Planned obsolescence, or the constant replacement of existing models has been a mainstay of the US auto biz since GM started eating Henry Ford’s austere, one-size-fits-all lunch nearly 100 years ago. As automotive technology rapidly matured, new model year refreshes offered new gizmos, tweaked styling, along with more performance, space and status. Before long, the eternal quest for newer, hotter newness led to a near constant turnover in model names, styling and branding. Every three to five years now, we expect new headlights and maybe a fender vent at the minimum, signifying that the driver is far more in touch with the times than someone stuck in the instantly-dated predecessor version.
More typically we expect new engines, interiors, more room, extra cupholders and more. And the model of regular refreshes has been good for the industry. Until now. With global overproduction, soaring inventories, a credit crunch and downscaled expectations, is the constant reworking of a proven vehicle worth the investment? Mercedes’ G-Wagen has received only one major update (1990) since it debuted in 1979, and it’s pegged to stay in production until “at least” 2015. Sure it’s a niche vehicle, but hasn’t automotive technology become mature enough for the industry to start considering building vehicles with similarly long lifespans?
I’d say things are okay right now, with typical 4 or 5 year refreshes and some minor changes each year or two.
It’s not like the 50s or 60s where the cars (American ones at least) had to look different every year. The funny thing then was that underneath, things didn’t change all that much. Look how long Ford and Chrysler held on to rear leaf springs for example.
But look at the difference between a 1979 Toyota Corolla and a 2009 – there is no way under any circumstances that you could still be selling a ’79 car.
To follow your plan and you end up like GM trying to sell mildly restyled 14yo Cavaliers.
The trouble is, from about 1990 to up until a year ago, we lived in a disposable culture.
People were buying cars every 3 years, hence, the car industry had to keep their line up fresh. In the old days, people kept their cars a lot longer and there was less safety regulations, hence, models’ lifespans were longer.
Now, with the recession, you will see people holding onto their cars for longer. People are starting to realise that a car CAN last longer than 3 years. Hence, we may see a return to car models’ market life extending.
Not only to accomdate the market, but the added bonus is that it’ll save costs in development.
That’s what I think anyway….
Mercedes’ G-Wagen has received only one major update (1990) since it debuted in 1979, and it’s pegged to stay in production until “at least” 2015.
Another example–the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis have had basically the same styling since 1991, and IIRC the the platform itself is from the late ’70s.
Think Volvo still has the tooling somewhere to kick out some 740’s?
Ford Panther platform. It’s had one major and one minor rebodying since the Carter administration.
Still, the crash standards arms race means that most cars can’t be built for more than five years or so without a major redesign anyway. It would be nice if we could vote with our wallets for B13s and E30s in 2009, though.
They do, its called the Ford Ranger. I just wish the CRX was still in production!
Seems they are two problems:
1) Vehicles stick around too long and “die on the vine” from a lack of improvements to keep them competitive in the market place. OR…
2) Vehicles are constantly tweaked, made “new and improved” to the point that they no longer fit their original purpose. Case in point the new Fit is really the old Civic hatch. As the Civic has been pushed so far upstream it’s nearly what the Accord was 10 years ago.
Striking a balance between these two issues is where the problem lies.
I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I would like to see manufacturers constantly improving upon a model and gradually updating it to include new features and added reliability. Many components should be able to be carried over and thus save money as well. I like this better than the domestic approach of relentlessly cost cutting a model while hanging it out to die a 7-20 year death or completely redesigning it from the ground up and changing the name.
The decline in sales is just going to create more marketing pressure to make things look new.
But, much more often, the newness will only be skin deep.
Basic “platforms”, whatever that even means these days, are going to live much longer.
I do hope that partial mid-cycle refreshes die. Mid-cycle refreshes that take a cohesive, unified design and screw it up with a mismatched front clip and rear-end are awful. Completely re-skin it or leave it alone.
Mazda did a horrible job “updating” the Miata and RX-8.
And if Ford wanted to continue selling the previous generation Focus in the US that was fine; there was no reason for them re-skin it to make it ugly when it originally looked decent.
Ironically Ford later admitted that making the previous generation Focus ugly cost more than it would have cost to update the North American plants to build the current generation platform.
I agree with 210delray, a 5 year cycle for refreshes is good.
I would disagree with you Katie, at least in the US. Back in the 50s, people would regularly trade their cars in every two years or so. Not everyone, but a LOT of people. Cars didn’t hold up as well back then, and the annual styling changes made cars look dated even if their mechanicals were still good and the tin worm was kept at bay.
You would be laughed at if you were still driving a ’54 Chevy, in say 1959. Since our family didn’t pile on the miles as fast as was typical back then, we kept our cars for 6 years but only 30K miles! But our next-door neighbors on either side were 2- or 3-year traders.
Fortunately for us, we went from a ’55 Chevy to a ’61 and then a ’67, so we avoided the most garish years and the ’55 was recognized as desirable car, if not yet a classic, even by the early 60s.
I bet there is a market out there for a simple car that comes with a USB interface and a DVD with detailed diagnostic, repair and troubleshooting information and includes any special tools required to perform repairs.
