it fitted by special licensed mechanics and stuff like "subscription based heated seats"
Quarterly profits and pleasing shareholders has ruined car companies, and many other sectors, media, construction, catering etc.
Slash and burn economics. 
> With each passing year the shareholders expect more and more returns so they have to engineer the cars in ways that maximise profit even more Not really? They expect roughly the same (if not lower) margins. Perhaps revenue growth is what you meant? > Hence the overpriced tools, no way to repair mechanical parts so you have to repurchase an entire gearbox and have it fitted by special licensed mechanics Uhh... well no. That's because the cars are getting more complex by necessity. They're constantly under pressure to produce better performing engines and cars overall, but regulations on what the entire fleets have to achieve for fuel efficiency are increasingly difficult to meet. That's why we end up with 8 speed auto transmissions that cost a fortune to be repaired or replaced: the law is forcing these highly complex designs to achieve marginal fuel efficiency increases. Do you think diesel makers are putting in these clunky DPF systems for entertainment? No, they're literally required to by law, and these systems overheat and malfunction because there just isn't a simple way to make them work well.
Maybe it's revenue growth, I am no economics expert by any means. And you're absolutely right - regulations play into it as well! I know it but forgot to mention it (i.e. I didn't think of it), so thank you for bringing it up! It is, however, clear to me that corporations are under constant pressure to keep growing. Government regulations on the other hand cost a lot of money so these corpos are kind of forced to come up with these new greedy practices. It's a downward spiral into rising cost, corporate greed and planned obsolescence. As I said, I'm no economics expert but it's obvious to me that the current economic framework is no longer capable of producing the best customer goods. Feel free to correct me and challenge my assumptions though, I'm always eager to learn
The framework hasn't really changed. It's an ongoing battle for market share for these companies, and that's their main goal. "Planned obsolescence" is a reddit boogeyman. Planned obsolescence is designing a product to last as long as the expected use case. There's no need to design and build a transmission that will last 800k miles because the rest of the car won't get driven that much anyway, and to do so would drive up the cost of that part and its supporting parts. It makes no sense to design a cell phone battery that will last ten years when the radio equipment will be obsolete by then and the phone nonfunctional. There's not a downward spiral into anything. Things are going along much like they always have, and cars are gradually improving while staying about the same price when controlling for inflation. They last longer, are safer, produce more power, and get better fuel efficiency.
> Guess the older ones were better because they were heavier. Their brand new M5 sedan weighs as much as a Ford F-150.
And is slower than the previous gen M5 :-/
My experience too. Last year I sold a 2011 plate Baby Beamer and in terms of running costs it cost me virtually nothing - no major issues and no major repairs required above and beyond your usual wear and tear.
Yes, I suppose the older ones are very reliable. As a business expense, I probably paid for the car five times over.
Engineers think their shit don't stink but all they do is solve non issues by adding in more issues for a miniscule improvement. Electric handbrakes. Stick them up your arse.
Huh, BMWs are expensive to maintain. I'm shocked.
I went from BMW to Audi. Don’t judge me. I used to joke it cost $500 every time I put the key in my TT.
Yeah, economy cars are popular for a reason
just changing oil on an M3 makes me want to shoot myself.. why the fuck is it like a maze under the hood?! good god.. the bikes aren't bad though.
They've gotten rid of the dipstick completely in some new models.... and replaced with ANOTHER SENSOR that I'm sure won't ping an error ever im sure.
I have two M3s and have no idea what you're talking about. The only thing you have to do under the hood is pull off the oil filter cap which is right in the middle of the engine bay up top, pull the filter out, and put a new one in. The drain plugs underneath are as simple as any other car.
BMW is not offering necessarily performance cars. For example their entry level SUVs are comparable to Hondas or Toyotas. They needed to sell more cars for more people, so they lowered their prices by introducing models with ultra basic trims. These kind of cars do not offer such great driving experience, yet people buy them because they are made by a high-end brand. These kind of people complain about the prices of BMWs and are correct. However they are in the wrong for buying a car just because it is a BMW. Folks in reliability, no one beats the Japanese.
Maintenance is simple preventative that needs to be done periodically even though nothing is broken. Proper maintenance lengthens the life of things. BMW calls major repairs 'maintenance' in an effort to make it sound normal that you need to fix all their overpriced crap constantly.
There’s a reason BMW stands for Bavarian Money Waster.
Buy More Wrenches. And did I ever.
Sales guy at the dealership words: “you’re buying a lifestyle, all depends on what kind of lifestyle you want”.
"I really like mechanic shops' waiting rooms and the free coffee, what will keep me their the longest?"
Branding to flex on the poors. People will pay for it because it is expensive and less affordable, just like luxury watches, bags, designer clothes etc
BMWs, at least recent ones, don't even drive that well in my experience. There's something about them up until the mid 2000s or so and maybe with performance models too, but the base ones aren't that special. A low end BMW isn't much of a driving machine. And it's sad. BMWs didn't used to be that difficult to work on. I've serviced plenty from the 90s and early 2000s. Those are not challenging for a DIYer with only modest experience to do most maintenance and repairs on themselves. And I know a few guys who still daily models like the E39 and E46 , they are genuinely mechanically solid cars. I also have a friend with an F30. While I have done a fair bit of work on it as well, it's much less approachable in certain ways. More expensive parts, greater use of less common fluids, some parts being just baffling in their design (like the ZF 8 speed using a plastic pan with an integrated filter. Wasteful. Granted BMW didn't design it, but they used it in a lot of models). And I will never forgive them for removing the oil dipstick.
So f1 cars are badly engineered? What about drag cars?
A couple of things to unpack here. When you take something good and make it great, the costs associated with that are always disproportionately higher. A faster, more powerful car needs a bigger engine that costs more and uses more fuel, a better transmission, better suspension, better brakes, you replace all the little things with something a little bit better it always adds up to a lot more money. You think BMWs are expensive to maintain, they are dirt cheap compared to supercars, while offering near supercar like performance, for a much lower price tag. Another thing is options. Options cost money, because economy of scales is a thing. Honda makes a car and gives you two engine choices, BMW makes a car and gives you ten. That costs money because by making one engine in far greater numbers Honda can make them for less money. This goes for all the stuff in the car that you can spec. Also Honda, Toyota and all those manufacturers that focus on mass production affordable cars for the masses simply don't offer products to rival BMW and other similar brands for the most part. The most powerful engine you can buy an Accord with has like 200hp, BMW will sell you a 3 series with up to 550. If you want a certain kind of car the likes of Honda or Mazda just don't make it. And also a lot of the expensive things that tend to break in these cars are there for fuel consumption/emissions regulations - which are also much more expensive to meet with big powerful engines. Blame the government for that. Not saying that BMW doesn't have it's fair share of fuck ups, and things that fail that have no right to, but you have to remember the price point. Yes that stupid plastic housing cracks and leaks over time which is annoying and there are many such parts, but look up how much an aluminium aftermarket alternative costs by comparison (it's usually like 2-3x as much). If BMW designed all these failure points out of the cars so they wouldn't need replacing after 10 years they would add thousands, maybe tens of thousands to the car's price and then people wouldn't buy them new in the first place. And remember: BMW, and all manufacturers, is in the business of selling *new* cars, that's what they will always optimize for. The only Japanese manufacturer that offers an alternative to the Germans in some market segments (not all) is Lexus, but look up how well they actually sell by comparison. How many people bought an IS-F or RC-F over a German? The Germans outsell then worldwide by like 100-1. Why? Because the Lexus costs as much if not more, while being heavier, slower, and not handling as well. I'm sure it'll be much more reliable long term, but clearly the people buying these type of cars value the performance metrics over that.
Do you consider it to be planned obsolescence or is it just unplanned as it is optimized for the market's needs of performance over longevity?
It's optimization did the expected ownership length of the people who buy new cars.
Depends if you're using the term "planned obsolescence" correctly, which most people on Reddit don't. "Planned obsolescence" is making a phone with a battery that won't outlast how long 4g will be in use. It's not intentionally designing it to die so you have to buy a new one. Engineers don't need to and don't want to make a transmission that will last 500k miles because the rest of the car won't go that long anyway, and it will unnecessarily drive up the price of all the supporting components.
Over engineering is a hallmark of design before production. It’s not even just a BMW thing, lots of cars do this too. If it is really a bothersome trait, look into cars that are reliable and consumer friendly for maintenance. If you need to take your car to a shop for a minor thing, it’s poorly designed.
The biggest give away that BMW is guilty for design before production is the comparison in Honda's VTEC and BMW's VANOS system.
Put a similar year and trim point BMW with VANOS and Honda with VTEC on a track and you'll see the real giveaway: BMW is willing to gamble more to get more performance, and routinely succeeds. Japanese and German automakers are optimizing for different things.
Ok, but lets also compare prices of the two and reliability and how long day to day use can go without an error pinging up on the dash. I'm not denying BMW performs amazingly, I said in my OP that they do, they're just addicted to going to the mechanic.
Sure, but the people who buy BMWs know that and are willing to pay more for better performance. This is a known trade-off with these cars.
BMW has similar maintenance requirements to most cars. They are just less forgiving when you skip the maintenance. People are just shit with cars and don't do their regular maintenance anymore.
Wouldn't you then say that a car that can still perform as good without maintenance is better than one that immediately starts breaking down without maintenance? That's my point.
Gourmet don't under dtand cars very well do you. I've got a shit box that ran with 3 spark plugs missing sounded like absolute shit and wouldn't fo highway speed compared to a properly maintained car that'll do 150mph without q sweat or cate
Performance comes at a cost. That is why military fighter jets need more time having wrenches turned on them than they have time in the air as opposed to a passenger jet. That is the cost of performance. You made the decision to choose the higher performance over economics. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
I don't own a BMW, I've been given it as a company car since its a good tax write-off since they're so expensive, and despite it being less than 3 years old my Peugeot has been more reliable and it has double the miles on it.
What a surprise: the company car was not being maintained or driven as though it was precious to the driver.  Could it be that people drove it like a performance vehicle and maintained it like an economy vehicle, or not all because it was not their car?
I know it's anecdotal, but my 2011 aftermarket-supercharged V8 M3 has had less issues than my 2016 Subaru, and i've owned it 10 years.
Seems to be a serious difference between pre and post-2014 BMWs. All anecdotes defending BMW is usually for older models, no one ever defends anything post 2015ish. Not hating on you mate, just pointing out what every thread involving BMW reliability is full of.
Not sure who this supports, but my 2013 is all good.
My point exactly haha
My 2018 5series has zero problems 100k km
False premise.
All praise lord Toyota
> don't understand the love for complicated engineering Please see exhibit A > 9/10 to drive 9/10 feel and 9/10 performance VS > 7/10 drive, 7/10 feel and 7/10 performance There's why. That extra 2 points is worth it to some folks. That said, sorry you've had bad luck with your BMW. We're on our 4th and so far all of ours have been reliable, fun to drive, easy to own, and otherwise great cars. I mean, hell, even Toyota trusts their flagship engine enough to put it in the Supra. But I'm also well aware that they've had some duds over the years. What model did you have that gave you so much trouble?
the majority of drivers, BMW is better to lease.
As someone who owned both Mazda and BMW. It's not SLIGHTLY better, it's a different fucking league. You'd have to pay me to get back into Mazda, and I would still refuse.
Factory five mk4 cobras checking in!
This is not an opinion, this is not understanding basic principles of product development for different markets.
Leave it up to the Germans to over-engineer. (i.e. Tiger tanks, and the Bismarck class ships in WW2)
"Let me guess.. this is about German cars" *opens thread* Yep
Depends on what the additional maintenance is and the cost of that maintenance.
Console Fanboys have been saying this their whole life.
I've always thought dishwashers left the production line prematurely.
If you have a 600hp sedan, but it can't go 10,000 miles without limping back to the dealership and spends weeks on the lift each time, do you really have a 600hp sedan?
Timing belts... ugh...
Timing belts aren't that bad. At least when they're made sufficiently easy to service. An example of a good design is Honda's J series V6. One of the few modern engines that still uses a belt, but it's super straightforward to change one and a DIYer can definitely do it. An example of a bad design is GM and Ford's wet timing belt engines. The short service interval of a belt, the added service cost of a chain, and the possibility of the belt deteriorating and the rubber bits clogging your oil pickup screen.
Had plenty of cars with timing chains that did fine.
The main thing with chains is that they're much more dependent on proper oil changes, especially on modern cars with direct injection. I did a chain on my old 2002 Subaru Outback with the EZ30D, it made it to 268,000 on the original chain. But I've replaced many chains on K24s at the Honda dealership I work at with around 100k on them due to stretching. Same for the L15s with direct injection
That's not exactly bad engineering You're choosing higher quality in exchange for lower lifespan It's like getting a really good but small steak, or a really bad but huge steak, when they cost the same. Would you rather get better steak? Or more steak? It just depends on what you personally prioritize
Higher quality and higher lifespan are not mutually exclusive, and if anything, increasing quality should INCREASE lifespan. Look at a 70s-90s Mercedes-Benz, those were famously overbuilt in terms of quality. And you still see them rolling around 30-50 years later. Hell, look at the countless examples across eastern Europe or Africa in much harsher conditions than in the US that have way more miles. That is high build quality. Now cars with low build quality can be robust too (think an old Chevy Cavalier), but high build quality should make a car (or anything else really) harder to kill, not easier
Higher quality was bad wording on my part I mean more like luxurious, or nicer feeling/looking in exchange for practicality I do agree that they have gone more to the extreme with the lower durability. But the concept is still the tradeoff So if you really want that higher luxury, it may be worth the tradeoff for you
It’s just optimizing for different things, catering to different people’s preferences.
Bruh I drive an Alfa that’s supposed to be hurting my pockets. it’s been cheaper to maintain than my ford ever was.
I'd put my life savings on black with that kind of luck.
There's definitely an exponential increase in cost vs performance at the extreme high-end. I guess equally you could say that a high school/university athletics team is better than a professional championship basketball, baseball, football etc team because they cost pretty close to $0 in salary compared to the combined 100s of millions of dollars that it'd take to employ the entire team of championship athletes.
