Why don't any of the luxury car brands (other than Lexus) focus on reliability? It seems so strange that the market is willing to pay ~$40-$80k for a car totally indifferent to its engineering quality. If I were to own a luxury car, I'd want to know its engineering is rock-solid first and foremost. I'd want to be proud of it as a machine not just a symbol. Maybe that's just a techie thing, though.
Volvo has been notorious for extremely difficult-to-diagnose and expensive-to-repair electrical system problems for at least a decade.
I've always thought, if I was rich, I would hire one or more developers who's job was to educate me on software (empowering me), and write and run software I was interested in. Wonder why I haven't heard of any rich people doing that?
> I'd want to be proud of it as a machine not just a symbol.
As a machine and as a symbol aren't necessarily independent of each other. Being less reliable and more expensive to fix can make it more prestigious in some cases:
Putting this kind of safety-related issue aside, the first purchaser probably won't keep the car long enough to have any real problems (at this price level it's probably a lease). Even if they do, the dealer will give them a loaner (and may even pick up the car) so problems aren't much of an inconvenience.
It's much more of an issue for those of us who like to buy several year old luxury cars -- they have become much harder and more expensive to repair in the last 10 years or so.
> Why don't any of the luxury car brands (other than Lexus) focus on reliability
The Mercedes-Benz/Puch G-Class hasn't changed that much since 1979. It's a mid-size four-wheel drive luxury SUV, a real cross country vehicle. Deer hunters, various military, VIPs, presidents and the pope, many use the G-Class.
Many luxury car shoppers are not that concerned with reliability since they plan on only owning the car for a few years. 3 year leases are common and even those who buy a vehicle outright may trade in long before reliability becomes a real concern.
I have a theory that software is so hard, that internet startups win simply because they can actually do software, and thereby obtain its benefits.
It's not that the start ups have such disruptive business models; but simply that software is great, and incumbents can't do it.
Web startups are good at software because that's what they focus on, and are selected for. So we're in this strange situation where getting software to do it is more important than doing it. It's the flexibility.
I'm afraid even my anecdatum is scanty: taxi calling is terrible. Uber could only be better.
>> ">> The glitch had been reported by drivers of new Volvos who said the engine could cut out without warning, creating a brief absence of steering and braking."
Do they just mean the power steering cuts out and brakes lose hydraulics? Because there's a pretty huge difference between that and 'a brief absence of steering and braking'.
My power steering went out once. The car was drivable, but just barely. Likewise if you've ever pumped the brakes while the engine is off, you know that braking power drops to almost nothing.
If that happened suddenly on the road 'loss of steering and brakes' is exactly how I would describe it. Sure it might not be completely accurate, but it is definitely a dangerous situation whatever you call it.
Still, losing those functions is an issue. When it rains, my old Town & Country's power steering stops working and turns become difficult. I would hate to be driving and suddenly have it cut out on me, say, when I'm making a turn, or even just switching a few lanes.
With cars essentially becoming computers that hold your life in there hands, its going to be interesting seeing how software development strategies evolve to build software rapidly but without the fall back of knowing you can simply send out a large firmware update to fix an issue. Cars can't afford to be stuck parked because someone made a small coding issue that got pushed before it was caught.
Jeep had a very similar recall. I have a 2007 Jeep Wrangler, the first year of the major redesign. This was the first Wrangler with modern electronics, including stability control. In the first year, there were three recalls for software updates.
The worst one was a tendency for the system to crash while going uphill at slow speed in hot weather. The crash caused the engine to quit and restart, the dashboard would blank, light up for self-test, and reset, the transmission would downshift, and the CD player would stop. However, everything did recover within one second. That sounds very similar to Volvo's problem.
I've rented a Volvo V70 for the weekend that sounds like it's just the model that they're recalling. So far, no issues, and given the ice patches on the road today I'd hope it stays that way. It's a pretty cool car otherwise, lots of nifty features to make driving easier and safer, like adaptive cruise control, lane warnings, dead angle warnings, automatic break (at low speeds) when detecting obstacles, like a car suddenly stopping ahead. If this thing would steer by itself I wouldn't have to do anything – if this is the way of the future then sign me up!
Update: I'm still alive, and the car returned. Never had an issue, so I guess the model wasn't affected or its not easily reproduced in the kind of casual cross country driving I did.
At least one of the configurations of the 2012 Ford Focus/Fiesta transmission had issues. The mechanic at the dealer agreed it was a problem. Ford never acknowledged their fault as far as I know. A firmware update about a year later seemingly fixed the issue. Why wouldn't they acknowledge the issue and tell people they're working on it? Liability issue?
I don't know too much about vehicle side of things but my understanding is the following:
MISRA is not on the same level as DO-178. DO-178 covers a lot of ground, from testing, documentation, requirements, that sort of thing, and it's made by a government agency which enforces it during certification, where every single hardware and software component in the aircraft related to flight operations is certified individually. So you will actually have engineers from the FAA sit down and look at code coverage, how requirements are written, how they map to tests, see if the tests cover a lot of cases in your requirements, see if the code implements the requirements, that sort of thing.
MISRA on the other hand are treated like guidelines that car manufacturers generally want you to meet when you deliver them a vehicle component.