Think of the aftermarket that would spring up to support these cars running basically forever. This could be a new global car: Cheap to own, maintain, run and insure.
The older 1990s Mercedes & BMWs offer Handling and Ride comfort not far and often better than many new cars. If those cars were still made, albeit at lower prices, They would be great vehicles for many folk. An increase in many peoples standard of living. Still considering people buy Aveos and such, cars are not the obstacle to people’s standards of living, its ignorance. Ignorance is not bliss. That reminds me…
God grant me the serenity to accept that I cannot change others and life. The willingness and courage to change my attitude and behavior, and the Wisdom and Clarity to know the difference.
210delray,
From the end of the second world war, to the late 1970’s, people were relatively poor. The Second World War crippled the UK (even to this day).
So, something like a car was treated with respect.
It was only in the 1970’s when disposable income was high enough that cars started become disposable.
don’t they still make mkII golfs in south africa? what about the original beetle that was built in mexico? these cars serve(d) specific purposes much like the g-wagen.
you said it yourself, the companies are always trying to one-up their rivals and it probably seemed like a good idea to have a better, newer product than a competitor (competitive advantage, i guess) so it was the manufacturers who got the customers used to new things.
volvo and mercedes-benz i think had it right when they came out with their 240s and W201 and W124, respectively.
Let’s see…Ford Ranger, Ford Crown Victoria, Ford E-Series Vans, Chevy Express Vans, Chevy Impala, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Cadillac DTS, Chevy Trailblazer…yeah I think the domestics have been doing this for years and I’m not sure it’s worked out too well for them from an image standpoint.
There are some basic architecture improvements that cannot be “fixed” by tweaks.
One example which comes to mind is the Ford Crown Victoria. It has a problem with the gas tank being more prone to puncture (and fire). This is a consequence of its position behind the rear axle. This position was decided in a design decision in the late 70’s. Current safety thinking dictates other places for the gas tank but they cannot be “tweaked” into this design. Hence a new design is needed sometimes.
@carlos.negros
USB is a pretty recent invention – maybe the last 10 years. And I won’t even get into the versions of USB. So any vehicle would have to be pretty new to have it. Computer technology moves very quickly. A 1999 computer (maybe a 600 MHz Pentium) is not very usable for current software. And you can’t just upgrade the firmware in a 1999 computer to make it into a 2009 model. Lots of people think a 1999 auto is just fine.
At this point we are free to buy an automobile at any interval we wish. Future environmental regulations may force us into vehicles sooner.
… but hasn’t automotive technology become mature enough for the industry to start considering building vehicles with similarly long lifespans?
I really don’t think it has. Newer, more efficient designs and manufacturing processes offset the savings of a longer life-cycle. For example VW’s goal in redesigning the Golf is to make it cheaper to build. It can be a win / win for both the consumer and manufacturer.
This approach works on a niche vehicle, but if you try it on a regular car you end up with the Saab 9-5. And we all know how well THAT worked out.
This is a very interesting question, and I think it depends upon what the driving force for new vehicle purchases is becoming.
There are three main categories of new car buyers:
1) Those who have never had one before and really need/want one. In the Model T’s heyday that was the biggest market in the US, and it continues to be a big driver in emerging markets.
2) Worn out and/or high running cost vehicles which are more economic to replace than to keep running. This is, BTW, how most commercial aircraft get sold. A combination of better efficiency for the new stuff combined with escalating costs of keeping old, worn equipment airworthy eventually leads to replacement.
3) Fashion/feel-good/show-off buyers. These buyers want to flaunt their perceived wealth, green cred or some other form of status display. The primary need of these buyers is to make themselves feel better by making other people feel jealousy. “You would be laughed at if you were still driving a ‘54 Chevy, in say 1959.” – That was the magic of demand creation marketing doing its thing. Work the envy/pecking order human emotions to bring in the bucks. Rather cynical and shallow if you think about it.
Henry Ford was focused on the group 1 buyers. GM in it’s heyday figured out how much money was to be made playing into group 3’s hands and heads. Ford was very slow at realizing when market saturation was being approached. The long model runs which were once typical of German and Swedish brands sold best to the group 2 buyers. Traditional truck buyers also were mostly group 2 folks. Oddly, trucks became a group 3 fashion statement in the US for two decades and boomed, but that boom is pretty much over.
To me the question is what kind of an automotive marketplace is going to dominate in the months and years ahead. Right now the group 3 buyers are mostly on strike. If things stay that way, then very long model runs would be the way to go. The Volvo 240 was a good example of this way of doing things. Incrementally improved engines, anti-lock brakes, air bags and such were integrated into the platform over time, but the majority of the vehicle was unchanged for around 20 years. 20 years is probably too long given the pace of underlying technological development, but 10 year model runs should be very doable.
I think it’s the opposite.
People buy cars every 2-3 years because the new ones come out and we don’t want to be seen with the old model, and we have ADD and love newness.
Not car companies updating their cars because consumers will only buy new and fresh styling.
