I've heard somewhere before that cars nowadays are purposely being designed to have their electrical components fail and render the car useless once the car reaches 125,000 miles. Is this true?

Where I live the useful life of a vehicle is around 125,000 miles, but that is rarely because of electrical problems. It is usually a combination of rust and worn body, drive-train, suspension, exhaust, and interior elements.

125,000 miles represents about 10 years of driving. Since vehicle electrical systems undergo considerably more punishment than household electronics, 10 years of life for an electronic device under such conditions is pretty good.

Since a lot of people don't take care of their cars after about 5 or six years old doing the maintenance like it should be done till there is breakdown. All of the electrical components can be replaced. some are just harder to do or expensive.
Tune ups are now good from 30,000 to 50,000 miles were in the 50' and 60's they were from 6,000 to 12,000 miles Plugs, wires, distributor caps and rotors. The battery can be tested with a load tester, and replaced when it starts to go. The fuel pumps are now inside the gas tanks, which means it is a pain to replace and expensive. One for a 1998 dodge PU cost $847.48 last week.
Belts that drive the alternators, and other acces. were out and start cracking after about 40,000 to 50,000 miles.
People tend not to take care of used cars, so when they get close to the mileage you stated things start to go.

Virtually everthing that is produced is engineered with some kind of minimum duribility requirement. What's the requirement for automotive electrical components?...who knows.

Everything is designed with a bunch of compromises. Safety, expected useful life, cost, I doubt electrical components are being designed with odometers so they know to expire after 125K miles. For electrical components reliability would be measure in mtbf hours. Might have little relation the vehicle mileage.

Ford E-series vans start to have heater control issues about 300,000-350,000. A '95' and a '98' but no other electrical problems. Just normal tune ups. Perhaps Ford Motor Company didn't get the memo. I do know of two GM's that have all kinds of electrical problems under 100,000. One, a Gran Prix (my mothers), the radio display won't light up, windows stopped working, trunk latch problems, horn honking for no appearent reason (the car has no alarm but it does have a "panic button" to find it in a parking lot). The other a '98' Buick Century, the radio don't work at all, (sometimes it will work if the door lock button on the passenger door is depressed, if working, it will be static while the back doors are open), the dome light is junk, the windows go down but may or may not go back up. Just rediculous these two cars. GM builds junk! (Good engines though). Got to go with Ford, They not only know how to build a solid vehical, They know how to run their company at an administrative level. I've also owned two Volkswagen Rabbits with well over 300,000 miles, niether had developed any electrical problems whatsoever. My Father had 3 Dodge Vans and A Ford Box Van, All over 300,000 miles. No identifiable electrical system conspiracy's, just good or bad engineering, followed by good or bad choice of materials, followed by good or bad workmanship.

There is something I forgot to mention why I do have a little belief in this myth. I'm currently driving a 1998 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight with a little over 117,000 miles. I had some various problems with it when I first got it but I fixed them all right away and the car is currently running problem free. However, there has been a few times in the last couple months when the car just wouldn't start. All the lights would come on but the engine wouldn't start or even turn over. I took it to a mechanic and they did four electrical tests and it worked and started for them every single time. Given that they couldn't diagnose the problem, I can't help but wonder if this is a sign of things to come.

quote:

Originally posted by rmwright1979:
There is something I forgot to mention why I do have a little belief in this myth. I'm currently driving a 1998 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight with a little over 117,000 miles. I had some various problems with it when I first got it but I fixed them all right away and the car is currently running problem free. However, there has been a few times in the last couple months when the car just wouldn't start. All the lights would come on but the engine wouldn't start or even turn over. I took it to a mechanic and they did four electrical tests and it worked and started for them every single time. Given that they couldn't diagnose the problem, I can't help but wonder if this is a sign of things to come.

To draw from My above post, No identifiable electrical system conspiracy, just bad engineering, followed by bad choice of materials, followed by bad workmanship, headed by poor administrative skills. It's a GM

A lot of the problems are with the ground connections, They use in the cars and trucks today. With all the plastic components in the cars today, and the hair thin copper wires that are in the harnesses. Mid 90's is when they started to switch to the new style wire.

Given the amount of abuse the car and the component parts take in just daily operation. it is amazing they operate the way the do for as long as they do.

