I get the impression that modern cars are generally quite reliable, and will keep on running for a long time. I seem to remember that when I was a boy cars such as Ford Escorts and Cortinas would often be worn out after 50,000 or 60,000 miles, and would then require new engines/gearboxes/clutches etc. Are modern cars just of better design, and built with better tolerances, or is it due to modern oils? The cars then were generally slower, so perhaps they were worked harder as well.

don’t know about better design or built but my 51 plate golf now
has 237k on the clock and going strong !

Define older.

Yep my 03 passat has 200k on it and is still going strong, diesel though.

I am getting rid of it now though as it’s got a few dents ad rust spots and I’ve had it 6 years, so time for a change.

That’s an example of a modern car. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t remember older cars ever covering that sort of mileage. I think their bodywork would have rusted away by then anyhow, but I just don’t think the mechanicals were that reliable.

For older cars I’m thinking of things like Vauxhall Viva, Mk 2 Escort, Mk 4 Cortina – cars from the 70’s.

Good question.

Improvements in manufacturing/design etc. mean that cars are potentially more reliable than they used to be.
But, there are more things to go wrong in a modern car, as well as them having to meet strict environmental targets, so being fitted with technology that helps the environment, but might hinder reliability (EGR valves, diesel particulate filters etc.)

I think a lot of it is how well they are looked after & how carefully/sympathetically they are driven.

My old Fiesta (’94 M reg) got to 144,000 miles before I got rid of it. The engine/gearbox etc. were all find but there was nothing I could realistically do to stem the tide of rust that was eating it away.

My current car (03 plate) is on 256k miles and still soldiering on. It gets serviced every 15k miles and anything that needs repairing on it gets done.

But I know other people who have had brand new cars and have had no end of problems with gearboxes, turbo’s and all sorts of other issues. An old colleague of mine had a Honda Civic in around 2006/7 that had a fuel issue and the car spent months at the dealership trying to sort it under warranty. In the end, Honda replaced pretty much the whole fuel system top get it working properly. Luck of the draw sometimes, I guess.

deejayen – Member

For older cars I’m thinking of things like Vauxhall Viva, Mk 2 Escort, Mk 4 Cortina – cars from the 70’s.

Modern cars are definitely better than these cars….

My Dad had a Vauxhall Viva that developed rust after only 4 weeks from new……

Pre-mid’s 80’s I’d say you are pretty much spot on, but then Japanese quality had really started to come through and the European manufacturers learnt.

In fact they’d probably learnt from how the Japanese motorcycle manufacturers had ripped apart the British Motorcycle Industry…

…But the older ones (<70’s/ early 80’s) are easier to diagnose and generally quicker to fix as there is not that much to them!

These days most older/classic cars are reliable, as most people have changed a lot of things, for modern tech like electronic iginition, etc and keep them in tip top condition.

I really don’t class a 10-15 year old car as old. 😯

Friend of mine was a jaguar mechanic at a main dealer in the ’90s. On more than one occasion he had to cut out & weld rusted through boot floors on new cars before delivery to the first owners.

Original Mini’s needed sub-frames, A panels and sills as early as about 3 years old so yes, older cars were not as good as new cars.

Less rust issues with most modern cars apart from maybe some mercs and new defenders

Just the cost of keeping older 10-15 year old cars working can easily out weigh there value
Two most reliable and cheap to maintain cars I’ve ever had series 11a Landrover and a e reg 205 1.1 base model
Worst Audi A4 turbo and mk4 golf

Guess the landrover took more of my time though just on regular upkeep

Was discussing this with mate the other day; just scrapped our 18 year old car last year after 115 000 miles – not a huge amount but really, our folks would have boggled at the idea of any car they owned in the 60s, 70s or early 80s covering that many miles over that length of time.

Better components, much better rust proofing; before complex electronics made the “economic to repair” decisions more complicated again. That and, really, lower car prices in real terms. I think we bought a 900S s/h (from a dealer) for £7.5k about 16/17 years ago. Just bought a much lower mileage Octavia from another dealer for about £8k IIRC.

I’ve got a 53 plate celica I’ve owned to 70k it’s been faultless. Only needing consumables and a clutch at 104k. Currently up for sale, going to miss that car do much. £1700 if anyone’s interested (carries 2 bikes)
105k, FSH, mot till sept

Reliability peaked in late-90’s for lots of cars I think.

After that, engines got increasingly complicated sensors and efficiency related tech to meet EU regs. Too much change in too short a period of time, meant the tech didn’t have time to mature IMO.

Most reliable cars i’ve had:
1996 Celica, thrashed by a young idiot (me) who enjoyed “making progress” but still did 150k without a fault.
2000 Ford Focus 1.6 petrol – not much to go wrong there.

Worst
2006 Astra 1.9 CDTI – DMF, EGR, Swirl Flaps, Alternator, Starter Motor, ECU, leaking turbo pipes, blah blah etc..
2001 Golf Mk4 diesel – wasn’t actually that bad in hindsight, but still needed a head gasket at 80k which seemed unusual.