[cal_stater]

Hi folks,

As a passionate car enthusiast I couldn't help but notice the predetermined lifespan Ford gave the Fiesta mentioned in the press materials. While it's all well and good it's a reminder of the consumerist society we live in where things are here today and forgotten about tomorrow. Gone is the day when cars were built to stand the test of time. Now they're built to implode just in time for you to head out and buy a new whatever is that tickles your fancy at the moment. This is just a rant from an young but old school car-guy who believes in driving the wheels off a car and not swapping it out for the latest and greatest whatever fad of the day..

Anyways, the Fiesta is a an exciting car with many possibilities in the aftermarket and I'm anxiously anticipating what the realities of those aforementioned possibilities will be.

 

[LMTech]

I think if you get 150k miles out of a modern auto trans then that is pretty good and plus it didn't say that it was done after 150k it just said it was a sealed trans that didn't require service until 150k. In comparasion a common rule of thumb for fluid service on a regular auto trans is every 3yrs or 36k miles. Hell I serviced the manual trans in my Ranger every 30k miles and still had to replace it at 150k miles,by the way the truck has 240k on it now and still runs strong. I am keeping it even when I get my Fiesta because you always need a truck.

 

[cal_stater]

Fiesta was subjected to more than 550 component and system laboratory tests to verify durability, functionality, serviceability and sustainability over the vehicle’s lifetime. Doors, liftgate and hood were each operated more than 300,000 times in real-world conditions including dirt, dust, salt and humidity across a variety of temperature ranges and extremes.

The goal: Use those tests to help create an on-road life of 10 years and 150,000 miles. Then it became a movement.

FORD FIESTA POISED TO CHALLENGE SEGMENT WITH GLOBAL DESIGN, QUALITY, NVH LEADERSHIP | Ford Motor Company Newsroom

With the "greening" of society it's become almost mandatory for all industrial manufactures of goods to ensure that all parts, fluids, etc. be easy to dispose of when the utility of those goods has been exceeded and they are no longer needed/wanted. However, it seems that many car manufactures have resorted to using predetermined expiration dates for various components and even the cars themselves as a method of ensuring whatever obligation they have on a national level to their respective governments that enforce various standards of environmental policy. Again, this is all well and good but the idea shouldn't be to force you or I out of a car at a predetermined point in time into another, but to find the most efficient and environmentally friendly way of both producing and recycling those components and/or fluids at any time. In reality the latter is just an easy way out for car makers.

 

[Mattdoommaster]

Hi folks,
Gone is the day when cars were built to stand the test of time. .

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile. If you seriously think that cars today are less reliable then cars built twenty or thirty years ago you're simply ignoring every single shred of evidence ever generated on auto reliability. Which is fine - just don't expect anyone else to step into your fantasy land with you.

 

[cal_stater]

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile. If you seriously think that cars today are less reliable then cars built twenty or thirty years ago you're simply ignoring every single shred of evidence ever generated on auto reliability. Which is fine - just don't expect anyone else to step into your fantasy land with you.

Very intelligent and well thought out reply. Obviously you completely misread everything I said, because if you read correctly you'd understand that I mentioned nothing about reliability. I was talking about longevity. There's a difference, and I guess that wasn't very clear to you.

 

[timo]

The 10y/150k is just the life span that the overall vehicle and individual components are designed/tested to meet. There has to be some sort of target for engineering purposes, right? All the durability tests are developed to that target. If the cars were designed for infinite life they would weight 20000 lbs and cost $10000000+. People are getting all hung up on the idea that the car is going to spontaneously combust at 10y/150k. It's not. My '01 focus safely carried me past 150k and I know it was developed under the same criteria. I've had to do the maintenance and a couple parts definitely didn't make it (damn colby jack stabar link boots) but the car still runs great. They shouldn't even let the marketing folks mention the 10y/150k thing b/c it just confuses people.

 

[cal_stater]

The 10y/150k is just the life span that the overall vehicle and individual components are designed/tested to meet. There has to be some sort of target for engineering purposes, right? All the durability tests are developed to that target. If the cars were designed for infinite life they would weight 20000 lbs and cost $10000000+. People are getting all hung up on the idea that the car is going to spontaneously combust at 10y/150k. It's not. My '01 focus safely carried me past 150k and I know it was developed under the same criteria. I've had to do the maintenance and a couple parts definitely didn't make it (damn colby jack stabar link boots) but the car still runs great. They shouldn't even let the marketing folks mention the 10y/150k thing b/c it just confuses people.

I thank you for offering the sound perspective. At the same time an 80's model Chevy CK pickup doesn't cost an extravagant fortune nor does it weigh much more than your typical light duty pickup (even today's choices) and yet you have some older pickups/cars tooling around with well over 150k+ miles on them! So I didn't start this thread to create some hype around the 150k "expiration" date but to engage some discussion on the thinking behind the often mentioned but vague use of the word "lifespan" as it applies to a car. More specifically a car that many people will be driving well into 150k in this instance, the Fiesta.

 

[timo]

I thank you for offering the sound perspective. At the same time an 80's model Chevy CK pickup doesn't cost an extravagant fortune nor does it weigh much more than your typical light duty pickup (even today's choices) and yet you have some older pickups/cars tooling around with well over 150k+ miles on them! So I didn't start this thread to create some hype around the 150k "expiration" date but to engage some discussion on the thinking behind the often mentioned but vague use of the word "lifespan" as it applies to a car. More specifically a car that many people will be driving well into 150k in this instance, the Fiesta.

Something worth mentioning is that the 150k number is an AT LEAST target. Obviously many parts will go much longer. Also, early failures will occur. Using the '80's CK example, does it count as lasting 150k+ if you've had to replace a ball joint? How about if the damper forces aren't within 20% of the original spec? What if the control arm bushing rates aren't with X% of original spec? How many old CKs (or other vehicles) have had the water pump, alternator, starter motor etc replaced before 150k? Is the truck used up then? Of course not, you replace those parts and keep on truckin'. All these parts mentioned are lifed for 150k these days. It doesn't always work out that way but that's the target. Stuff will wear out, sometimes sooner than designed/expected, sometimes much later but it doesn't neccessarily mean nor is it meant to imply that the vehicle is used up.

 

[PowerShift]

Ford really goofed in giving out this 150K number.
Even though that's actually longer than most people keep their cars. It's never good to put a life expectancy on a car. It will never seem long enough.

They should have just said: "with proper vehicle maintenance we expect the Fiesta with powershift to be as durable as any other Ford vehicle".

 

[getn2focus]

Saying that Ford shouldn't put a lifespan on a car would be rather silly in my opinion. Yes you could do without it, but it gives some people, including myself, a look at how long the car/truck is designed to last.

I think the same could be said for any manufacturer.

 

[ZXmurph]

Ford really goofed in giving out this 150K number.
Even though that's actually longer than most people keep their cars. It's never good to put a life expectancy on a car. It will never seem long enough.

They should have just said: "with proper vehicle maintenance we expect the Fiesta with powershift to be as durable as any other Ford vehicle".

You're so right...... it is such a perfect example of a number that applies in a specific engineering and design context..... .and not remotely in any sort of marketing materials...