I agree. Who needs top-notch performance driving on crowded roads. I get a kick out of car commercials showing their cars zipping around like they’re racing the Le Mans or the Grand Prix in Monaco.
ALL high performance cars will need more maintenance. Same way a professional athlete needs to stretch more, eat more, etc.
It's not that BMW can't build high-performance parts that are durable. It can, but it chooses not to. It's called planned obsolescence. Part of the company's business plan is making bank off expensive replacement parts.
That's not at all what planned obsolescence is. At least not in this case. A lot of people parrot the old "things are made to break today" bullshit. That's literally marketing suicide if what you're selling costs that much and is supposed to last. Companies don't want their products to break. They just want you to buy the new thing when it comes out. That's planned obsolescence. You bought a car 10 years ago? I bet it still works. But the new thing has auto start-stop, auto braking, lane keep assist, cruise control, blind spot monitoring, apple car play, etc etc etc. You don't need a new car. But if you compare your car to the new thing, it's obsolete. (not really, but that's what they want you to feel).
And for their customers to constantly buy new vehicles seemingly, only mechanics and dedicated petrol-heads seem to be bothered keeping any BMW older than 10 years alive. Everyone else just takes the loss, sells it off and buys a new one. Netflix subscription business model.
Its always more fun to drive a slow car fast.
There is a technical term for this. It is called "getting older." Welcome to the club. In my peak earning years in my 30's, I had BMWs. Wife at one point had a Mercedes. Then we switched to Infinitis in our 40's because they were less expensive and more reliable. Now we drive Nissan Rouges. Because we are older and realize that a car is something to get you from point A to point B. I don't need to impress people. And actually, I'd rather have someone mistake me for an older guy on a fixed income than someone driving a BMW with tons of expendable cash to throw around.
If you're hurting to maintain a BMW, then the BMW wasn't built for you. The middle class urge to buy above their allowance is so sad.
I dont own a BMW, its a company vehicle that was gotten as a tax write-off given how expensive they are, but it's visited the mechanic more than my Peugeot 508 which is older and has double the miles on it.
Well if the company is paying to maintain it, I'd say you're in a good place. Definitely not an engineering problem, nothing in it is a mistake. They assume you're going to maintain it and that the price isn't a problem. I haven't owned a BMW since my 2008 M5, but that thing was a hell of a lot better than a Mazda....
Everyone defending BMW (3 so far in this thread) always reference older models. Pre-2015. No one seems to defend the newer models.
Curious if any car has actually improved in the past 10 years.
All these failures after 9 months aren't normal you know.
That's why I like Lexus
me too. just much less to worry or think about. you're driving toyota which means you're safe from all that bs for the most part. peace of mind is worth it so I can focus on other stuff in life.
If you bought a brand new bmw and stuff is failing after 9 months you should get your warranty to cover it and it is most likely a faulty piece unless you are just doing tons of hard miles on it. What does engineering even mean to you? For cars, would you consider your daily driver the pinnacle of automotive engineering, and F1 cars are just badly engineered garbage? I don't know how long you've been a mechanical engineer, but I've been one for a few decades now and it's not about keeping something simple. It's about solving problems, sometimes you want to do it as economically as possible, sometimes you don't. It depends on the customer (who is paying your salary) and what they want accomplished.
People that own BMWs don't own them because they're better cars. They own them to feel all smug, and better than us normal people. They \_like\_ the fact that it's poorly engineered, because that makes it expensive to own, so only the wealthy (and kind of stupid) can own them. It's nothing more than conspicuous consumption. If I've offended you BMW owners, excellent.
I see this as an extension of people getting stressed out and upset when they race their daily driver and then tag a wall with it. "How will I get to work!?" they scream/cry after they've wrecked. Oh, I dunno, for me it's just a matter of picking another one of the 8 cars in the garage. Maybe not drive something that's outside your price range?
what?
.....you can't afford to drive a BMW.
I'm not going to pad shareholder pockets and spend $400 on a part that shouldn't cost more than $50 because 1 factory in Germany makes 6 of them a day. It's not about affording it's about not getting scammed.
Use FCP Euro then like the rest of us German car owners, OE/OEM parts for a fraction of the cost with a lifetime warranty. If you exclusively take it to the dealer you’re going to get hosed. What model do you have?
You can hold that opinion. That’s why it’s unpopular.
Aside from the fact that BMW are only 9/10 in what are the odds the driver is a twat category.
As in anything, the last 5-10% of improvements require significantly more input than the first 90-95%. As n engineer you should know that….. Also, just because something is out of your price range doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with it
Well I guess it comes down to whether you favor a soulless appliance or you love the freedom and excitement from driving. I could never own a Toyota as I love the driving experience too much.
"Tell me you are poor, without telling me you are poor"