762mm
Full Access Members
Well ladies and gents, this is not a question per se, but rather a thought experiment: with all the computer modules cars & trucks have these days on internal combustion engines (some Mercedes have over 100!), is it really "worth it" in terms of long-term fuel savings vs. long term ownership costs?
It occurred to me this morning that all the b.s. in my 5.4L (variable valve timing, 3 valves per cylinder, rotating cam phasers, etc) plus all the other "improved tech" (electronic throttle body, "lifetime" fuel filter you can't change, etc) designed at saving fuel will actually cost me way more in ownership costs in the long run than the extra gas would've.
If this 5.4L was designed as simple & bulletproof as a V8 engine from the 80's or even the 90's, would it be drastically worse on fuel? Having owned vehicles from that era, my answer is that the difference would be minimal in reality. In the long run, all this EPA-appeasing tech is hitting everyone hard in the pocket... (long term vehicle owners)
Case in point: today a lot of vehicles are scrapped not because of bad engines, transmissions or differentials anymore, but because of bad modules or other electronics going haywire... which can cost thousands to diagnose and to replace, often exceeding the value of an older vehicle. This is especially true if a vehicle has been flooded - modern cars are an automatic "total loss", because of the cascade electronic failure that will ensue shortly, even if the vehicle runs "ok" at first.
Thoughts?
It occurred to me this morning that all the b.s. in my 5.4L (variable valve timing, 3 valves per cylinder, rotating cam phasers, etc) plus all the other "improved tech" (electronic throttle body, "lifetime" fuel filter you can't change, etc) designed at saving fuel will actually cost me way more in ownership costs in the long run than the extra gas would've.
If this 5.4L was designed as simple & bulletproof as a V8 engine from the 80's or even the 90's, would it be drastically worse on fuel? Having owned vehicles from that era, my answer is that the difference would be minimal in reality. In the long run, all this EPA-appeasing tech is hitting everyone hard in the pocket... (long term vehicle owners)
Case in point: today a lot of vehicles are scrapped not because of bad engines, transmissions or differentials anymore, but because of bad modules or other electronics going haywire... which can cost thousands to diagnose and to replace, often exceeding the value of an older vehicle. This is especially true if a vehicle has been flooded - modern cars are an automatic "total loss", because of the cascade electronic failure that will ensue shortly, even if the vehicle runs "ok" at first.
Thoughts?
Last edited: