Useful for the third owner

[dana44]

I've seen too many gadgets fail and ruin the value of a vehicle. Parts need to be serviceable and affordable.

So no tucking the water pump into a spot that can't be reached like the old Chrysler minivans. No thousand dollar control parts because they have computers built in

If a part fails on the side of a trail the owner should be able to send a friend into town to get a part and replace with standard tools.

When the vehicle is 10+ years old the vehicle should not be end of life because some gadget part costs thousands of dollars.

Inspiration for this post comes from

 

[dana44]

Another example of a truck not to copy


Don't make it $500 to change a light bulb. Please make maintenance enjoyable!!

 

[E90400K]

Another example of a truck not to copy


Don't make it $500 to change a light bulb. Please make maintenance enjoyable!!

When I started the video, my first thought was, "just go through the wheel well". He finally ended up there. My mid-2000's BMWs all have access doors built into the wheel well liners to aid in light bulb maintenance. Also, with most modern cars and trucks using HID and LED bulbs, replacements are usually rare and if required, done by those 3rd-tier owners who can easily tackle pulling the liner to get to the rear of the headlights. The Nissan owner got the stripper trim with halogens.

But the service cost increases are thanks to Ralph Nader, the EPA, DOT, and the Market (i.e. 1st-tier owners) for wanting pre-collision warnings, lane control, and automatic braking while they enjoy reading their phones and screwing with the big screen TV attached to the dashboard...

 

[dana44]

Yeah, if there is an easy way to do it then do the right thing and make it official like your BMW, not "1.6 hours by the book". That's just stupid and hurts people from even trying, especially if they live in a strata that frowns upon repairs.

Your light comment reminds me of a third request, no "life time of the vehicle" parts that imply at whatever the lifetime of the vehicle is everything can start to fail because it hit its lifetime.

Even parts that last the lifetime don't. Maybe they do 99% of the time, or 99.9%, but over a million vehicles they do fail randomly. Especially with more intense hauling and overlanding from death Valley to the Yukon. If a vehicle has 70 lifetime parts that only need replacement only 1% of the time that means the majority of people will need to service one.

 

[Xlargetophat]

Id like a trap door over Engine and fuel pump. Not a cooler for alcoholics

 

[azerik]

Why make money only once when selling the vehicle when you could make money over and over until people just dump the vehicle and buy another?

 

[E90400K]

Yeah, if there is an easy way to do it then do the right thing and make it official like your BMW, not "1.6 hours by the book". That's just stupid and hurts people from even trying, especially if they live in a strata that frowns upon repairs.

Your light comment reminds me of a third request, no "life time of the vehicle" parts that imply at whatever the lifetime of the vehicle is everything can start to fail because it hit it's lifetime.

Even parts that last the lifetime don't. Maybe they do 99% of the time, or 99.9%, but over a million vehicles they do fail randomly. Especially with more intense hauling and overlanding from death Valley to the Yukon. If a vehicle has 70 lifetime parts that only need replacement only 1% of the time that means the majority of people will need to service one.

If I had my druthers I'd go back to the round and square glass globe headlight designs prior to the US move into the "aero" design starting with the Taurus in the mid-1980's. The headlights were cheap and easy to replace. Stone and rock hit damage was minimal, and the frickin lenses didn't fog over after 6 years. Get in a minor front end collision now in a 8 year old car and the headlight cost alone ($1,500 ea.) totals the car.

Okay... but all manufactured parts have a mean time between failure (MTBF) rating, which preventative maintenance schedules are based on. Modern cars last 3x longer than cars from the 1960s and 1970s. I've owned 1970's cars in the 1970's and aged into 10 to 15 years old. I'll take a modern car over a 1970's car any day of the week. Modern cars just last longer and require far less maintenance.

 

[dana44]

Why make money only once when selling the vehicle when you could make money over and over until people just dump the vehicle and buy another?

That is fine for 99% of vehicles. I don't think they're going for the light duty electric "lifestyle" pickup to bring soil home from homedepot/rugged styled SUV to fit into the traditional role of the minivan where this works though. If they intend to dive into that market and pray the brand name will make them stand out against the established players the sales will drop quickly once the novelty wears off.

Their angle looks to be more akin to the original Scout vehicles. So they must be serviceable on the trail (and parkade!). Within a couple years it will be clear if it fulfills the fantasy of owning a rugged offroad vehicle where one could toss on some taller springs and do the Alexander Mackenzie/Rubicon Trail or not. Yes, 90% never leave pavement, but people buy on the idea of "I could if I wanted to"

It seems they're aiming for people to cross shop when looking at the wrangler or gladiator, not Mustang Mach-e. This isn't just wishing for the well being of third owners, it is critical to either generate sales through a reputation of a vehicle that can get you home or hurt sales as they dump the vehicle and brand.

And it'll be nice for future sales. So many people with brand new high end Rubicon Jeeps once owned clapped out Cherokees they wrenched on when younger. It's a real opportunity to build the reputation of the brand by going against the wider industry trend.

 

[azerik]

I was being sarcastic about the $800 bulb replacement, not about Scout.