There's little to fear from engine, gearbox or platform sharing. It means that manufacturers can justify pouring greater development funding into what becomes a larger scale project. BL were the first to do it on any major scale, largely due to lack of funds but VAG are the best example of how to make it work properly. Look back to the 80's and VW/Audi had a very limited range and all of their cars (Quattro turbo excluded) were based on dated but tried and tested technology. I've old price lists and to compare it with today's expansive range is eye opening. We have vastly more variety thanks to technology sharing. Cars that perhaps wouldn't add up financially (new Beetle, Scirocco) exist because the firm have engines and platforms which are easily adapted. But to think of a firm that generally doesn't share technology I can only come up with Honda these days. They did on a large scale in the 80's and 90's with Rover but post BMW takeover the only technology sharing deal I can think of involving Honda is the sale of engines to the likes of Ariel. Even Toyota are doing it on a major scale with selling and buying in of other manufacturers engines etc.
Thinking of Honda, am I correct in remembering that their first generation of diesel car engines were either bought in or jointly developed with Isuzu? Toyota now use BMW diesel engines I think. Do Mazda still buy in their diesels, presumably variants of the 'original' PSA-Ford derived diesel - of doom 1.6 an 2.0 (now 1.5 & 2.2), given both still have problems if they aren't given regular blasts down the dual carriageway (more so than other diesel engines) to clear away the soot.
|
"Thinking of Honda, am I correct in remembering that their first generation of diesel car engines were either bought in or jointly developed with Isuzu? Toyota now use BMW diesel engines I think. Do Mazda still buy in their diesels, presumably variants of the 'original' PSA-Ford derived diesel - of doom 1.6 an 2.0 (now 1.5 & 2.2), given both still have problems if they aren't given regular blasts down the dual carriageway (more so than other diesel engines) to clear away the soot."
The first Diesel engined Honda was the fifth gen Accord from 1993, which you could for a short time have with Rovers L Series diesel from the Rover 600 which in turn was based on the old Perkins designed 2.0 direct injection diesel in the Montego. No bad thing though, it was probably the most robust engine BL/Rover ever made. But it sold in tiny numbers as Honda didn't promote it here.
The next was the 1.7 Isuzu unit in the Civic 01-05 which was shared in various forms in numerous Vauxhall's from the Cavalier to the last gen Astra and Zafira. Again a very robust engine but Honda had no input into its development.
Honda's first diesel was the 2.2 that first seen light of day in the Accord in 2003.
Mazda do still use a variation of that infamous PSA 1.6 "diesel of doom" but in much revised form that's shared with Ford. The 2.2 Skyactiv diesel is all Mazda's own work as far as I'm aware and not a good effort from the volume of issues owners seem to be seeing.
Edited by SLO76 on 16/08/2017 at 21:56
|
Mazda do still use a variation of that infamous PSA 1.6 "diesel of doom" but in much revised form that's shared with Ford. The 2.2 Skyactiv diesel is all Mazda's own work as far as I'm aware and not a good effort from the volume of issues owners seem to be seeing.
The Mazda 2.2 seems to win many plaudits in terms of raw performance, but as you say isn't very reliable. I'll be interested to see whether they drop the diesels (in cars, not their small truck/ute range) altogether if they get their HCCI petrol engines right, given that tech is supposed to be the 'holy grail' of diesel efficiency with petrol performance.
If they do, will any other make be able to sell something comparable without infringing on the (inevitable) patent - I'm not sure that Mazda would licence it to other Japanese makes, and perhaps all others except maybe Ford if they asked nicely. I suppose it would depend upon who they use for the auto boxes for their hybrids as well, which look to be coming out at about the same time (within the next 3-5 years).
|
|
|
|
We have vastly more variety thanks to technology sharing.
On the face of it, yes. But in fact, no, because of just what we are discussing ?
|
|
Tesla makes most of what goes in their cars although some small components like switches are Mercedes-Benz.
|
|
Apart from switchgear wiring etc Foden at one time used to make almost everything in their lorries, i don't know but i suspect Hino (the modern day Foden/ERF) make nearly everything for theirs apart from gearboxes.
Edited by gordonbennet on 16/08/2017 at 20:06
|
|
|
|
We have vastly more variety thanks to technology sharing.
On the face of it, yes. But in fact, no, because of just what we are discussing ?
Even if they're based on the same floorpan, basic suspension architecture and running gear there are huge differences between driving a Skoda Octavia and an Audi TT. There are a huge number of options based on this same basic platform many of which simply wouldn't exist had they required fully independent design.
