461–470 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do have less panel gaps and other minor flaws, because the people putting them together in Germany actually care (and have unions and proper working hours so they're not exhausted).
I also believe the amount of panel gaps varies a lot per factory.
The others are a lottery. You might get a perfect one or you might get one where the doors barely close
Let's remove Musk from the equation, because you can like or (most probably) hate him, but I own a Tesla and I have the opposite experience. Everything worked out of the box. Just one piece of hardware started to fail (the charger plug making some noise) and they changed it in warranty. First: has the author tried a tesla before buying one? I'd never buy a car without trying it. Because comparing it to a Clio just be…
> Second: when you buy a car, do you ask yourself, how will I fix it in case anything goes wrong? Buying a car in a country where there's no service is a huge no-no. From middle of Slovakia to Budapest, Hungary is as far as Houston to Austin drive. No border or customs controls. Vehicle insurance issued in one, is valid in both. You only have to spend few euros to buy a vignette (road toll). I don't see your point.
I still wouldn't want to own a car where the nearest service center is a Houston-Austin distance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally yes because if the microcontrollers can be replaced by a central macro-controller computer you can then update it all more easily. You make the whole thing more software defined.
Which is the problem. A lot of separate micro controllers will probably never need an update. We have now had microcontrollers in cars for decades, and they almost all worked fine without updates. Its only recently, with the more software defined systems, that we have needed updates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to note the trade-off here: modern cars are much safer in crashes than even cars from ~20 years ago, and the less computer you want, the further back in time you need to go to find suitable cars. There are nuances to the safety thing: some brands were/are safer, more popular car designs today tend to have some features that may worsen safety (taller cars are less stable, heavier cars handle worse, big heavy cars…
How much safer are they? I can totally believe that the crash safety of cars improved hugely in the 90s - that's basically when large crumple zones, computer modelling of crash performance, airbags, seatbelt pretensioners etc were all developed. But 20 years ago was 2005. What's changed on a modern car since 2005? There's obviously a lot more safety features (and these have increasingly been part of the crashworthine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to note the trade-off here: modern cars are much safer in crashes than even cars from ~20 years ago, and the less computer you want, the further back in time you need to go to find suitable cars. There are nuances to the safety thing: some brands were/are safer, more popular car designs today tend to have some features that may worsen safety (taller cars are less stable, heavier cars handle worse, big heavy cars…
Perhaps structurally but the tech stuff isn't improving safety. With the absolute slightest bit of fog, excessive humidity, rain or snow by Mazda tells me one of its radar systems isn't operable and to please drive safely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever brought a car through the German TÜV?
Our car inspections are handled by German TÜV, and they do not inspect superficially. If, ~14% of a single brand of car which is ridden with LEDs (which should live forever when compared to halogens), advanced drive systems and other stuff are failing, and has to be re-inspected because of they can't meet the standards, that's pretty bad to be honest. Failing TÜV means your safety critical systems have problems. This…
You wouldn't do a regular service right before the TÜV appointment, would you?
Also, this doesn't sound environmentally friendly to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a good (?) video on the subject the other day, it was mainly about Volkswagen / VAG but highlighted the software problem. Cars are / were basically Frankenstein monsters under the hood, with dozens of onboard computers / chips all needing to work independently yet collaboratively and talk to each other. VW set up a new subsidiary and hired 3000 people to build the car software system of the future, reducing…
Mazda is pretty great actually. I have a CX30 (3 years), where the screen is not sensitive and everything is controlled with mechanical buttons... The best of both worlds...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally yes because if the microcontrollers can be replaced by a central macro-controller computer you can then update it all more easily. You make the whole thing more software defined.
Which is the problem. A lot of separate micro controllers will probably never need an update. We have now had microcontrollers in cars for decades, and they almost all worked fine without updates. Its only recently, with the more software defined systems, that we have needed updates.
I know from working at a phone company that hardware absolutely has bugs and it's only reliable as long as you're changing very little. If you start having a system where you're trying to optimise everything e.g. to save power when not in use and allow lots of customer choices in how things work then you're going to choose new microcontroller hardware and software and it will have bugs that have not been ironed out over the years.
The stories I read about ID3 updates going wrong were about certain controllers not successfully acknowledging their firmware updates. So I can see a strong temptation to make it all vertical - to have control over everything so you can ensure it works before you order 200k of them. Instead of having 60 suppliers all providing their interpretation of your bus protocol, each with unique bugs you take the whole thing into a single design.
I can also see it being far more conducive to have a smaller number of bigger and more homogeneous microcontrollers each of which might not be perfect for every job but since they're all the same you only have to provide 1 software update solution and you can test the shit out of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The first one was just poor manufacturing Tesla has been known for forever. Why did you buy a second one??
I am too tall/long legs to feel comfortable in the Model 3, range of 75D was a bit limiting when traveling with family and I couldn't and still cannot imagine driving ICE car again. The manufacturing did not bother me too much in the interior as all cars I ever owned or rented had loose, squeaky plastics, and body panel gaps were tolerable for me.
Unfortunately, the engine blew up at 80k, the brakes failed on the highway at 100k, and the transmission is known to have problems.
Is there a way to have it all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just want a luxury car that is grand, silent, feels nice, is nice to drive, and doesn't blast my eyes with screens. '92 BMW 325IS. Coupe. Strait-six. RWD. 5-speed Manual. Cornered like on rails. Never once suprised me with a random shift at a dangerous moment. Had a great little trip computer. No screens. No bluetooth. About 7L/100km. I took it skiing. I took it rock climbing. It drove me to my exams. It drove me t…
Of course you get some issues with 33 year old cars. I let my 31 year old mx5 go but slightly regret it - it needed ~£3000 spent to renovate but then they keep their value as classics. Getting replacement parts can start getting tricky.