4 ms·

For cars, maintenance costs are marketed as features

Though I don't plan to buy a car soon, I recently became enamored with a YouTube channel created by an independent mechanic: https://www.youtube.com/c/ScottyKilmermechanic/featured He frequently mentions how cars today are far more complicated than previously, and maintenance costs have risen as a result. Interestingly, each added degree of complexity in an engine is marketed as a feature as opposed to a necessary evil. Take for example a modern 35mpg turbocharged, variable valve-timing, hybrid v4 engine, part by part: * Turbochargers increase pressure in the engine to improve fuel economy. The engine already wants to rip itself apart. The turbocharger can break, and the turbocharger will certainly increase engine wear. * Variable valve-timing (VVT) uses sophisticated engine mapping to ensure the exact right amount of fuel is available in each cylinder at the right time. The electronics could break, or suffer from bugs. Fewer mechanics will be able to service VVT engines. It can benefit performance in limited circumstances, but most people buying a 35 mpg car aren't antsy to press the sport button. * Hybrid engines are obviously much more complicated than standard ICE engines. Between regenerative braking and the transmission having to pull double-duty, repair costs are much higher, and fewer mechanics will be available to service the car. If it were possible to purchase a v4 engine car with the same mpg and horsepower, that would be a much better option than purchasing an intricately complicated power system. A powerful engine is a feature. A turbocharger is a liability. An efficient power system is the feature. Complexities added to become efficient are liabilities.

jmercouris 5y ago
Simpler, more reliable engines exist. However, they will not meet consumer and governmental requirements for efficiency and performance. These are not "maintenance costs", they are features, which have maintenance cost. There is a big difference.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  You're misinterpreting the post. The point of the post is that an engine that has a turbocharger is worse than an engine with the same performance without a turbocharger. Yet turbochargers are marketed as features that make the engine better. Manufacturers should be downplaying the inclusion of a turbocharger to achieve 35mpg, instead of marketing it as a feature.
  - jmercouris 5y ago
    I'm not misunderstanding. Features are merely attributes. Whether they are virtuous or not is irrelevant. A turbocharger, whether good or not, is a feature. My point is that features may have maintenance cost, they are not in of themselves a maintenance cost.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      Let's use a thought experiment. If a car was able to get 3 more MPG by forcing the driver to get out and manually hand-crank the car every time it needed to start, would you place images of drivers getting out of their car and hand-cranking it prominently in your advertising? Of course not. The same concept applies to turbochargers. "We got 3 MPG better by substantially increasing the pressure in your engine, and this will wear it out more over time" is not something that should appear in marketing.

jmercouris 5y ago

Simpler, more reliable engines exist. However, they will not meet consumer and governmental requirements for efficiency and performance. These are not "maintenance costs", they are features, which have maintenance cost. There is a big difference.

ErikVandeWater 5y ago
You're misinterpreting the post. The point of the post is that an engine that has a turbocharger is worse than an engine with the same performance without a turbocharger. Yet turbochargers are marketed as features that make the engine better. Manufacturers should be downplaying the inclusion of a turbocharger to achieve 35mpg, instead of marketing it as a feature.
- jmercouris 5y ago
  I'm not misunderstanding. Features are merely attributes. Whether they are virtuous or not is irrelevant. A turbocharger, whether good or not, is a feature. My point is that features may have maintenance cost, they are not in of themselves a maintenance cost.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    Let's use a thought experiment. If a car was able to get 3 more MPG by forcing the driver to get out and manually hand-crank the car every time it needed to start, would you place images of drivers getting out of their car and hand-cranking it prominently in your advertising? Of course not. The same concept applies to turbochargers. "We got 3 MPG better by substantially increasing the pressure in your engine, and this will wear it out more over time" is not something that should appear in marketing.