There is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards you have to meet on a vehicle as a whole, but I do not know if they have to prove that they meet the following during a formal certification process.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/
So as far as I know, there's big approval process at the end for vehicles, while there's a formal certification process for all components in an aircraft, as well as a big approval process at the end for aircraft.
Someone please correct and fill in the blanks for the vehicle side of things.
Buy used. If you have a healthy budget, give it to a shop for an overhaul/rebuild, new upholstery, paint, etc. That'll still cost less than new, and no computer b.s.
No computer BS, and none of the safety improvements made in the intervening time.
I don't understand why some people say that they prefer older cars because they're afraid the computers in newer ones will get them killed. Cars are overall much safer. Buy your older car, and sure, the computers won't kill you, but if and when you do crash it may well kill you where you could have walked away from it in a newer car.
>> The glitch had been reported by drivers of new Volvos who said the engine could cut out without warning, creating a brief absence of steering and braking.
Created by Volvo - who wants to be death proof by 2020...
[+] [-] superuser2|10 years ago|reply
Volvo has been notorious for extremely difficult-to-diagnose and expensive-to-repair electrical system problems for at least a decade.
[+] [-] corin_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rando289|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cma|10 years ago|reply
As a machine and as a symbol aren't necessarily independent of each other. Being less reliable and more expensive to fix can make it more prestigious in some cases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Clas...
[+] [-] awqrre|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quicklyfrozen|10 years ago|reply
It's much more of an issue for those of us who like to buy several year old luxury cars -- they have become much harder and more expensive to repair in the last 10 years or so.
[+] [-] frik|10 years ago|reply
The Mercedes-Benz/Puch G-Class hasn't changed that much since 1979. It's a mid-size four-wheel drive luxury SUV, a real cross country vehicle. Deer hunters, various military, VIPs, presidents and the pope, many use the G-Class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_G-Class
[+] [-] hvjackson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpallium|10 years ago|reply
It's not that the start ups have such disruptive business models; but simply that software is great, and incumbents can't do it.
Web startups are good at software because that's what they focus on, and are selected for. So we're in this strange situation where getting software to do it is more important than doing it. It's the flexibility.
I'm afraid even my anecdatum is scanty: taxi calling is terrible. Uber could only be better.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|10 years ago|reply
Do they just mean the power steering cuts out and brakes lose hydraulics? Because there's a pretty huge difference between that and 'a brief absence of steering and braking'.
[+] [-] grogers|10 years ago|reply
If that happened suddenly on the road 'loss of steering and brakes' is exactly how I would describe it. Sure it might not be completely accurate, but it is definitely a dangerous situation whatever you call it.
[+] [-] sbd01|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FreedomToCreate|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knappe|10 years ago|reply
http://pixelscommander.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/P10.pd...
This was published _20_ years ago. http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
[+] [-] digi_owl|10 years ago|reply
And so far car manufacturers have done a piss poor job.
Hell, they are even insisting on using dbus for IPC as they replace QNX with Linux.
[+] [-] Animats|10 years ago|reply
The worst one was a tendency for the system to crash while going uphill at slow speed in hot weather. The crash caused the engine to quit and restart, the dashboard would blank, light up for self-test, and reset, the transmission would downshift, and the CD player would stop. However, everything did recover within one second. That sounds very similar to Volvo's problem.
[+] [-] benaston|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mstade|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mstade|10 years ago|reply
Regardless – great car, 10/10 would rent again.
[+] [-] andreif|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] augustl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmarreck|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newjersey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quicklyfrozen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] y04nn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] airplane|10 years ago|reply
MISRA is not on the same level as DO-178. DO-178 covers a lot of ground, from testing, documentation, requirements, that sort of thing, and it's made by a government agency which enforces it during certification, where every single hardware and software component in the aircraft related to flight operations is certified individually. So you will actually have engineers from the FAA sit down and look at code coverage, how requirements are written, how they map to tests, see if the tests cover a lot of cases in your requirements, see if the code implements the requirements, that sort of thing.
MISRA on the other hand are treated like guidelines that car manufacturers generally want you to meet when you deliver them a vehicle component.
There is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards you have to meet on a vehicle as a whole, but I do not know if they have to prove that they meet the following during a formal certification process. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/
So as far as I know, there's big approval process at the end for vehicles, while there's a formal certification process for all components in an aircraft, as well as a big approval process at the end for aircraft.
Someone please correct and fill in the blanks for the vehicle side of things.
[+] [-] reportingsjr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kwhitefoot|10 years ago|reply
And as there is no way to see the source or replicate the build process no one can easily tell if the guidelines have been followed.
[+] [-] cju|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmurf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
I don't understand why some people say that they prefer older cars because they're afraid the computers in newer ones will get them killed. Cars are overall much safer. Buy your older car, and sure, the computers won't kill you, but if and when you do crash it may well kill you where you could have walked away from it in a newer car.
[+] [-] superuser2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyferguson742|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehlike|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmeanscluster|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rogeryu|10 years ago|reply
Created by Volvo - who wants to be death proof by 2020...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3409102/Volvo...
[+] [-] Avshalom|10 years ago|reply