I also wondered about the phenomenon of a whole car generation disappearing at a certain time. However, I have this theory that cars are actually moving, rather than disappearing. Once a car reaches a certain age or certain mileage, it is often sold by the original owner. I believe that few initial owners of a vehicle actually drive it until the very end.
This doesn't mean that the car is undrivable or beyond repair. It probably gets sold to a different demographic group. These groups often live in different areas of the city, state or country. Since these areas often don't overlap, it creates a "disappearing effect".
the last three drivers that really cheesed me off the most were a BMW 3-series driver (tried to blow past me on the shoulder), a Corolla driver (decided at the last minute that he didn't want to be in the left-turn lane, tried to cut in front of me when I was doing about 55 mph, and ended up on the grassy median) and a Mazda protege driver (she was behind me and cut me off as we both went to merge off of a highway, while others were merging on)
For some reason, it always seems a disproportionate amount of small cars camp in the left lane. Seems it should be just the opposite, as it's a lot harder to intimidate a big car out of there.
I think he meant "poor" monetarily, not bad drivers (see the post before and it makes sense). Actually though, I don't think that's true anymore, because the common older used cars now are from the '80s, which are mostly small or midsize cars (Toyotas, Hondas, Chrysler K-body, GM A-body). But I bet it was definitely true in the '80s, when the wealthier people bought those cars new and the less so ended up driving 1975 Caprices and the like :-)
about drivers in LA... the worst drivers DO drive the biggest rigs....even in a 4x4 they STILL don't know how to drive in the rain!! Andrew L: thx for the comments. First thing my brother said when I told him I bought a Cavalier was : "Great. Those things run forever". There is another reason for the keep it simple choices as well:when it's paid off, money I WOULD have used for payments can go for other things like additional principle payments on the house or more for the savings account. I just wonder if you can call all this extra complexity progress, when it is unrepairable and unusable after a certain # of years. The thing that scares me are the transportation elitists who would LOVE to see the masses unable to afford personal transport and are doing their best behind the scenes to make sure that parts from scrapped cars become crushed rather than reused.[it's not REALLY about saving the environment as having to build new takes more energy than reusing or recycling, it's about control and despising the automobile and making it impossible for more than a few people to drive]. Oooh do I go off on a tangent. Even with the "planned obsolescence" of the 50s and 60s you could STILL affordably repair those cars.I wonder if that means that the big show boats of today will disappear and the Metro style vehicles will have the last laugh, simply because repairs can be made to them to keep them running. What a tremendous waste though..........
I think you're right about the luxury cars actually getting scrapped before the economy models because it's so hard to repair their electronic systems. Just ask someone who owns a 1980s Lincoln with the air-ride suspension, or any 1980s car with a digital dash. I'm told those systems are nearly impossible to repair.
Interestingly, my Pontiac has one "modern" feature, an early ABS-like brake system called Powermaster, whereby the brake boost comes from a dedicated electric motor rather than engine vacuum or the power steering pump. During the first year I owned this car (I bought it 3/2000), I had to spend about $400 (and experience a scary brake failure) in order to get that system working properly. And I had to do the diagnostics myself with info I found online, because my mechanic had never worked on a Powermaster before. AAAHHHH! I can only imagine in 15 years when someone buys a used 2002 Pontiac Bonneville, and has those sorts of problems with every single system in the car.
I'm not from around these parts, but here's a couple of thoughts....
I like the concept well enough of the 150k mile throwaway car but would only feel comfortable with the idea if it were accompanied by some sort of known maintenance costs (ie. a warranty).
An ugly underside of reliability engineering combined with high complexity is the car falling off warranty (at say, 60k or 75k miles). Imagine the fun you could have blowing up a BMW V12 with 90k miles and getting back a repair bid. In addition, complex subsystems (climate control, ABS, active suspensions) will no doubt act up during the last half of the car's 150k mile life. Nasty.
You can sort of see the same problem occurring with more frequency in higher end, commercial (ie. non-military) computer systems (as used in embedded systems for example). There are an awful lot of 'high reliability/mission critical' boxes out there which use commercial PC's (ie. motherboard/disk drives/io systems) which are identical to those used on desktop systems. This stuff is pretty darn reliable in some ways due to the high numbers built allowing a certain degree of perfection in manufacturing practices, but really, PC components are driven more by price than by quality. In addition, generational changes in hardware cause problems similar to the model year issues in car parts.
You can argue that the end result (for cars) will be an evolution towards universal acceptance of a rent/lease sort of arrangement rather than an outright ownership. I can't see much difference in a (say) 10 year car loan which results in a valueless vehicle vs. renting a car for 10 years (with no equity involved). The nice thing about this system is that the early years of ownership would be more expensive (since the car is in better shape) than the later ones. In addition, the manufacturer could exert more control from a maintenance standpoint.