A car with average matenace should have no problem going well over 100,000 miles without major trouble.

My Dad had a '01 Honda Civic that had 150,000 on it when he totaled it. That car had no major problem at all and likely was good for another 50,000 easily.

My mom drives a '98 Saturn SW1. It has 180,000 on it last I checked. The interior body is starting to fall apart and it needs a new alternator every year or so. other than that, the car is still hobbling along. My mom is actually hoping it will die sometime here. SO far it keeps disappointing her.

I have a coworker with a '03 Subaru Outback. He has already put 250,000 miles on it and it is still running great.

Considering what warranties are like these days, no car maker in their right mind would design something to fail that close to the window when their warranty is still valid.

"Designed to fail" is probably the wrong way to state it.
"Designed to last for..." is probably better. And for electrical systems it's probably more in terms of years rather than miles, as many components (such as insulation) break down over time when exposed to oil, heat, etc.
Clearly, you could design a part to last for almost any length of time, but to do so raises the cost. Designing for a trouble free life of between 10 and 15 years seems reasonable. Things may last longer if kept garaged and well maintained.
My Chevy truck is about 14 years old and 250k miles, and I'm just now getting electrical weirdness. I can look at some wires and see slight insulation breakdown. Other plastic components are also decaying. This is just one data point, and the vehicle has not been garaged, so your results will probably be different.

quote:

Originally posted by rmwright1979:
There is something I forgot to mention why I do have a little belief in this myth. I'm currently driving a 1998 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight with a little over 117,000 miles. I had some various problems with it when I first got it but I fixed them all right away and the car is currently running problem free. However, there has been a few times in the last couple months when the car just wouldn't start. All the lights would come on but the engine wouldn't start or even turn over. I took it to a mechanic and they did four electrical tests and it worked and started for them every single time. Given that they couldn't diagnose the problem, I can't help but wonder if this is a sign of things to come.

I've got a '99 Intrigue with a 3800 and have had the same problem a couple of times. I was able to get it started eventually by moving the shift lever back and forth through its range a few times and putting it back into park. I suspect it may be some kind of intermittent problem with the transmission park switch.

You might want to enquire at a few different GM garages, as it may be a known problem. There are also sites around that list service bulletins for different car companies. Edmunds.com also has a good forum for diagnosing car problems.

quote:

Originally posted by garycarroll:
"Designed to fail" is probably the wrong way to state it.
"Designed to last for..." is probably better.

That's 100% correct. Vehicles are designed for over all life expectancy. ie. 7yr life, 10yr life and so on.

Mileage expectations are derived from averages over that lifetime as are things like 'number of door openings/closings', engine starts, seat/carpet wear.

Each component / system supplier is required to provide a DVP&R (Design Validation Plan & Report) that demonstrates documented proof that their product surpasses these minimum specifications which include a battery of tests in various temperature, humidity, salt/dust and vibrational environments. Constant feedback through the OEM's warranty analysis continually refines these requirements.

During 1998-2000, among my regular projects, I was also a warranty analyst for Chrysler and gained intimate insight of the systems and procedures. Onboard electronics typically had the fewest failures (in warranty AND beyond) of any of the vehicle's systems.

To re-iterate garycarroll's statement, vehicle components / systems are NOT designed to fail... (crumple zones aside). They ARE designed to remain functional for the period of time set by the OEM.

You can say "designed to fail" or "designed to last for" if you want, but I am convinced that cars are better now than they have ever been.

I had a 1978 Cougar that I ran for 13 years, and about 170,000 miles. I had to rebuild the engine at 65,000 miles. I'm now driving a 2000 Taurus, with 158,000 miles on it, and it is still running great, in spite of my abuse and neglect. I expect it to go at least 200,000 miles, so long as I don't wreck it.

The biggest improvement over that time frame has got to be the better piston rings. Used to be you could only expect rings to last about 50 - 75,000 miles, but now they'll easily last 200,000 miles. If you wear out rings, you've probably used up the car anyway, so make that last drive to the junykard and dump it. It isn't worth repairing.

Cars are much better than ever. Be thankful you don't have to mess with them like we did 40 or 50 years ago.

