Same, early 2010s IMO seems to be the point where the industry really started to shift. There are some good cars from before this time, but keep them running past the 2030s will be a challenge.
1980s widespread adoption of electronic fuel injection - this is generally a good thing, cars become more complex but run better more of the time
1990s widespread adoption of more advanced emissions control systems - for reliability i'd say this is only a backwards step - none of these systems are required to propel the car down the road but many of them can stop a car from driving. They are additional complexity, weight and cost for limited functional benefit (in this generation, fuel economy improvements were fairly small compared to the leap from carbs to EFI in the previous gen).
2000s widespread adoption of on-car networks, the emissions diagnostics technology introduced in the previous decade was now no longer the primary use of on-car networks. Now your car stereo knew how to increase its volume as your road speed increased etc. screens became larger and colourful. Onboard software (typically bug ridden) became a security risk.
2010s widespread adoption of telematics maybe? That was more mid-late 2010s though
According to the industry people stopped doing maintenance and were more likely to trade in their vehicle for a new one. So they stopped optimizing for that segment of the audience and started making disposable cars.
Truthfully, industry watched the government bail out the banks, require next to nothing in return, and demanded no prosecutions for illegal behavior. The writing was pretty much on the wall. Industry realized it no longer needed happy customers.
>> According to the industry people stopped doing maintenance
Nah the motoring industry has been saying that forever. Just to back that up, I inherited a ton of the "Car Mechanics" magazine here in the UK. Just for fun I've just pulled a random 1960s one - November 1965, 2 shillings it cost. Flicking through, firstly i'm struck by just how many adverts there are, there's 1.5 pages of advert per 0.5 page of content and the adverts are commonly absolute tat like antifreeze additives that surely do nothing useful. Anyway, by page 35 we've found our first nobody maintains anything anymore story: "Transport Tests", top right hand side - a column railing against "defective lorries on the road", "49% of trucks stopped were defective" - i knew no matter which magazine i pulled, there'd be something in there decrying a lack of maintenance these days (in 1965...).
>> So they stopped optimizing for that segment
Again, i don't think you're accurate here. There's nothing a mechanic loves more than to gripe about the engineers who foolishly designed a car to be harder to service. It's a time-tested complaint of the mechanic. Today with all the tight packaging of various systems i think there's often a point to be made about ease of repairability but even when engine bays were gaping empty holes in the 50s and 60s that you could literally stand in (in some cases) with plenty of access space while you worked, there were models of cars derided as "hard to work on" because of lack of optimisation for maintenance. Packaging is hard. If the decision is between optimising for sale (aesthetics, packaging etc) or for maintenance, the design engineer is going to lose that battle in the drawing room.
I think market forces have changed how manufacturers view servicing over time though. If you're doing fleet sales, and your product requires an oil change every 8k miles and the other manufacturer is every 20k miles, then the company purchaser who cares not a jot about mechanical sympathy and a whole lot about a bonus for saving the firm money, applies a pressure to the market to reduce maintenance costs over the first 3-4 years that a vehicle is leased for. And so today i own a van with an absolutely absurd oil change interval of 25k miles.
You're approaching this as if it would be a binary across an entire industry. That's obviously not the correct level of analysis. The question is, "are more and more manufacturers doing this?" You've made no case to this point.
> And so today i own a van with an absolutely absurd oil change interval of 25k miles.
Would you share the Year, Make and Model please? I want to see this and I want to see precisely which oil products they recommend. The part you may have missed is that specialty oils have come a long way in the last 2 decades.
Software updates and data collection. Eg, my mums Toyota Corolla 2018 already has a disabled infotainment button because of dropped support. If it was a 2019 it would have been eligible for an update, but not for 2018.
Lots of cars from the same period are collecting and sharing data to various different companies from weather to insurance.
Personally I don’t want monitoring or software updates, and definitely don’t want any cloud dependencies.
I'd say Tesla built a futuristic computer on wheels, with huge screens, always-on internet connectivity, smarter remote features than most other cars, etc. The car itself was exotic enough by being an EV and that drew attention to these other features too. Everyone else started to emulate them for better or worse.
For now these things are modular because it was the cheapest way to build them. If manufacturers get over the hurdle of cost and find a way to have everything more vertically integrated (think Apple) then we'll lose all access to tinker with the hardware which might be a couple of black-box chips, or the software.
This is probably what Apple was trying to sell as a smart car to car manufacturers. They might have dropped those plans to focus in CarPlay and have the phone be that "smart car". Hopefully some brands go the other way and make a dumb car where the brain is entirely the phone but that's handing out a lot of their agency to the phone manufacturer.
> 2010s widespread adoption of telematics maybe? That was more mid-late 2010s though
I haven't done it yet, but maybe looking into the EU mandatory regulations would make sense. eCall, for instance (a feature that will call for help if you crashed by contacting an operator), was made mandatory in new cars in 2018. The initiative gained traction at around 2013.
Hmmm, but I think that was already happening in the early 2000s. It definitely accelerated in the late 2000s.
I worked for a deutsche telekom subsidiary in 2004 and they had a brand new BMW e65 7 Series all liveried up in corporate branding, advertising internet connectivity on the move. At the time i thought that was the ultimate car but i never managed to borrow it...
On an adjacent theme there has been a large debate in Sweden if a car that has mandated automatic eCall over 2G or 3G is faulty and thus not roadworthy if the 2G and 3G networks are turned off. The eCall feature was introduced broadly in 2018. It still uses modem sounds over a voice phone call to relay car emergency status and position. New solutions for packet only networks (4g and 5G) have been standardised but are not retrofitted to older cars.
I had thought most of europe was keeping 2G service online. Too many deployed devices that are low traffic but expensive to replace modules on. Even if they had a 3g module, they'll fall back to 2g, so there's no sense in using spectrum for 2g and spectrum for 3g.
The first way this can go is that the people with a stake in selling cars (dealers, OEMs, etc) get their lobbyists leaning on the politicians and get it rammed through.
The second is that the issue gets delayed long enough that the number of older vehicles it applies to goes down out of attrition and it's not worth fighting over.
Considering the cultural disposition of the nordics when it comes to matters like this I expect the first option to be chosen. There will enough people hand wringing about safety and whatnot to provide the political lubricant to ensure the first outcome.