...don't know where my brain was when Shifty mentioned about the poorest drivers driving the biggest cars. Now, that makes sense. When you think about it, there really haven't been that many expensive really big cars for awhile now. A Crown Vic or Grand Marquis, while pretty big, aren't much more expensive than an Intrepid, Impala, Accord, Camry, etc.
I remember back in the early 90's, one of my co-workers had an early 80's Continental Sedan. One of those tarted-up Fairmonts with the Seville-esque "bustleback" rear end. It had the air-ride suspension, which failed on him a few months after he bought the car. I don't know how much it would've cost to fix, but it was enough that he decided to dump the car!
That's exactly what i was picturing. With a car designed to last 10 years or 150K miles, you wouldn't want to own it, really, you'd just want ot rent it. And, exactly, the manufacturer would be responsible for all maintenence and any breakage during that time, so it's in their interest to design more for reliability and lo main costs.
Of course, another problem there is, what if you prefer the older cars?
I am sick and tired of the fact that cars are designed to be disposable and thrown away after their useful life has ended. It saddens me to see how so many people dump their vehicles after only a couple years and they don't even reach 100k miles many times. I should note that I am extremely frugal by nature, and we buy cars and keep them forever. Nothing is going to be leaving the family any time soon. As for my '93 Volvo, let's hope it will last until 2013 (it'll be 20 years old by then and I'll be 30). And I'm not planning to get anything before I'm 30 years old, but if I find a clean late '90s Volvo for sale, I'm definitely buying it and keeping it for good.
I agree with your philosophy, I shudder at the thought of junking my 1986 Pontiac. I plan to keep it at least until it becomes old enough to be called "classic" (I believe that's 25 model years, and it's 16 now, so it's getting there). People seem to love the old wagons from the '60s and '70s these days. Apparently the '71-76 GM wagons with the electric "clamshell" tailgates are becoming much sought-after among wagon enthusiasts now, so in another decade I'm sure the '77-90 variety will be considered equally cool. Mine already gets compliments from everyone who gets the opportunity to ride in it, so I'm sure it will seem even more novel a decade from now.
Judging from the above post and your other one in "Non-Collectible Old Cars", jrosas, you would have loved this junkyard I visited in Wisconsin this summer. The place had been there for 30 years, and they had just driven the cars into the woods as they came in, and left them where they stopped. Many of them were basically untouched since the day they were dropped off at the place, and they had never crushed anything. They had everything from big Bonnevilles and Caprices from the '60s and '70s to first-generation compact cars (Vegas, Pintos, Capris, Coronas, B210s, etc.), complete with faded "Nixon's The One" stickers and stuff. The place was like a 1975 parking lot frozen in time. I spent a whole day just wandering around the place. If I suddenly became independently wealthy, I think I would buy that place and restore some of those old boats :-)
...if the whole concept of 'restoring' cars will mean much on the current generation of cars (and going forward).
I guess that external cosmetic stuff could be kept up...paint jobs, upholstery, carpets, some rust repair, etc., but do you guys really think that the expertise or spare parts will be available for the upcoming crop of ABS designs, engine/transmission management systems, traction control systems, and all the interactions between these? If nothing else, various ghosts in the machine may well require inordinate amounts of work. While anything can be fixed given enough money, it would suprise the heck out of me to see anyone performing ground up resto's on the current crop of V12 BMW's (for instance) in 30 years.
If nothing else, the lower number of cars being restored implies a smaller old parts catalog implies a lower number of cars being restored.
The only exception I can come up with (aside from nuts of course) is super low production, homologation-ish cars. Things along the line of an Audi Sport Quattro built in 2010.
I heard somewhere that car manufacturers make parts for their cars for 10 years. So for example my '94 Toyota Paseo would have parts still manufactured until 2004. (acutually the car didn't get redisigned until 1996MY--so that should extend me to 2005). Any truth to this?
I don't think the parts are going to be the big problem, although the cost of them will be. You can still buy parts for 30 year old Mercedes, but you don't wanna have to pay for them.
It's the expertise that will be the problem. Who will save all the diagrams, data, schematics, TBSs, etc? And even if they are saved somewhere, where's the access? And on what media? Ever try to play an 8-track tape lately without a player?
And even if this info resides somewhere on the internet, what about the old test equipment? And who will be burning new chips for old sedans worth $2,500 in the year 2010?
Geez, dealers can't even fix new cars anymore. I wonder what they will do about ten year old ones?
I think everything has a useful life. Some cars, if they are historically significant, might be worth restoring certainly, but if you've driven a car and it's worn out, well then, recycle it or restore as you please.
I would never suggest that a car be thrown away if it is still useful and safe. But there is a certain amount of prudence that has to be exercised. I don't think dangerous or rusty cars should be driven anymore, no.
Well, old cars are still useful as people movers too, but the safety issue and parts/expertise to fix/repair, ect. I would believe are just as valid for trucks too.
Truck owners seem to classify their vehicles as "durable" (different than reliable) and have no hesitation to replace/rebuild engines/transmissions. There seems to many 10+ older trucks out there than cars (just base on observaton). Trucks don't seem to be "as disposable" as cars. Have you notice any trend like this?
.10 year old trucks have a better resale value than a 10 year old equivalent car.
.High resale value implies willingness to get the thing fixed.
.Running vehicle implies better resale value.
In addition, they (at least until recently) had simpler systems (non-drivetrain that is) than cars. Now with goofy climate control systems, butt warmers, ABS, electronic forms of traction control, etc. making their way in, and conversely, as trucks become car substitutes, perhaps they'll track car realities.
...not sure if this is the case anymore, but pickup trucks used to be much simpler and ruggedly-built than cars. They used to have more rugged components as well. For instance, the slant-six or 318 that you used to get in an old pickup truck was usually a beefier model than what went into a Dart or whatever.
Pickup trucks also tend not to change their styling as much as cars, so they just don't look outdated as quickly as a car does. Although honestly, I think cars quit advancing in style (where the new models would make the previous models look "old") about 10 years ago!
I think now that trucks and SUV's are becoming trendy, it may affect their resale more in the years to come. Like Shifty said, nobody cares what a truck looks like, as long as it can still haul stuff to the dump. But now that a lot of 'em are just hauling one or two butts around, they're filling the same purpose as cars.
Todays trucks seem almost as "durable" as yesterdays cars.At least they have a conventional drivetrain that will lend itself to future restoration/modifications.And they ride,handle and are safer than the cars and trucks of the past. Yes manufactuers have "engineered in" complicated,proprietary and eventually irreplaceable parts,but as always people will decide which models are popular,desireable and collectable and overcome the obstacles that keep them from operating for practical and nostalgic purposes. It is sad the days of almost infinite,simple,economical,interchangeability of parts is basically over; but the consumer let it happen-even helped fund it,by lining up to pay for the latest gimmick,instead of boycotting planned obsolesence.But to most people autos are just transportation,expensive utilities that fulfill a purpose like another appliance. The major market would rather spend time in front of a big screen sitting on a massaging lazyboy in a air conditioned house then pulling wrenches under their hoods.So like Hollywood-you give them what they ask for,and for the highest price possible. Im almost 50 yrs old and have never paid more than $1600 for a car or truck.I have maintained a 57 chevy,69 GTO and a 70 Chevy pickup for over 20 yrs with a combined mileage of 660,000 miles.The only service done by others was tire changes,wheel balances,turning drums and rotors,1 transmission rebuild (it let go on a vacation trip),and couple paint jobs-only because I never had the equipment to do it myself.I have so enjoyed it and easily saved enough cash to buy many new cars over the years. Then we had a family and finally bought a 2001 chevy crew cab shortbox this year.Its now an interesting experience to live on both sides of the automotive fence...
what do you think, mechanically speaking, of your 2001 Chey truck verus your 1970 truck?? anything changed that you once were able to fix-it-yourself now have to have mechanic fix it??
I met my brother-in-law for the first time over Christmas. He has interesting views on cars but he's also mechanically incline. His stance on cars it there's not too much that can go wrong on your car that can't be fix so as to keep the car running practically forever. He has a '89 Dodge Spirit with 217K miles on it!
Yes, that's true, but at what point does it become financially crazy to keep fixing it?
His '89 Spirit's transmission, for instance, will cost a lot less to rebuild than a 2002s tranny, I would imagine. And he doesn't have variable valve timing and 4 valves per cylinder and he doesn't have to meet 2002 emission specifications ten years down the road.
And besides that, the body and interior on his Spirit will deteriorate, even if it runs great for another five years. It's pretty hard to be sinking money into a car that looks shabby.
...glad to hear of one of those things still running! Do you know if it has the Mopar 2.5 4-cyl or the Mitsubishi 3.0? Tell him he's just got about 121K miles to go and he'll catch up to my '68 Dart!
