scotty are cars with more technology less reliable than car with less techonogy
there is no easy answer to that question. The short answer is "sometimes"
scotty are cars with more technology less reliable than car with less techonogy
That's kind of a 2-way street. Mechanical carburetors were king, back in the day, and they weren't always the most reliable if not properly tuned. Sometimes I flood the engine in my '79 Pontiac, for example. The vast majority of cars needed manual priming before starting on a cold engine and it was hit or miss (pumping the gas before starting when cold).
When they came out with mass-produced fuel injection, that became irrelevant. The fuel injection automatically set things, which is why you don't need to pump the gas on modern vehicles. You just turn the key and the engine starts (if it even has a key). This was advantageous.
Now, with almost everything being electronic wherever possible, almost inevitably, there will be more computer-based errors, especially as vehicles get older. Computers control everything, even with your throttle, because it's cheaper to make it that way. GDI only means intake valves will inevitably be carboned up, reducing reliability. I could go on and on... Short answer, it depends on a whole host of different factors.
It depends. Sometimes technology can make a car more reliable. Sometimes it can make it less reliable.
For example, take a Toyota hybrid versus almost any other hybrid technology. Although it is higher technology, the Toyota hybrid system is relatively resilient. But other car makes, not so much. Both are higher technology, but one was built and designed for quality and longevity, and the others not so much.
I’ll take a Toyota hybrid over any other hybrid or almost any other brands ICE, any day of the week.