It's not the rings, it's the method of fueling. EFI does more than just improve fuel economy. It controls the starts, sets the right mixture and idle speed, sidesteps the "rev the snot out of it to keep it running" issue that some people just couldn't let go of, greatly reduces the unburned carbon and the resulting grit in the oil, and more or less eliminates washed down cylinder walls from excess gas and the resultant scoring.

I presently have mostly GMs, all with over 150,000 miles with one (1990 Pontiac 6000) approaching the 300,000 mile mark. Despite your prejudice against GMs, Jeffbro, they are and always have been better cars than Fords; I've owned over 70 vehicles of all brands and have no problem telling everyone that Ford makes the cheapest cars, from design, engineering, and material usage through to production. That's what Henry wanted and that's what they are.

quote:

oldguy1
Senior Member

Registered: 02-12-08 Posted 07-01-09 10:39 PM

I presently have mostly GMs, all with over 150,000 miles with one (1990 Pontiac 6000) approaching the 300,000 mile mark. Despite your prejudice against GMs, Jeffbro, they are and always have been better cars than Fords; I've owned over 70 vehicles of all brands and have no problem telling everyone that Ford makes the cheapest cars, from design, engineering, and material usage through to production. That's what Henry wanted and that's what they are.

My '98' E-250 has 301,500 (give or take 50) miles. just recently put ball joints and had the brakes done. The last time it was in the garage before that was just over 150,000 where it had simular work done. Thats about all thats been done. As I mentioned before the heater problems starting at 295,000, I fixed that myself. My '95" E-250, pretty much the same story but the idler for the belt went out. Wheres the "cheap" you speak of? I had both Ford and Chevy Pickup trucks, both '78' The Ford was rock solid other than having to fiddle with the metal plate spotwelded to the shift tube (the welds failed and the plate would sometimes get wedged), The Chevy was so rusted you could see through it from one side to the other. The driver door would not shut unless I lifted it up off it's sagging hinges and slammed it as hard as I could. I had newspapers in a plastic bag over the rust hole in the floor so when it was raining the water off the front tire wouldn't hit Me in the face. I was affraid to walk on the floor of the bed because if I were not careful, I would fall through. I took off kind of fast one time and the wheel barrow in the bed slid against the tailgate, it knocked the tailgate open and fell out onto the road. I did like My '74' Buick Limited quite alot, however, I will stick with what keeps working for Me. Henry Ford could make vehicals cheap because of efficiancy, not poor manufacturing practices. Youv'e owned over 70 vehicals? You must not hang on to them for very long. Not long enough to really see how each one is in the long haul. When I buy a vehical, it is with the intention of driving it for several years.

That's right, I buy them when they're old, fix them up and drive them for a few years then move on to the next ones. I mainly buy GMs because they're easy to work on, last better than Fords, are better designed (especially the suspension systems) and the parts cost less than Fords - which is where Ford makes quite a bit of their profits, selling cheap parts for lots. The cheap materials and "economical" manufacturing practices becomes apparent when working on them.

Saying that a rusted out vehicle is somehow representative of all the other un-rusted ones is pretty biased. Not many people want to talk about the early '80s Ford trucks that had weak frames (by design) from the factory or that Ford trucks typically require about 50% more to maintain in a fleet when compared to Chev and Dodge trucks.

It doesn't sound like you've owned enough vehicles to get a good sample of what is out there.

Got interrupted before I could edit in one more comment. I buy older vehicles so I know quite well which vehicles last better, which ones to stay away from because of possible major issues and what to expect for repairs after 150,000 miles. I don't buy Fords because they cost more per mile in my typical mileage range to run than GMs. Simple economics.

You had a good one with that Buick, I had '72 and '73 LeSabres that were great cars.

Oldguy,
I will not argue with you on your experience, but my own has been different. I have owned both, but have always come back to Fords, because my experience has been the opposite of yours. The Fords have just kept on running, the GM cars have been nothing but trouble.

And, I had a LeSabre, probably about a 1990 model, that was a total piece of crap!

To each his own!

quote:

Autos designed to fail at 125,000 miles?

I think this is pretty well busted. I will happily take The (GM) Chevy Corvette My tax dollars already paid for! We are all getting a Corvette? right?