JMII is right. The Ranger is case in point. It’s been the kickboy of auto scribes for years because Ford has put virtually no money into refining and developing it. I’ve driven a 1993 Ranger for 16 years [don’t cry for me]. Although it’s currently relegated to third car status, it’s been reliable and durable. I like my Ranger, but when it finally dies, why would I buy a brand new one when the 2009 truck is basically the same as the 1993 truck at an increased price? Even if I had bought three Rangers in that span, eventually, I would simply get tired of looking at the same sheetmetal and the same dashboard and the same corporate Ford switchgear, etc. Change is good when done well.
Don’t forget the Feds, too. The Ranger could go on indefinitely if it weren’t for the Feds mandating more and more safety equipment. I think mandatory side curtain airbags will finally doom the Ranger in another year or two.
I really liked the 8 year cycles that the German cars were on back in the 80s and 90s. You could buy a lightly used one and drive it for years, and it was still the current body style!
Nowadays, unless you get a car in its first or second year, you’ll be driving an old-looking car soon as it will undoubtedly be replaced by its fourth year. That’s acceptable when your car is an appliance, but not so much when you bought a luxury car to show off a little (think Audi, BMW, Benz, Lexus).
The thing with planned obsolesence is not only the constant changeover, but that the cars in this case, are built to a standard. And that standard is so low it makes the car fall a part after a certain amount of time and use. The median length of time a car is supposed to last is about 18 years. That means, most cars are written off in its entirety in that time.
You “invest” between 20 and 50 grand in an automobile, not only are the depreciation absurd, after about twenty years, you stand there with a car that is more or less worthless and worn out, ready for the scrap heap, or with a car that needs reparation or renovations in par with the cost of a new car. Maintaining a car to keep it in pristine condition raises the costs astronomically.
The point is not that a certain car from 30 or 50 years ago may be on the same level of refinement and quality than a car from today, but that most cars are worn out within a given timeframe. Because, if they were not, no one would buy a new car besides the novelty value.
What if Mercedes made a G-Wagen 30 years ago, that was engineered like nothing ever made on this earth? What if that car, after 30 years of use, would be no different from buying a new car? Would they still sell new cars? Because, obviously, you don’t need to replace them because they are worn out.
And car parts are worn out. Engines, transmissions, under-carriage, and so on and so forth. All those parts are estimated for a certain amount of life, be it 100 000 miles or 200, it doesn’t matter. Who in their right mind makes a car with parts estimated for a million miles or two, without showing any sign of wear? Especially when that standard is a standard in the entire industry?
And if there were such a car, would people come back for more? That is the question…
Driven by business need – on one hand – and the frail psyche of the American consumer who must have the latest to appear successful enough to live with themselves.
KatiePuckrik
There was already evidence that Americans (perhaps not Brits) were keeping cars longer, even before the economy really tanked:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=americans+keeping+cars+longer+2008&btnG=Search
Even though some cars seem cheaper, particularly with interior materials, compared to cars a decade ago, they’re still more durable and reliable overall.
I’m not sure what that says about Planned Obsolescence. If you believe the market will follow the demand, perhaps it shows that Americans tend to demand Toyota-Honda-like reliability for a very long time.
The Jeep XJ Cherokee was in production for 20 years and a variant is still being produced in China. During those 20 years I think it had two interior restylings, one exterior freshening, and one drivetrain upgrade.
The upside to conservative styling changes is that while a 3 button Brooks Brothers three piece suit with medium lapels may not be au courant it will always be stylish.
Though they’ve played the string out and the next one will be radically different, the Jaguar XJ is a good example of timeless styling. With the exception of the square headlighted XJ40 of the late 1980s, all the XJs still look good and most people have no clue that a mid 1980s XJ in good shape is a 25 year old car. Good design is timeless.
BTW, if you want to see planned obsolescence in action, look at how Apple manages the iPod and iPhone brands.
re: disposable cars. I’ve owned 2 Fiats and 2 Alfas. They were disposable. In fact, I should have disposed of them more quickly than I did.
Before the technology to pre-galvanize sheet steel used for car bodies came to the auto industry, cars in winter were subjected to corrosion we seldom see today. In western New York, even today, the DPWs use salt extensively. Eight winters steady commuting was a long time to have a car w/o a galvanized body. After the first 3-4 years, it looked cancerous, after a few more, it was dangerous and a little after that you could stop it like Fred Flintstone did….
The only reason the G-Wagen is still in production is because it’s sold for ridiculous prices by pretentious D-bags. It’s original mission in life is long behind it; the farmers and foresters of Europe stopped buying it two decades ago, and switched over to the much cheaper Japanese hard core SUV’s (Patrol, etc.)
It’s a classic case of unintended longevity; rich Arabs buying a long obsolete vehicle for absurd prices. But that is not the kind of longevity a manufacturer can plan for.
Mercedes SL and G-wagen, Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee, Ford Crown Vic and Ranger, Range Rover, Honda NSX, etc…
Those could survive with long life cycles because they have no direct competitors. F150 and Camry are the top-selling vehicles in the US and everyone else is trying to take a piece of those segments. So mid-size car and full-size truck have short life cyles.
