Is there any logical reason for cars to change yearly?

[So]

The russians tried that, and they made AWESOME cars.

 

[Mo0o]

Trust me, they've done the research, and when they do it this way they make more moeny

 

[Demon-Xanth]

List of major changes for the Dodge Dakota from '97 to '04:
Replaced the 5.2 with the 4.7 (smoother, more efficient, more reliable) (00)
Addition of an appearance package for the R/T (03)
Lost the R/T (04)

The number of minor changes however, is huge.

So why change? Consider the '01 Ram vs. the '03 Ram. The latter is quieter, smoother, roomier, the looks are different (now, I didn't say better or worse...), 4 doors are an option, the engine options are quite a bit different...

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: gigapet
Please do yourself a favor and dont go into business as a profession...

first rule of business, a business is in business in order to........MAKE MONEY

the only reason is Money....built in obscelesence = money

Thanks for the career advice, but I'm actually doing pretty well. I guess I didn't make it clear in my earlier posts. The only reason this would make sense for the car manufacturers is so they COULD make money. Savings for the consumer plus more profit for the manufacturers. Lower cost to them, pass some of it on to the consumer. More market share means more profits down the road from replacement parts and service. Manufacturers would sell at cost if it meant taking sales from the competition. You can make money in ways other than the initial sale.

Car manufacturers are always looking for ways to differentiate themselves. This would be one way.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm not saying you could keep a design around that long without major updates - obviously it stayed in certain markets for a long time for one reason - initial purchase cost/cost to manufacture.

Given a modern small-displacement engine, suspension, and tires, the beetle could probably be as 'nice' as it's potential competition (the suzuki swift comes to mind).

I guess I overstated things by using the word 'fooled' wrt this car, and I certainly have no trouble believeing it can't beat your lincoln's highway mileage (which itslef isn't very good except for being a powerful engine). But I stand by the position that a lot of change in car models is practised for one reason - to make something newer and make the car you're driving now look older.

The thing is, all those big improvements came in tiny little steps. A more aerodynamic rearview mirror here, better tires there, a slightly revised camshaft for more power and more economy, etc, etc. The little tiny changes in cars as the model years progress are what add up to the giant changes. The big jumps won't be made without all the little steps.

And you're right that the Lincoln's highway mileage is nothing to write home about. But whe one considers that many "Economy" cars in the 1970's didn't even get mileage that good it looks like a huge step, but it came in little tiny increments.

ZV

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

What gave you the impression that vehicles change annually? The only difference year-to-year for a vehicle is improved quality from recalls, TSB's, and general fixes to known faulty parts. In truth this isn't limited to a yearly "retooling". Most fixes are applied to the assembly line soon after they are fixed and approved. This may happen quarterly depending on the model and the severity of the issue.

The concept of a 2003 Ford Mustang versus 2004 is purely marketing.

Most companies are on a 5-6 year design cycle with a "freshening" after 3 or 4 years. This is necessary because the market is waaay too competitive to let a vehicle sit unmodified for 6 or 7 years. The segment has proven time and time again, people are willing to pay more money for better cars - hence the increase in interior quality and engine performance over the last couple decades.

edit: fixed inaccurate comparison with 2004/05 Mustang.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The concept of a 2004 Ford Mustang versus 2005 is purely marketing.

2005 Mustang shares no componants with the 2004... It's a total re-design that is no longer based on the Fox platform. Now, if you meant between a 2003 Mustang and a 2004 Mustang, you'd be accurate.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: kranky
Is there really any good reason for car manufacturers to change every car every year? The billions spent in retooling and related costs could be saved and prices could be lowered. There are always incremental improvements that could be made, but they aren't typically essential or compelling.

If a car was built essentially unchanged for three years, priced at $20,000 initially, $17,000 the next year, and $15,000 the following year because of cost savings, wouldn't it be worth it? Quality would probably improve, parts would cost less because of higher volume, maintenance would be easier.

Seems to me that if such a thing was planned out, a very nice car could be made for a lot less. They can still make new cars each year for people who want that, while also making a "standard" car that would stay the same for a number of years because it could cost less. Something for everyone.

Hello? They don't change cars every year. Most production runs go at least 4 years.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The concept of a 2004 Ford Mustang versus 2005 is purely marketing.

2005 Mustang shares no componants with the 2004... It's a total re-design that is no longer based on the Fox platform. Now, if you meant between a 2003 Mustang and a 2004 Mustang, you'd be accurate.

ZV

You would have to go back to 1998 for a change to this car and that change was largely cosmetic and mostly to the exterior of the car.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The concept of a 2004 Ford Mustang versus 2005 is purely marketing.

2005 Mustang shares no componants with the 2004... It's a total re-design that is no longer based on the Fox platform. Now, if you meant between a 2003 Mustang and a 2004 Mustang, you'd be accurate.

ZV

I'm sorry that was a bad example. I just randomly picked the first vehicle that came to mind. I'm fully aware they're redesigning it with the DEW platform. I guess if you don't post enough in car threads, people think you live under a rock.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The concept of a 2004 Ford Mustang versus 2005 is purely marketing.

2005 Mustang shares no componants with the 2004... It's a total re-design that is no longer based on the Fox platform. Now, if you meant between a 2003 Mustang and a 2004 Mustang, you'd be accurate.

ZV

You would have to go back to 1998 for a change to this car and that change was largely cosmetic and mostly to the exterior of the car.

Correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the 2005 is a complete, froum the ground up, re-desigm. Prior to that, the last platform change was in the late 1970's I think.

I agree with KnightBreed's point, he just picked a bad example.

ZV

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The concept of a 2004 Ford Mustang versus 2005 is purely marketing.

2005 Mustang shares no componants with the 2004... It's a total re-design that is no longer based on the Fox platform. Now, if you meant between a 2003 Mustang and a 2004 Mustang, you'd be accurate.

ZV

You would have to go back to 1998 for a change to this car and that change was largely cosmetic and mostly to the exterior of the car.

Correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the 2005 is a complete, froum the ground up, re-desigm. Prior to that, the last platform change was in the late 1970's I think.

I agree with KnightBreed's point, he just picked a bad example.

ZV

Yeah - going back to ZV's last answer to one of my posts; the mustang has actually progressed through a series of mild to moderate yearly changes all the way from at least the 1974 mustang II, and arguably right back to the original 289 mustang. It's a great example of what Knightbreed wanted to say; it's just that the lineage kinda ended starting this year.

The only real thing the latest model shares with its heritage that I know of is a live rear axle...