Haha okay. Good luck.

 

back to the question at hand - if you are going to replace the struts, all you get in that box is the strut itself and the top nut. To rebuild the strut assembly you need to inspect and replace the worn components. Experience says the rubber bits are what wear out. Regarding the control arms, you can replace just the rubber - provided you have a bushing press. Control arm bushings are typically rubber inside a metal sleeve that is pressed into the control arm itself with some serious force. Machine shops can do the job but by the time you pay for the shop work, you could have bought the whole arm. The suspension wear and tear is largely a function of the roads you drive on. If you live in Michigan lol (or like me here in New England) winter potholes and washboards cut the part life expectancy in half vs down south. I expect to only get 100K from struts/bushings etc.

BTW, there's nothing odd or wrong with Volvo's designs. They use common suppliers to VW, BMW and Mercedes, they all use very similar suspension and engine designs - all are interference (BMW uses timing chains vs belts as the exception) and each model has its nits. For example, my '12 VW CC has the DSG transmission which needs a $400 oil change every 40K miles... oh well, so no complains about a tranny flush for $200 every 100K miles... (oh and your car has a Toyota transmission in it...)

 

If you can't afford 100k auto repair, take the bus!

 

Thanks for the information.


But "they all use very similar suspension and engine designs" is exactly the problem: they share too much information! This way, they know they can sell as long as their competitors are doing the same! In other words, they know they don't have to make things better. And consumers suffer as a direct result.


Why this is not an antitrust case?

 

anti-trust is all about artificially controlling a market with your size that eliminates consumer choice. None of these vendors control a market. If you don't like cars with Bosch and other Euro-based part providers, you can buy a Toyota, Ford, GM etc. No issue with anti-trust here since the consumer can simply buy a Toyota.

 

But you just said they all share the same design, same parts... which means there is cooperation between them. This kind of cooperation eliminates competition and you think it benefits consumers?

 

It works the other way around. The product designer (ie Volvo) creates a set of specifications for their particular needs and shops the spec to parts providers. Some automakers are verticals meaning they own their own parts divisions, but their sourcing may use 3rd party suppliers (ugh, got a recall from VW for a Takata airbag...) or they may actually have an equity position in a supplier (ie Aisin is part owned by Toyota). Depending on the target price point and requirements, the product designer may specify a unique design or "dip into the parts bin" where they can use existing parts which have economy of scale. This is all about cost and not about cooperation. Take the airbag example - Takata owned the market due to their design and price per unit thus just about every car manufacturer outside of Korea was a customer. Mercedes didn't think twice about manufacturing their own airbags - they found the supplier and moved on to the next design challenge. Similarly Volvo may design the metal for the control arms but they use a supplier for the bushing...

 

The problem is not with any standard parts like spark plugs or airbags. But rather how could they come up with the same designs/materials/parts and have about the same lifespan. Without cooperation, they may want to check the average years people keep their cars (I think it's 11 years now) and then design their parts accordingly. But with cooperation, they only need to make their parts last as long as their competitors. 3rd party suppliers may help them share some information even they are not supposed to do so (none disclosure agreements).

 

People with any common sense expect that if they keep their car for 11 years, it will need maintenance. Just like ANYTHING.

Got a boat for 11 years? Maintenance.
Got a house for 11 years? Maintenance.
Got a lawn mower for 11 years? Maintenance.
Got a space shuttle for 11 years? Maintenance.

Get over it already. Buy a new car every 3 years so you have warranty if that's what you want.

 

There is a difference between maintenance and wasting your time on maintenance unless others pay you for the time wasted.

If others designed a printer that force you to open it up each time to replace toner cartridges or sell you the cartridges as part of a drum kit, you may say wait a minute...

But if they force you to do the same thing on your car, you seem OK. Why? Unless the car is not yours...

 

You lost me. Are you saying all cars should have parts that never wear out? Or all parts on all cars should be easily accessible so you can change them in a few minutes?

Maintenance isn't a waste of time. It is a requirement for anything.

You can do it yourself. If you don't know how or or don't want to, you can pay someone. Just like with anything.

What do you do for a living? Do you like working for free?

 

the "planned obsolescence" argument is asinine IMHO. As a product marketing person would you rather say "our cars are built to last the longest" or "we last as long as the other guys"? Given Volvo is not a dominant market share manufacturer, their business model is all about growing market share through value levers. Look at their marketing campaigns over the years - they touted being the first to market with many safety features, they touted Volvo car longevity. Look at the popularity of the red block Volvos - there's still a demand market for cars made in the 80s! Nobody's out there going "geez, I'd love to have a 88 Toyota Cressida in my garage... As for me, I'm spending this weekend doing the timing belt on a 95 850 Turbo which has 210K miles on it - Owned it since new when my wife was expecting... Too bad the damn car lasted 21 years, I wouldn't be doing scheduled maintenance for my 20 year old son's ride...

 

I design printers for a living: that's why I don't let you disassemble the whole printer to replace my known wear out parts like toners. I also don't make toner part of the drum assembly so you have to replace both at the same time!


I also know how to protect the main circuit board so it won't get burned when you forget to do monthly maintenance on your printer. So I don't have to blame you for it!


So you see, if everybody believed your "It is a requirement for anything", then we were still in stone age, weren't we?

 

Talking about longevity, my 94' Bronco is still running and it has almost 250K on it.

It also has a part similar to the control arm (I think it's called radius arm). Since it also has a bushing made of rubber/plastic, Ford engineers are smart enough to know that will wear off much faster than metal and made that a separate part and easy to replace and it costs only $20 (because it's plastic)!


I guess engineers at that time don't have the luxury of "3rd party suppliers" to provide them with cheap parts and also don't know what their competitors are doing, so they have to try their BEST...

 

That explains your cluelessness.

You don't have to disassemble the whole car to replace wear parts like brakes, shocks, struts, tie rods or even your control arms.

Cars require maintenance. Get over it.

 

I am glad you don't say "It is a requirement for anything" anymore...

 

Because you pick and choose when to take things literally.

Maintenance is required for everything. Even printers.

 

Then you should be OK if I "let you disassemble the whole printer to replace my known wear out parts like toners... and toner part of the drum assembly so you have to replace both at the same time!"

 

Once again not being logical.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Ink or toner are the most common maintenance item. That would be like an oil and filter change in a car, not like a control arm that lasted 110,000 miles.

You don't have to disassemble the whole car to do an oil and filter change.

You also don't have to disassemble to whole car to change the control arm.

 

I can't really call "control arm" and "radius arm" "apples to oranges";


but $20 versus $200, 10 minutes versus 10 hours, maybe...