If there were real improvements and an increase in appeal from one model generation to the next, more frequent model updates might be welcome. Unfortunately, “new” all too often means just the opposite: Vehicle size and weight growth, less fuel efficiency, more electronic nannyism, less driver involvement, weird or mediocre design, and higher cost.
First of all – BrianE – take it easy on the 9-5 my man. Let’s not kick a brand when it’s down. As geriatric as that car has become, and as unconscionably expensive as it is, it does have some redeeming qualities that make it worthwhile. Particularly considering you can pick up an ’07 or ’08 for less than 20 grand. If you can deal with the hideous racoon-eye headlights…
ANYWAY…updates, refreshes, zoomy headlight bezels to replace the slightly less zoomy bezels of the prior model year…these are what keep the suits employed. If all they had to do was keep cranking out the same car year after year, the folks at the head office would just sit around all day and pick their teeth, and eventually get laid off. Oh…wait….
What I appreciate – and I know this is slightly off topic but what the hell – is design integrity. The Porsche 911 has changed considerably, and yet it hasn’t changed much at all. They got it right. Even flame-broiled BMWs still have some of that design continuity. The evil Saab 9-5 – key between the seats, clamshell hood, turbo four – check, check, check. The Land Rover roofline. Even as things change, I love seeing design elements that were executed right the first time, and are allowed to continue on.
Fresh out of high school, I bought one of the latest and greatest things that GM had come up with – an X Car.
In my defense, I was young, we didn’t have google then, and a friend had just bought one and swore they were great.
I learned a lot from that car, namely that it was a deathtrap and that GM would do absolutely NOTHING to fix design flaws because it was past the 36,000 mile warranty by a couple thousand miles.
That taught me that some cars are built to fall apart, and the only solution is to buy another car.
My next car had 80,000 miles on it when I bought it and 200,000 when I sold it. Believe it or not, it was built in Japan.
Lesson learned.
If I were a better student, I never would have bought another Detroit car, but no, we fell for a Jeep a few years later, and thankfully sold it a couple years later, long before the warranty expired. That’s when I bought my current civic, which is almost 20 years old and doing great.
I’m a function over form kind of person, I couldn’t care less that my car isn’t the newest shade of purple or have an MP3 jack or whatever. It gets me around.
“The only reason the G-Wagen is still in production is because it’s sold for ridiculous prices by pretentious D-bags.”
From what I have read, it is the German Army that keeps the G-Wagen in production. Apparently, they have a standing order for a couple of thousand cars a year, and have “requested” Daimler to continue production until they can replace their entire fleet. That and all the blinged-out sleds makes for some hefty profits.
I have a 1995 Cherokee. That was produced from 1984 through 2001 and still had decent sales. I think that’s easier to do with blocky trucks like the Cherokee or G-wagon than with cars since trucks are supposed to be rugged and simple.
However, I upgraded to a new BMW for, amongst other things, the marked safety improvements that have happened in the past 15 years. Multiple airbags…engineered crumple zones…improved safety cage integrity…stability control…traction control…abs…SOS…etc. Remarkably, my old Jeep had relatively good safety ratings, but by and large, I would NOT drive 20+ year old cars for safety reasons- especially compact cars.
BTW…@katie…I think people upgraded cars more often in the old days, when 100k was an unbelievably high-mileage car. Today, things are so reliable they last much longer, although GM still produces cars at a rate suggesting the expect people to upgrade every few years.
Re: mid-cycle upgrades. These usually turn out bad….new headlights…maybe a new bumper or grille with an extra bar in it poorly integrated into the original design. Occasionally they’re good though. The Cherokee facelift was nice, and the Scion xB looks 100% better after it’s facelift.
The XJ6 was basically the same from 1968 to 1987, and it still looked good in 1995. The MGB 1962 to 1980, although the rubber bumpers almost killed it. It seems like BMW tried to reinvent the E30 with the 1 series, but when you add on all the crap that you HAVE to have today it became a bloated overpriced exercize. If you get the styling right why keep starting with a clean sheet?
I have 2 cars that I really like and do just what I want them to. 1993 940 wagon, 170k miles and still rolling strong and a 1992 325i ragtop 165k just did the motor. While I would love a new RS4 cabriolet, the 325 is loads of fun to drive and I don’t have to sweat where I park. The only bummer about both these cars is the non existence of OE cupholders.
We focus too much on the incremental. Cars are fashion. Since the 50’s, the curve of a fender has been used to denote “new” and “old”.
Beyond Fashion, which dictates replacement to a certain percentage of the population, we have the intentionally set forth “mean time between failures” of major components.
This factoid is directly tied to the cost of replacement parts. The idea is that when things start failing, the owner, who probably has passed from the “note”, realizes that on a monthly basis, the “new” car would be cheaper or at least easier to deal with.
Somewhere, this is set forth, the curves on a graph cross, and bing ! those who can afford to do so buy another car.
Most of the parts that fail on a car and drive owners bug-nuts are crappy small things, sensors that were made for $5, sell for $150, and hopefully your mechanic can find the fault which causes your car to “not start”. The tiny bit of plastic that breaks in the heater control that would not pass muster at the Revell factory, but is part of an “assembly” for $275.00.
The engine and block will go for 250k if you change the oil, but most owner frustration is when the stupid secondary systems fail.
I had a Ford Contour that was straight worn out at 100k. I have a BMW 3 series, that in the exact same use pattern, is still strong at 180k. Yes, it cost more, but at least in this one case, the contrast could not be clearer.
Most cars are flash over crap, designed to get out of warranty without too many claims. Not all, but most.
I’m wondering how big radar cruise control will be as a upgrade driver. Being able to come to a complete stop and inch forward in bumper to bumper traffic is going to be huge. When you see all those stuck in traffic every morning and evening I can see millions making the switch.
As an added bonus, research indicates that when adoption reaches a critical mass it will dramatically reduce those “surge” type traffic jams that account for a significant amount of highway congestion.
First of all – BrianE – take it easy on the 9-5 my man. Let’s not kick a brand when it’s down.
Why not? This kind of cynical product planning is why the brand is down.
As geriatric as that car has become, and as unconscionably expensive as it is, it does have some redeeming qualities that make it worthwhile. Particularly considering you can pick up an ‘07 or ‘08 for less than 20 grand. If you can deal with the hideous racoon-eye headlights…
Redeeming qualities such as what, exactly? It doesn’t look good. The interior, with the exception of the seats, is cheaper than most midsize sedans today. It’s not especially reliable, and it’s not especially safe when held up to today’s standards. A lightly used Legacy GT blows away the 9-5 in just about every way I can think of. About the only thing it has going for it is epic depreciation (and torque steer). How great is that?
Is everyone around here really believing that the G only got one major update in 30 years???????
You guys know better than that.
Maybe it’s not the things that are on the outside, but this car gets an overhaul almost every year. One year you get new engines, the next year you get new gearboxes, the other year a new interiour and the yaer after that something that noone notices, like a complete new ventilatin system. just because the donor vehicle is renewed. Most of the pricier parts come from other cars (C-class, E-class etc.) and when they change, the g changes with them.
After thirty years nothing (not even the roof panel) is the same.
I wish there were more universal standards for cars. Why should the ECU, etc, be different from car to car, when the only necessary difference could be flashable software? Why can’t the center stack accept standard, upgradable units? They all do the same thing. HVAC controls could be flashed for vent type and interface. It would be a huge difference in parts availability and cost, long-term upgradability, and customizability.
We have a Mercedes W123 and W124. No reason to stop driving them, ever. But the W124 has inop cruise control, and this can only be diagnosed by buying and replacing $$$$ 1990’s vintage circuit boards. There must be a better way.
I also have an Audi A8L (D2). It will doubtless be …interesting as it ages. The aluminum body will last for many decades, and I’m willing to replace maintenance items indefinitely, unless Audi decides to price them as if encrusted with diamonds. We will see.
A loaded 88 325is costs $30k in 1988, that is over $50k in today’s money. Loaded means sunroof, lsd, wheels, S seats and wheel. All cars are relatively more affordable I think. The E30 was built for 8 years I think, still a great car today.
Given how uninspired most cars look, I hardly see the value of refreshes–UNLESS they actually made the car look better. Most of the time that’s not the case, and sometimes–second gen Saturn, I’m thinking of YOU (https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-truth-about-saturn/)–they look much worse.
Given all this, I wish companies would concentrate on the quality, and skip refreshes that don’t improve appearance.
You can’t ignore essential tweaks, such as safety features that make a difference – but people are realizing that these are turning up in more inexpensive vehicles, as they are simply mandated.
Lipstick tweaks are just silly, and people are seeing through them – while the portion of people who feel a need to upgrade frequently is becoming smaller. People are hanging on to their cars longer, because they last longer (or because instant depreciation with gas guzzlers put them underwater with their cars.)
This trend comes at the worst possible time for a car industry looking for people to begin buying cars again.
I wouldn’t go so far as saying the G has only had “one” refresh. I consider new engines, new tranmissions, new interiors and new features pretty important indicators of changes in the design. The cosmetics and the basic chassis are the same, but the details are VERY different. There is not much in common between a 79 and an 09 G-Wagen (particularly if the 79 has the weedy little oil burner masquerading as an engine).
The Beetle, that was a car that didn’t change significantly until they axed production in the South. Or the original Mini. Or if you want an extreme example, how about Royal Enfield (India) which has been churning out 1955 Bullets up to the present with minimal updates over the last 50 years (niche product is an understatement).
Mercedes SL and G-wagen, Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee, Ford Crown Vic and Ranger, Range Rover, Honda NSX, etc…doesn’t help their image
Hey now, ye old Panther is a money maker for Ford since they’re using such an old platform! They paid off the costs of development sometime before I was born.
It’s our expectations as consumers that have been twisted a bit. Since we’re always expecting new cars, it’s what we get.
CamCords are get a refresh at 2-3 years, and a complete replacement at 5 years, like clockwork, even though they could probably sell for 8-9 years easily. Like the margins in the auto manufacturing industry (supercars aside), it’s a tightrope act, balancing consumer expectations against your competitors’ actions and the costs of taking those actions yourself.
