[yobbo]

> Cars used to be simpler to work on because

No, it's because they are designed to be assembled from complete sub-assemblies. Maintenance is not assumed to be done on the sub-assemblies while they are in the final product. Under warranty, workshops are intended to replace entire sub-assemblies with new/rebuilt parts.

It's effectively a deliberate decision from the 80s that enabled faster assembly while warranties were shorter. For cars that are out of warranty, it doesn't matter either way.

The problem in the article occurs when Ford tries to pay someone to repair faults that were not planned to happen during the warranty time. Impossible, because it's completely uneconomical.

[Survived]

For cars that are out of warranty, it is an advantage, as the car will be scrapped sooner, thereby opening up a hole in the market that needs to be filled with a new car.

An advantage to the manufacturer, that is. For the consumer, it leads to never ending car payments for life, or surprise bills that approach the cost of a replacement vehicle.

[SoftTalker]

But if it happens too much the cars will have low value on the secondhand market, and therefore be less desireable to new car purchasers because they will suffer more depreciation. Not all buyers look at that stuff but smart ones do.

[pengaru]

I've encountered these headaches helping friends with their vehicles, and every time I'm reminded how much I prefer wrenching on my 80s-90s era mazdas.

My old protege even had an access port in the fender well added specifically to remove the crank bolt with an extension. If it were an Audi the FSM would point you to the engine removal process as step 1.

[potato3732842]

> If it were an Audi the FSM would point you to the engine removal process as step 1.

And once an OEM has committed to that sort of design it spirals.

"chuck the timing chains on the back, who cares, the engine gets pulled for everything regardless".