There are bad examples of it though, Jag X-type, Saab 9-3 and 9-5 spring to mind. All three were less honest than the cars they were based on which despite prestige pretensions were less well made using cheap poor quality interior plastics. The facelifted 9-5 was terrible quality wise compared to an equivalent BM, Audi or even Vauxhall for that matter.
Edited by SLO76 on 16/08/2017 at 22:11
|
We have vastly more variety thanks to technology sharing.
On the face of it, yes. But in fact, no, because of just what we are discussing ?
Even if they're based on the same floorpan, basic suspension architecture and running gear there are huge differences between driving a Skoda Octavia and an Audi TT. There are a huge number of options based on this same basic platform many of which simply wouldn't exist had they required fully independent design. There are bad examples of it though, Jag X-type, Saab 9-3 and 9-5 spring to mind. All three were less honest than the cars they were based on which despite prestige pretensions were less well made using cheap poor quality interior plastics. The facelifted 9-5 was terrible quality wise compared to an equivalent BM, Audi or even Vauxhall for that matter.
There are two ways of technology sharing across brands at different levels - one is to design/build for the highest level required and then get economy of scale by using it in great numbers on lesser models - the other is to use as lesser model as a basis because you can't afford anything better.
VW Group do the former well - GM did/does the latter badly - that's why GM can't make Chevrolet/Buick/Cadillac work in the same way that Skoda/VW/Audi works..
|
|
The 1,6 "diesel of doom" really isn't that bad. There are millions of them out there running about happily and I've seen them still going strong at 250k miles.
They do not suffer poor servicing well and some of the early ones had a fault with the injectors coming loose and breaking the seal.
The trick with them is to check the turbo isn't whaling like a banshee when you buy it, change the oil with correct fully synthetic low SAPS every 10k and check the torque of the injector clamps every time you service it.
The reason the injectors are important is that there is a cam cover seal inside the injector sleeves. If the injectors come loose and leak combustion gases the gases eventually get into the cam cover and the oil. This carbons up the oil which in turn bungs up the oil feed to the turbo etc.
Properly checked and maintained I'd take a PSA diesel of doom over any VAG diesel with a balancer shaft and self destructing oil pump between 2004 and 2009 any day for long term life.
|
|
I'm constantly surprised to see Mazda cited as an example of a manufacturer with a good reliability record.
MX-5 Mk 2, 2.5 and even 3 rust like nothing on earth. Prettty much every diesel engine of their own has been a reliability mess and their customer service record on addressing early failure is terrible. Mk 1 6 rusts. RX-8 engines wear early and won't start when warm and are worth £2.50 now. I can think of several more.
Mazda have made some decent cars and some in their range are OK but overall I'd say their record on design, build, reliability and customer service is well down on other Japanese manufacturers.
|
I'm constantly surprised to see Mazda cited as an example of a manufacturer with a good reliability record.
MX-5 Mk 2, 2.5 and even 3 rust like nothing on earth. Prettty much every diesel engine of their own has been a reliability mess and their customer service record on addressing early failure is terrible. Mk 1 6 rusts. RX-8 engines wear early and won't start when warm and are worth £2.50 now. I can think of several more.
Mazda have made some decent cars and some in their range are OK but overall I'd say their record on design, build, reliability and customer service is well down on other Japanese manufacturers.
Rust is the big weak point and their record on Diesel engines is poor but the petrol 4cyl motors are very longlived and rarely give trouble, they drive very well with far more focus on handling than other Japanese rivals.
|
I'm constantly surprised to see Mazda cited as an example of a manufacturer with a good reliability record.
MX-5 Mk 2, 2.5 and even 3 rust like nothing on earth. Prettty much every diesel engine of their own has been a reliability mess and their customer service record on addressing early failure is terrible. Mk 1 6 rusts. RX-8 engines wear early and won't start when warm and are worth £2.50 now. I can think of several more.
Mazda have made some decent cars and some in their range are OK but overall I'd say their record on design, build, reliability and customer service is well down on other Japanese manufacturers.
Rust is the big weak point and their record on Diesel engines is poor but the petrol 4cyl motors are very longlived and rarely give trouble, they drive very well with far more focus on handling than other Japanese rivals.
As a Mazda3 mk1 (petrol-engined) owner, I've seen quite a few around and about, both at dealerships and in my area, and have noted that the rust problem on the 3 at least seemed to be far more worse in the 04 and 54 plate cars (never seen a 53 plate - were they being sold at that time?) in its first year of sales - newer examples, like my 55 plate (built in Oct 2005) and newer seem to have far less rust issues around the wheel arches (mine has almost none), as do many other examples I've seen of the mk1 (including the facelifted version from mid 2006).
To be honest I've never seen a mk2 (or the mk3 - I'd hope not either!) with any noticeable rust, even the early 2009 examples - most look (externally) as good as new. I suspect the 6 probably had similar issues, but I admit I don't tend to notice 6s quite so much as thery aren't a car I'd buy as they're too large.
As others have said on the forum on other threads, Mazda gets a lot of bad press for its diesel-powered cars, and quite rightly so, however some of the blame needs to be directed (equally) at the sales staff (for selling the uninitiaed diesel cars only used for short trips) and buyers who have disregarded advice and bought them anyway, and not followed the usage advice about DPF regens, servicing, etc. I think its because, especially abroad, that Mazda get a far better press because the majority of their cars sold are petrol-driven or at least used for longer trips regularly. For example, Mazda sell more cars in Australia (about 100k pa), a country with a population a fifth of the UK, by a factor of 3:1 than here.
Judging by the more 'forthright' attitude of Aussies (and I bet Americans) towards reliability over looks, this is why they do better worldwide, but I would also say that more Mazdas, like Hondas and Lexuses, are sold as private vehicles (and you may say for the more 'mature' [discerning?] buyer) in the UK than company or rental cars, so its more likely they buy them to use in the right way than the likes of Ford, Vauxhall (price) or the German marques (more for image).
|
|
|
|
The 1,6 "diesel of doom" really isn't that bad. There are millions of them out there running about happily and I've seen them still going strong at 250k miles.
They do not suffer poor servicing well and some of the early ones had a fault with the injectors coming loose and breaking the seal.
The trick with them is to check the turbo isn't whaling like a banshee when you buy it, change the oil with correct fully synthetic low SAPS every 10k and check the torque of the injector clamps every time you service it.
You're absolutely right. Peugeot used to recommend that the oil change was every 20,000 miles on those engines, and Peugeots were the ones to suffer the most. Other marques using the same engine used shorter intervals.
|
|
Thanks for all the posts which make interesting reading.
I now feel more disgruntled with the expenses I've picked up with my diesel.
I have never scrimped on servicing and had more done than the minimum. Either the reputable garages ( no dodgy ones ) are not as good as their reputation etc suggest or I've been very unlucky.
Still, nothing but petrol for me now - I mean it.
|
Thanks for all the posts which make interesting reading.
I now feel more disgruntled with the expenses I've picked up with my diesel.
I have never scrimped on servicing and had more done than the minimum. Either the reputable garages ( no dodgy ones ) are not as good as their reputation etc suggest or I've been very unlucky.
Still, nothing but petrol for me now - I mean it.
Out of curiosity who was servicing the Volvo? Main dealer or backstreet garage?
|
|
|
|
|
<< Peugeot used to recommend that the oil change was every 20,000 miles on those engines, and Peugeots were the ones to suffer the most. Other marques using the same engine used shorter intervals. >>
I presume the so-called 'diesel of doom' is the 1.6 HDi (no DPF) fitted to my 2008 Pug 207SW, which I have owned from nearly-new? The servicing schedule advises oil and filter change every 12K, and I started with 10K and now do it every 8K. This car has never needed any attention beyond regular servicing and never puts a foot wrong.
I discovered it likes an occasional ten litres of V-power fuel - it smooths the running a bit.
|
|
Mine 2007 with DPF, a different story!
|
|
|
|
|
The 1,6 "diesel of doom" really isn't that bad. There are millions of them out there running about happily and I've seen them still going strong at 250k miles.
They do not suffer poor servicing well and some of the early ones had a fault with the injectors coming loose and breaking the seal.
The trick with them is to check the turbo isn't whaling like a banshee when you buy it, change the oil with correct fully synthetic low SAPS every 10k and check the torque of the injector clamps every time you service it.
The reason the injectors are important is that there is a cam cover seal inside the injector sleeves. If the injectors come loose and leak combustion gases the gases eventually get into the cam cover and the oil. This carbons up the oil which in turn bungs up the oil feed to the turbo etc.
Properly checked and maintained I'd take a PSA diesel of doom over any VAG diesel with a balancer shaft and self destructing oil pump between 2004 and 2009 any day for long term life.
Fair point. The problem however is that almost no one will do this. They scrimp on servicing by using cheap backstreet and fast fit garages who do the bare minimum and routinely use the wrong oil. Find one will a full main dealer history (serviced every year not every second) then it may well serve you well but the vast bulk of them aren't looked after properly and they suffer badly from neglect. The older gen motors would run and run despite it and most normally asperated petrol engines are capable of standing up to it too to greater degree. I see these things on a regular basis when I'm asked to view for a customer and it's rare I'll find one with the appropriate service record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