Emerging markets could care less and gladly take the savings of using an older familiar platform, where distributing replacement parts for new cars can be difficult. Examples include the simple VW Beetle, produced new in mexico until a few years ago, or (an extreme example) the Morgan 4/4, ashwood frame and all.
The CamCord blows from a lot of angles. The refresh is like putting a left over piece of pizza in a microwave, Its hot, but it makes it taste more stale. The new CamCords are not bad vehicles in a lot of ways though.
I would say in the modern era Honda is the most religious in its product cycle. The Accord and Civic always have a four year model cycle, with a facelift/trim changes on the third year lasting the last two years of the cycle. Toyota has been consitent too, but slipped with the last Corolla.
The D3 on the other hand, have been known to let product wither on the vine until it was no longer competitive, especially Ford (Taurus, Focus, Crown Vic, etc). And remember that back in the fifties, while the tooling was expensive for trim and sheetmetal, these were body on frame cars and the frames and engines didn’t change from year to year that often. Most often today, a five year change is a whole new chassis and many times a new or updated engine.
While I’m not a fan of planned obsolescence (case in point: I love my 2008 Mazda3 but wouldn’t buy the 2010 model) in part because cars seem to get heavier and more complicated, alot of what drives 5 year changes is new emissions and safety standards. When you look at the cost to update an existing platform for stricter crash (and say for example engine clearance in the case of European pedestrian safety) the cost to redo the whole car becomes worth it when you get to update styling and features vs. updating an old chassis.
In the end, I have to think that product cycles are necessary, as the industry progresses (cars, in general, get better). The only way to stop it would be for all manufacturers to agree to stop R&D and only make what they are making now. Which will never happen in a competitive market place.
In ’03 I was lusting for a BMW 5 series but ideally would have preferred to wait a couple of years. Then I saw the “new and improved” Bangle thing – exterior styling like a 4th grade exercise, interior modelled after an ’80’s Buick and iDrive aarrrggg!.
I rushed out and bought an E39 530i that was probably one of the last off the boat. So I’m driving a car with 12 year old styling. As the only person I’m trying to impress is myself, I couldn’t be happier.
the duke :
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
…these were body on frame cars and the frames and engines didn’t change from year to year that often….
That reminds me of a point brought up in one of the old GM Death Watch articles from a few years back, where it was suggested that the D3 got on their SUV kick because a decently engineered truck platform could serve as the underpinnings for an entire range of vehicles for 10-15 years life cycle with minimal changes, which makes a lot more money than having to create an entirely new unibody car every 5.
“A loaded 88 325is costs $30k in 1988, that is over $50k in today’s money. Loaded means sunroof, lsd, wheels, S seats and wheel. All cars are relatively more affordable I think. The E30 was built for 8 years I think, still a great car today.”
I have an 88 325ic (convertible) with the original sticker — $36,259!
I think Ford’s Panther platform is a great example. This platform dates back to 1979. It has recived updates over the years and is still in production. Panther platform cars are hands down some of the most durable cars built.
1979 – Platform debuts.
1991 – 5.0 OHV dropped for new 4.6 SOHC.
1998 – Larger brakes, new rear suspension setup (Watts-Link)
2003 – New hydro-formed frame, rack and pinion steering.
These cars are really solid which is why Ford hasn’t done much to them. Better not to mess up a good thing!
I have a 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis, and a 1967 Ford Galaxie 500 XL convertible. the same front shocks will fit on both vehicles.
I’m not saying they are the same car by a longshot, but if you look underneath both cars, the frames and the location and assembly of the gas tanks are very similar.
I love them both – the Panther is last of the real cars left.
I maintain my own cars. For 30 yrs or so, I have focused on cars with long production cycles. VW bugs,50 something yrs, Jeep Wagoneers, 28 yrs, BMW 528es, 6 yrs,. I buy one, drive it until it gets too rusty , then buy another and use the first as parts for the second. If I can keep the bodies intact, I figure that I am good for another 10 yrs before I go car shopping.again. My 88 BMW had an MSRP of just over 35 k$.
Obsolescence is not a dirty word, if the new models truly offer advancement. The current slump challenges the auto companies to step up technology and innovation to capture the excitement of consumers again. Offer new autos with radically better fuel economy, safety and computer/info systems and consumers will come back to the show room.
I have often wondered why no one has tried to copy the success of the VW Bug…..by building a car that is handsome, or at least not offensive, then engage in continuous improvement of engines, suspensions, etc. continuing to refine it….oh, minor tweaks to the outside design, structural safety improvements, etc.
Think of the money that could be saved on exterior tooling and marketing. Money that could go into refinement of things that matter. I believe the Cherokee and Ranger examples show there is a market for vehicles which put more of an emphasis on substance over style. If memory serves, the Fox platform Mustang based the ‘Stang for about 16 years….
the additional benefit would be that savings could be passed on to the consumer. The platform of the vehicle should only change when it becomes apparent that technology has advanced to a point where retro-fitting the technology to an old platform is less efficient than designing a new platform around it.
I think there’s two ways to go on this.
I understand the need for new and “better” and I think that is needed in some segments of cardom.
