Swift vs Polo

Just my 10c on the 'outdated technology' argument that gets thrown around a bit with regard to cars.

I am all for progress, finding better ways of doing stuff is what I do for a living. However all to often what I see tagged as "advancements" are nothing more than different, usually more expensive, ways of addressing non existent issues.

Maybe I have particularly low expectations of cars (I suspect I have) but to me:
Power seats
Duel zone climate (WTF! the vents are 30cm from each other!)
Push button start
Rain sensing wipers
CVT's
etc etc

Are all just gimmicks that cost money to fix, introduced to solve non-existent problems.

So when I hear that a particular car is "years behind in technology" I take that with a grain of salt. Look at what the car actually delivers you, how much it costs, and what it will cost you over time by all means. But 'new' is not a selling point for me. 'New' means unproven.

Classic example - since they were introduced mechanics and manufacturers alike have known that people don't maintain auto transmissions like they should. Service intervals get missed regularly. Quality deteriorates as a result. People resent the short term cost, ignoring the long term benefit.

SO what do they do! Introduce CVT that punishes missed services even more! But it's new.it must be better.

Direct injection the same - great on paper, the fuel savings are awesome! But then you read how much a new high pressure pump or leaking fuel system, or heaven forbid injectors that are coded to the ECU (WTF!) costs.

Yes some manufacturers do a better job than others, but consider this: nobody fanatically runs around screaming "the sun is going to come up tomorrow!" because it's a known, self evident, provable truth. But you DO get people screaming that diesels are better, or direct injection is better, or DSG is better, or Commodore is better.why! Because these are NOT self evident, known, provable truths. People feel the need to do that proving, because the product can't on it's own. If one car/system was truly better than all others, it would dominate all markets. I have THAT much faith in the free market system. But, over time, there is no dominant player to that extent. Clever marketing will get you a short term gain, but not long term.

SO buy what you like. Enjoy it.

LOL, there is always one. If people listened to the likes of you we would still be running side valve engines. People like you just don't like change, your lot hacked on twin cam engines, electronic control of motors, fuel injection and every other decent advancement in the automobile.

As for "self evident" improvements. Anyone who actually drives these vehicles realises straight away how much better a car with a DSG and direct injection technology is. The trouble is there are so many noisy idiots who have never owned one hacking them unnecessarily that very few actually get as far as trying one out because they have been scared stupid by the nonsense.

Your logic is flawed anyway, on a worldwide scale direct injection dsg style cars are immensely popular. Its just other countries don't have the silly import driven motor trade nonsense to put them off.

Also. CVT is old technology now, its only behind the times knuckle draggers that think its new, that's my critisism the Swift is only just getting that far down the track. If you understood the argument you would realise that the likes of the DSG transmission is actually maintenance free AND still lasts, your old fashioned auto won't last like a DSG will with no maintenance.

BTW, VW direct injection pumps are very reasonably priced compared to MItsubishi ones. one of many reasons why I don't recommend GDI cars.

EDIT, read it back. Crikey that sounds harsh!

Yeah you've missed my point.again.

I have no doubt that, when working, a direct injection and/or DSG set up is technologically better at doing what it does than an SU carb and slush box.

What I'm saying is that new tech comes at a cost, and that cost is sometimes reliability as well as dollars. So it will not be the best option for everyone, always. New means new. It does not always mean better. The number of technologies that have been touted as the next best thing, but then died for good reason far outweigh those that caught on and actually ended up being progress.

As I already stated I am all in favour of progress, I am simply saying people need to look at what their own definition of what progress is.

As for CVT being new.they were new when they were new. At no point did I say they are new NOW.but I'm used to your skim reading and partial absorption ofcontent I guess.