# What is expected lifetime of a car, and what happens when it isn't achieved?



## ang1170 (26 Mar 2012)

Can anyone say what is the anticipated lifetime of a car, and is there any liability on its manufacturer if it fails before then?

Very briefly, my brother has a 2004 Renault Scenic, 1.9 diesel, that he purchased new for almost €30k from a main dealer (no longer in business). He's had it serviced since then according to the manufacturer's schedule, all at main dealers.

Anyway, the turbo blew last week, causing the engine severe damage, to the extent it is beyond economic repair.

The car has less than 100,000 miles on it. 

In effect, the car has lasted all of 8 years and less than 100,000 miles, despite being cared for by one owner since new according to the service schedule specified by Renault.

What do people think? I would have thought he could expect something more than this.


----------



## RonanC (26 Mar 2012)

It has nothing to do with the lifetime of a car, but more to do with the lifetime of a consumable part. A car is made up of 1000's of parts and each has its own short lifespan. Ie; tyres, air filter brake pads & discs, oil, bearings, timing belt...... and now with more and more people buying diesels, turbo's. I would expect 8 years of driving to be pretty good return from a part that could blow the day the car rolls out of the factory.


----------



## ang1170 (26 Mar 2012)

I'm not sure if I agree with that. If the anticipated lifetime of a particular component is less than the overall product, I'd expect the manufacturer to include it in the schedule of items to be replaced (e.g. brake pads, cam belts etc.), either after a specific interval or after some form of inspection or test. If it's not on that list, presumably the part is expected to last the lifetime of the overall product, no?


----------



## ang1170 (26 Mar 2012)

I should add by the way that this is more a consumer rights type of question than a technical one. To take two (extreme) cases:

- a six month old car fails in a similar way 
- a twenty year old car fails in a similar way

In one case, even if such things as manufacturer's warranties did not exist, presumably you'd have a good legal case for getting some degree of resolution from the supplier, in the other you'd probably be thanking them for so many years of service.

What is the cut-off point between these? I know it's all shades of grey, but 8 years does not seem too long to me....


----------



## RonanC (26 Mar 2012)

ang1170 said:


> If it's not on that list, presumably the part is expected to last the lifetime of the overall product, no?


 
No.

As I said, a turbo can blow at any time. This can be down to the style of driving. A timing belt for instance has a "life" of about 60,000miles, but this does not mean it will actually last 60,000miles. So if for instance you have only driven 30,000miles but the belt is 10years old, then the quality of the belt over that period of time will have significantly deteriorated. Should you be entitled to some help then if you havnt hit the 60,000 mile expectancy ?


----------



## ang1170 (26 Mar 2012)

RonanC said:


> No.
> 
> As I said, a turbo can blow at any time. This can be down to the style of driving. A timing belt for instance has a "life" of about 60,000miles, but this does not mean it will actually last 60,000miles. So if for instance you have only driven 30,000miles but the belt is 10years old, then the quality of the belt over that period of time will have significantly deteriorated. Should you be entitled to some help then if you havnt hit the 60,000 mile expectancy ?


 
I don't think a component that "can blow at any time", taking the product with it should be designed into a product in the first place!

In your timing belt example, if it is known a component deteriorates with age as well as use, I'd expect that to be covered in the maintenance schedule: e.g. "replace at 60,000 miles or after 5 years, whichever is first".

The car has not been abused: it's a family car, with a known history from new.

Same question remains: how long can one expect a moderm car to last, if it is well looked after, serviced according to schedule?


----------



## Leo (26 Mar 2012)

Try contacting the National Consumer Agency. As you say, approaching this from a consumer rights point of view is the way to go. To pursue this one, you will need to establish that 8 years is well short of the accepted lifespan of this part. Evidence of frequent failures of this part will help your case.

If you have full service history from official dealers, sometimes the manufacturer may offer you disount on the repair. There are a number threads here where this has happened. 

Depending on the value, the Small Claims Court may not be an option for you here. Pursuing this through higher courts would be a risky path to take.


----------



## Leo (26 Mar 2012)

ang1170 said:


> Same question remains: how long can one expect a moderm car to last, if it is well looked after, serviced according to schedule?


 
There is no one answer to this, it will vary by brand, model, price point etc.  

Reaults of that era are not known for their reliability, so 8 years might be seen as an acceptable lifespan (obviously not to owners, but that's a different matter). Seems turbo failures are common on that model.


----------



## NOAH (26 Mar 2012)

how much does a new engine for a scenic actually cost?  where is this reference " not economic to repair" come from?  do a google and you will find this turbo problem is well known.  I would make a case to RENAULT and get some or all of the cost paid.  dont worry about how long a car should last,  less than a 100k is nothing on a diesel.  do you know if egr valve was replaced???   

noah


----------



## Tired Paul (26 Mar 2012)

Glad I saw this thread today as I've just had hell with my local Renualt dealer with our 04 Scenic 1.4 petrol.
Basically the dash board, which is digital display, went blank last week. No speed, clock, fuel, lights etc etc could be seen. Therefore the car is not road worthy. Rang the dealer, expalined the issue, was told its a common fault so much so that Renault stand over all costs expect €115. I was surprised as I would expect such a vital part to last the lifetime of the car. Not the case however. Anyway went back to collect the car fuming at having to pay for this only to find out that during the replacement of the part it wipes all the mileage from the dash. So my mileage went from 63K to 0K. Kicked up a fuss but again there was nothing that could be done.
Will be taking this further so all I can say *ang1170 *is best of luck with dealing with this shower.


----------



## Boyd (27 Mar 2012)

Tired Paul said:


> Glad I saw this thread today as I've just had hell with my local Renualt dealer with our 04 Scenic 1.4 petrol.
> Basically the dash board, which is digital display, went blank last week. No speed, clock, fuel, lights etc etc could be seen. Therefore the car is not road worthy. Rang the dealer, expalined the issue, was told its a common fault so much so that Renault stand over all costs expect €115. I was surprised as I would expect such a vital part to last the lifetime of the car. Not the case however. Anyway went back to collect the car fuming at having to pay for this only to find out that during the replacement of the part it wipes all the mileage from the dash. So my mileage went from 63K to 0K. Kicked up a fuss but again there was nothing that could be done.
> Will be taking this further so all I can say *ang1170 *is best of luck with dealing with this shower.



This makes no sense, Renault stood over the costs but you were fuming at having to pay - which was it??

Some people would love their mileage to read zero! (*though I know it'll be a serious pain if you ever try to sell it.)


----------



## nai (27 Mar 2012)

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/renault/scenic-2003/?section=bad 

Good review of problems here ...


----------



## ang1170 (27 Mar 2012)

NOAH said:


> how much does a new engine for a scenic actually cost? where is this reference " not economic to repair" come from? do a google and you will find this turbo problem is well known. I would make a case to RENAULT and get some or all of the cost paid. dont worry about how long a car should last, less than a 100k is nothing on a diesel. do you know if egr valve was replaced???
> 
> noah


 
Several thousand is answer to 1st question. "Not economic to repair" means it costs more to repair than it's worth (i.e. why spend €4k repairing a car when you can go out and get the same one for €3.5k?).

Not sure on "egr valve" (it's my brother's car): as far as I know, it had any work that was needed done.

I've advised him to contact Renault: personally, I can't see them doing anything, though they may respond to some pressure in relation to bad publicity: if I were spending €30k on a car, I'd certainly want to know that its expected lifetime was 8 years and less than 100,000 miles.

Leo: thanks for the National Consumer Agency suggestion. I've passed on that suggestion to him too.


----------



## Leo (27 Mar 2012)

No problem Ang1170, good luck with it. The material on the Honest John link provided by nai should be useful in this case.


----------



## Sue Ellen (27 Mar 2012)

Tired Paul said:


> Rang the dealer, expalined the issue, was told its a common fault so much so that Renault stand over all costs *expect €115.* I was surprised as I would expect such a vital part to last the lifetime of the car. Not the case however. Anyway went back to collect the car fuming at having to pay for this





username123 said:


> This makes no sense, Renault stood over the costs but you were fuming at having to pay - which was it??



It looks as if Paul had to pay €115.00.


----------



## Tired Paul (27 Mar 2012)

Too right I had to pay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this is what I'm fuming over. I agree many parts will and do go in cars. But the dashboard - a major part for which without it the car is not raod worthy. And also that Renualt accept the problem but don't cover the whole cost. And finally, when you get something fixed you expect to get back in fair condition - not reading zero and having to explain every time it goes for NCT, service and for re-sale that - well the actual mileage you isn't the real mileage its'.......
You get my point.


----------



## joeysully (30 Mar 2012)

Your turbo fan bearing most likely failed, causing the fan in the turbo to break up into pieces and got into the cylinders causing even more problems. 

the fan in the turbo turns at about 20k RPM so if you drive the car for one hour every day for 8 years then that little fan would have turned 
~ 3,504,000,000 times. 

Now TBH thats seems like pretty good reliability to me! 

This problem was not caused but poor reliability in my opinion but poor maintenance. If the turbo failure had been noticed, then it would just have been a service on the turbo and the engine would have run for many miles more.


----------



## Pique318 (30 Mar 2012)

I'm amazed that people expect cars to last to 'their' standards.

VW/AUDI 2.0TDi engines are one of the most common engines in Passats, Golfs, A3/4/5/6, etc, yet they suffer from major problems UNLESS the car is driven on long journeys regularly.

You can spend 30k on a Passat and drive it to the shops or mass once a week or whatever and it WILL cause you thousands of euro in repairs after maybe 5 years.
DMF, EGR, DPF are all major parts that improve driveability and reduce emissions.
Everyone wants these things and they are improving yes, but to achieve the demands of the customer, they were introduced perhaps before the ywere perfected.

The original BMW 2.0D (as found in the E46 320D) had a reputation for eating turbos before 100k miles. But the car was fast, powerful, efficient, and so the major pros outweighed the relatively rare cons. WIth the amount of them sold, however, the problems were well documented.

Honda iCTDI engines are massively reliable, but if you do not use the Castrol Edge recommended, they CAN develop terminal problems.

Modern cars are so efficient and (on the whole) reliable because they are so complex. This complexity is also their downfall.

Some guy had a 1960s Volvo P1800 that did a million miles.
Early 1990s-era Mercs are still going as taxis in cities all over europe with 500k+ miles. They werre simple diesels, pumping out noxious fumes compared to modern ones, but they could be fixed by a lump hammer.
Those types of engines will never be seen again and the price we pay is in the possibility that a part that makes our driving lives so trouble-free also has the potential to let go and cost us lots.

The recent push for low-CO2 diesels since '08 has led people to buy small diesels for tiny tax and used for tiny mileage and short journeys. These are a ticking timebomb for their owners or potential second-hand owners.


----------



## ang1170 (31 Mar 2012)

Pique318 said:


> I'm amazed that people expect cars to last to 'their' standards.


 
They are not "my" standards: this is exactly why I asked the question: what is the anticipated lifetime of a car? The most common answer I've been able to find is "10 years, or 150k miles", if properly maintained.

This is the expectation the car industry has given: if it is not true, then people should be told about it.



Pique318 said:


> VW/AUDI 2.0TDi engines are one of the most common engines in Passats, Golfs, A3/4/5/6, etc, yet they suffer from major problems UNLESS the car is driven on long journeys regularly.
> 
> You can spend 30k on a Passat and drive it to the shops or mass once a week or whatever and it WILL cause you thousands of euro in repairs after maybe 5 years.


 
Then I'd suggest they are not fit for purpose, since short journeys are the norm for many motorists. Do they issue warnings that this is likely to happen?

BMW and the like "claim" to have service indicatiors that indicate when the car needs servicing "depending on how you use it". I would expect this (assuming it works) to indicate when a car with a particular usage pattern requires attention.



Pique318 said:


> DMF, EGR, DPF are all major parts that improve driveability and reduce emissions.
> Everyone wants these things and they are improving yes, but to achieve the demands of the customer, they were introduced perhaps before the ywere perfected.


 
It sounds to me that this is likely to be the case.



Pique318 said:


> The original BMW 2.0D (as found in the E46 320D) had a reputation for eating turbos before 100k miles. But the car was fast, powerful, efficient, and so the major pros outweighed the relatively rare cons. WIth the amount of them sold, however, the problems were well documented.


 
If that's the case - failure regardless of service life - the turbo should be marked as a service item (alternatively, flagged as a replacement item if for example a service has been skipped).



Pique318 said:


> Honda iCTDI engines are massively reliable, but if you do not use the Castrol Edge recommended, they CAN develop terminal problems.


 
How well is this flagged to customers?



Pique318 said:


> Modern cars are so efficient and (on the whole) reliable because they are so complex. This complexity is also their downfall.


 
Understood, but I still have an issue with a car being used in perfectly normal ways (short journeys etc.) should effectively expire. It smacks of being told "you're doing the wrong sort of driving".

If they need additional servicing, and certain parts replacing if they are driven in certain ways or service intervals skipped or whatever, this should be made clear.


----------



## Pique318 (2 Apr 2012)

ang1170 said:


> , if properly maintained.


 And that's the issue isn't it. Who defines what is 'proper' ?
20 years ago, putting oil and water and fuel into a car was all people did to maintain their cars and it was fine. The cheapest oil was fine.
Things have changed but peoples habits are basically the same.


			
				ang1170 said:
			
		

> Then I'd suggest they are not fit for purpose, since short journeys are the norm for many motorists. Do they issue warnings that this is likely to happen?


 No of course not, but talk to a mechanic and they will tell you.


			
				ang1170 said:
			
		

> BMW and the like "claim" to have service indicatiors that indicate when the car needs servicing "depending on how you use it". I would expect this (assuming it works) to indicate when a car with a particular usage pattern requires attention.


 I think they generally do. However, this only refers to general service parts. The parts I mentioned above are not classified as service parts. The DPF is a self-regenerating unit but needs to be at a high temperature to do so. short journeys do not allow this to happen and so it eventually clogs up and can cost the guts of a grand to clean/replace.


			
				ang1170 said:
			
		

> If that's the case - failure regardless of service life - the turbo should be marked as a service item (alternatively, flagged as a replacement item if for example a service has been skipped).


 The turbo is not a service part, but there was a modification that cured this problem eventually and didn't affect every car. 


			
				ang1170 said:
			
		

> How well is this flagged to customers?


 It's clearly highlighted in the service book but unscrupulous mechanics may not heed that and use cheap generic oil instead of the expensive type required.


			
				ang1170 said:
			
		

> Understood, but I still have an issue with a car being used in perfectly normal ways (short journeys etc.) should effectively expire. It smacks of being told "you're doing the wrong sort of driving".


 True. More people need to be made aware of this. However, the appeal of driving a new car blinds people to the suitability of such a car to their needs.


			
				ang1170 said:
			
		

> If they need additional servicing, and certain parts replacing if they are driven in certain ways or service intervals skipped or whatever, this should be made clear.


 True, however, being realistic, no manufacturer is going to advertise a car doing 45mpg, minimum CO2 tax rate, air-con, xenon lights etc. and then have a caveat that cars must be driven like 'so' for reliability to be assured.


This quote from Fight Club is basically explains it:
_"A new car built by my company  leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The  rear differential locks up. The car crashes  and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now:  should we initiate a recall? Take the number  
of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the  probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the  average out-of-court settlement, C. A times  B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." _


----------



## DerKaiser (2 Apr 2012)

ang1170 said:


> Understood, but I still have an issue with a car being used in perfectly normal ways (short journeys etc.) should effectively expire. It smacks of being told "you're doing the wrong sort of driving".
> 
> If they need additional servicing, and certain parts replacing if they are driven in certain ways or service intervals skipped or whatever, this should be made clear.


 
I've got an 8 year old car and I'd be hugely disappointed if it failed, it drives as good as when I got it. Reliability is a big thing as far as I'm concerned, a car is there to save you hassle not cause you hassle.

That said I've seen Renault perform badly on enough reliability surveys to never touch one.


----------