But who hasn’t thought of something like the previous generation Accord with the 265HP motor from the New Accord? Or the previous gen Acura TL with the new TL’s powertrain? Or any one of the previous generation RX7s with the Rensis rotary from the RX8? Or even a Pontiac FIERO with a direct injection 3.6 V6 engine and a 6 speed? I could think of a dozen examples.
A case can be made that some cars are not really improved by the introduction of the new models at all.
“I have often wondered why no one has tried to copy the success of the VW Bug…..by building a car that is handsome, or at least not offensive, then engage in continuous improvement of engines, suspensions, etc. continuing to refine it….oh, minor tweaks to the outside design, structural safety improvements, etc.”
It has been done, by almost every major manufacturer, in certain parts of time. Very often, it’s about “a car for the people” catering for that particular peoples need for car ownership under a sustainable amount of time.
Ford Model T (1908-27) some 15 million made.
Jeep CJ, (WWII-Mid 80’s)
Land Rover (1948-present day)
Volkswagen Beetle (1945-2003) Some 22 million made
Morris Minor (1948-1971) 1.6 million made
Mini (1959-2000) 5.5 million made
BMC 1100/1300 ADO16 (1961-1975) 2.1 million made
Citroen 2CV (1949-1990) 5.2 million made
Renault 4 (1961-1994) Some 8 million made
Fiat 500 (1957-1975) Some 4 million made
Lada Riva (1969-present day) Some 18.5 million made. And the russians are still making them to the tune of some 700 000 units a year. Think about that for a minute…
Note that all of these cars were on the market for a very long time.
Look at long-haul trucks – they are for the most part still going strong at half a million miles. Everything on the truck gets rebuilt a few times, or maybe upgraded too, but there eventually comes a time when even a well-cared-for old truck won’t do the job as well as a new rig.
While some car buyers follow that example, most do not.
And the idea of a standard software for cars will never happen. If there’s anything that changes a lot from year to year, it’s software. (Software being defined as that part of a computer system that you cannot kick.)
I bought my last car in ’01. Nothing too fancy or expensive (Mercury Cougar), but it still looks nice and drives okay. For financial reasons I’m tempted to drive it until the wheels fall off, but if I were to buy a new(er) car anytime soon, it’d be for these reasons:
1) Better crash ratings and safety features (I don’t even have traction control, let alone ESC or side air bags).
2) Better fuel economy
3) Better power
4) More room (I’m well beyond the desire to ever drive another low slung coupe)
5) More options (leather seating, moonroof, etc).
But if I had a life changing event (e.g. had kids, moved out of the country), I’d dump it pronto.
The Germans usually have longer product cycles but update the cars every year, like the G-wagen (some have already pointed out) but also every other car in their line-up, particularly with Mercedes and BMW, the product will be much different when it reaches the end of its product cycle compared to when it was first launched.
Personally I prefer the concept of long product cycles with regular updates. When the Japanese launch their new appliences every 3 years it almost never gets me excited, and when I see older Civics or Corollas on the road, even being heavily inflicted with car ADD as I am I regularly have to think twice about what model year it could be, and what was there before/after.
The new models don’t have a seperate identity, apart from ‘a Civic’, the model year doesn’t matter, so what’s the point of launching a new one every three years if nobody notices.
The Germans however; Golf I, II, III, IV, V, VI (it’s getting more civicy with the V and VI)
Even better; E21, E30, E36, E46, (E90)…All clearly identifiable seperate cars that have all been in production for at least 7 years and were competitive for all of those.
Toyota is doing this pretty well these days. Most of the Lexus lineup today looks like slightly warmed over 6-8 year old models with the exterior trim removed and tweaked grilles and larger engines. The new Corolla looks like the 2002 model with bodyside moldings removed and a Camry grille thrown in and it uses the same basic 1.8 liter engine and old 4 speed automatic from the 90’s. The 2010 Prius looks like a 2005 that was left out in the sun a tad too long. The Yaris is basically the same car that was offered over in Japan years ago and the 4 Runner has looked basically the same since the late 90’s with the only exterior change being making the fender flares and rockers body color in 2003.
Ingvar….thanks for the list. Some cool, successful product their which corroborates my point that a successful business model could be made by finding the right formula and sticking with it for a while.
That is a model which I think Saturn could have developed into, along with one-price, no-haggle dealership experience…(see the companion discussion in the “$24k at a Jeep dealer”) and internet distribution model….if GM hadn’t screwed it up.
Make a safe, efficient, comfortable, reliable appliance. Make it beautiful, a classic design so it will always have appeal. Continuously upgrade it until the point where retrofitting to upgrade technology is as or more expensive than designing a new platform, then design and build a new one. Don’t waste money on ridiculous marketing slogans such as “We speak car.”…put value in the car by taking the money otherwise wasted on marketing and fast product cycles and putting it into upgraded materials and engineered-in quality manufacturing techniques (see the discussion on the design of the Lexus SC400 door hinge.) Sell it on the internet for a fixed, reasonable price and service it well. Build a consistent fixed quantity of them, which is at least 1 less than you can sell, but enough to amortize fixed costs for cost-effectiveness. Don’t be in a rush to expand. Don’t try to be all things to all customers, if you do that, you end up being less to your core customers. Don’t overbling your cars to attract well-heeled buyers, and don’t sell strippers…..thrifty buyers will find a way to buy a superior product if they know it will last longer, and a core of affluent buyers will always appreciate an understated but well-executed value.
I think this is what Honda did with the first few generations of the Accord and Civic, then they kind of lost the plot with the whole bigger is better mantra. Ditto Mercedes in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, then they got carried away with their pretensions. I don’t think GM ever had it….they just rode two waves….the initial wave of the car as a desirable status symbol for an emerging middle class from the 20’s to the 30’s, and then the postwar wave of American expansion in the 50’s to the early 70’s….they’ve slowly dying ever since.
The Truth about the Car business is that there is an optimum business model, which would allow companies to build fine cars at a profit in any market, in any economic circumstances. When companies wander from that premise, trying to be all things to all buyers in all markets, they lose necessary focus and expose themselves to the vagaries of economics and the trendy whims of the fickle marketplace.
BrianE – sounds like I hit a nerve. Saab has apparently dun ya wrong at some point.
I will agree that GM has let the 9-5 die a slow, undignified death. Decontenting began in earnest in 2004, and the updated exterior and cheap, generic GM interior deserve special scorn. My wife’s ’03 wagon is a much higher quality, better looking example.
But, 260hp (with 30 mpg to boot) from a proven motor, and the availabilty of a manual tranny in a midsize sedan, would brighten anyone’s day. Except yours, apparently. =)
Looks are subjective, and we’ve put 70K on our wagon with nary an unscheduled repair. Small sample size, I know, but here in New England I personally know 5 people with 9-5s and they’ve all been day to day reliable. And safety – NHTSA five stars all around, with the exception of 4 for rear seat side impacts. No curtain airbags is indefensible though.
What can I say, I am a voice in the wilderness – a Saab apologist.
So often these almost mandatory 3-4 year “updates” ruin a great car design. I love the design of the 2003-2007 Honda Accord (Acura TSX – not the N.A. Accord, it’s fugly). The new styling for the 2008 model? Not so much. What was wrong with the old one? And the new one isn’t that different, it’s just an “edgier” version of the previous one (why do new car designs always have to be “edgier”? Is pushing the boundary of the ugly some sort of designers’ fetish, or is it just inevitable when people run out of ideas?). There’s always a way to provide some subtle updates and keep the car looking fresh without changing the whole design (the Germans are good at this, typically).
I think the whole 3-4 year refresh thing stops cars from achieving truly “classic” status, and I do wish I could see more of now removed designs on the road as opposed to the their uglier successors.
Plus, there’s so much to change in car besides the appearance! I’ll eagerly swap a car that looks exactly the same as a new model provided the new model can give me, say, 50% better fuel efficiency…
Oh, and to add to the list of cars manufactured for a long time :)
Zastava 101 (essentially a hatchback version of the Fiat 128 – under various names for different models: 1100, Mediteran, Yugo Skala 55, etc.): 1971-2008, officially 1,045,258 built. You could buy it last November for circa 3500 euros, and I think they still have some unsold models left :) ‘Twas the world’s second-most affordable car, they said.
Add in over 200k Zastava 128s, rolled out 1980-2001, and then 2001-2008 sent over as kits for assembly in Egypt (Nasr 128).
Of course there is the original Fiat 128 which is the story here, produced 1969-1985: over 3 million .
I actually like the engineering marvel that is the Citroen 2CV, especially its engine. Two cylinder airccoled, few moving parts, actually engineered with tolerances to make its best at constant full throttle. It’s not strong, but it sure can take a beating. The point is, they developed that car for a very long time, to make it competable for eternity.
“BTW, if you want to see planned obsolescence in action, look at how Apple manages the iPod and iPhone brands.”
I beg to differ. Changes in iPods have been driven more by the technology curve than by planned obsolescence. As the owner of an iPhone, I have been very pleased with the software updates and have had it longer than any prior cell phone with no plans to replace it.
Speaking strictly of styling…
One of the biggest victims of the constant need to “update” models was the fifth generation (1996-2001) Camry. Talk about a classy, refined exterior that was warped into a circus freak.
Ditto with the sixth generation Accord (1998-2002), though the current Accord doesn’t burn my eyes like the Camry does.
Despite how P.O. can sometimes use a lotta cash consider it an investment. I mean look at Honda’s Civic. Everytime they release a new one it’s better and always one step ahead. The Cavaliers(j bodies), hah! There’s your stagnant longlife platforms.
But, i can agree in a way that cars from today will be driving around a lot longer than yesterdays because of the forced refinements that companies been making.
This may be redundant but The family of the VW bug is still alive and well. I am speaking of the 911 and all it’s derivitives. Posrche took their replacement for the 356 and continued to refine and develope it. Even with all the flack about the rear engine, it will go down as one of the most successful cars in history.
One might say that for other cars too such as the Corvette but there is very little to share between a C1 and a C6. Not even the logo is the same.