Leo I like the mechanical superiority of our 2001 truck-it does everything better than the 70 truck.However it is more complicated- and more bothersome, I'm thinking car manufacturers are witholding as much technical information as possible to make it difficult for anyone but them to fix.The new truck is under warranty so it"s covered for now.If you want to keep a car for a long time get a popular model, that way the wrecking yards will always have lots of parts.Also todays complicated electronics will be like black and white tv"s in the future.We have a bank of motivated auto enthusists who will have the parts and info to keep the wheels turning on that group of collectable memories of the past for many years to come.
you remind me of my uncle [The Dealer r.i.p.], I think the last brand new car he bought was a 64 Bonneville he took to the N.Y. World's Fair with his family.The rest were essentially 1600.00 [even 600.00 cars]. I have the same philosophy and optimism about the ingenuity of people in dealing with the automotive after market needs of the future. That 89 Sprit leomort referred to in an earlier post is a perfect example of a car that, were this conversation being had in 1990, the same arguments would have used about IT'S complexity and dubious long term [decades,decades I'm talking like my 63 Valiant ---in for paint this week Andre! shoo shoooo!!!] future. I think every generation believes it has reached the highest pinnacle of development, sophistication and complexity and fears the same thing about long term prospects and repairs. I am certain old timers said similar things about hydraulic brakes, power steering, and automatic transmissions. Does anyone really give a rip about resale value on a pickup truck? At least BEFORE the pimping out of the current batch? I think their longevity[which is a wonderful observation, btw]has to do with their simplicity, they're rear wheel drive and yes; people ARE more willing to repair and replace with a truck than to trade than they are with a car. This is fascinating and I'd love to know the psychology of this.Any ideas?
Well, I'm waiting to see the ingenuity of the backyard mechanic who is going to burn a new circuit board for a 2002 car in the year 2012.
What you say was true about people in 1968 complaining how complicated VW fuel injection was back then and how nobody will be able to fix it.
And you know, they were right. Fixing 1968 VW fuel injection is a royal pain in the butt, and the cars that have it aren't worth much (old squarebacks and vans), so most are junked because of the defective injection.
I just helped a friend square away his VW van injection, (bad air box mostly) and it took us about 60 man hours of diagnosis and struggle and parts hunting. Figure that out in California shop time (@ $75/hr).
Were it not for our friendship and skills and the fact that this was a fully euipped camper, this car would have been junked.
Nobody is going to save an 1989 Spirit when it has major problems, not even that determined guy. He's one of the lucky few.
I think I'd spend about an hour mucking with VW fuel injection. Given the choice between fixing squareback FI and going to carbs, I think I know where I'd head (although I think I'd go with a simple single carb system, rather than Kadrons or Webers).
If you get down to it, that's one of the major advantages older cars have in terms of long term maintenance. The subsystems are discrete enough that they can be replaced and/or heavily modified rather than restored.
Still, it's no small thing even with your expertise. You have to find the right carbs or kit, the manifold, piping, linkage, etc. Then you need to set it all up right so the thing runs right. And then you'll need spare parts for those carbs when they screw up. I bet you could drop an easy $1,000 to do that job right, in parts and labor. And, if the VW is 1974 or newer, you have a completely illegal car in California.
AND, if it's a VW van, it will be a real gas hog with dual carbs.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are some cars that will, in 10 or 20 years , have cheap, readily available parts (most importantly non factory/non oem parts), and some cars that won't. (In my experience, factory parts, for cars and motorcycles, are usually outrageously priced, and for an older car it can be mind boggling). True story--me, trying my hardest not to shout & make a spectacle of myself while getting parts at a honda dealer a few years back: "you want $27.95 for a pair of vinyl washers the size of a half dollar!?!?!?!?!? Did freakin' NASA make those freakin' things!?!?!? Honda must be REAL proud of those things!!! Where can I buy some stock in Honda?!?!?") LOL
My beater/commuter car is a 92 escort wagon, there are many brands of cheap parts for this car, for almost any component, from most any parts store in the world. And, since millions & millions of cars exactly like that one were made, they will continue to make those parts for years to come. same with accords, camrys, ford pickups, etc.
when you get into your obscure cars, e.g. merkur, sterling, diawoo, alfa romeo, and your high-dollar bmws, MB's & jags, etc., you're probably gonna be paying a HUGE price for parts, 20 years from now, if you can find 'em at all.
The point about cars becoming too high tech for anybody, even highly trained mechanics, to repair is a valid one. It will be a sad day when you can't repair a car, especially if you really like it, or you're too poor to get another!
My brother-in-law's car has the six cyl. He sys it's still pretty peppy. He has also sunk money into the car to keep it running. Three alternators, rebuilt engine/fixed head gasket. Replace radiator, changes his own brakes and does his oil changes. He did everything himself except the engine rebuild/head gasket. In his opinion, he'd rather sink the money into the car rather than using his repair money as down payment and then having payment for four or five years. To a certain point I agree with him. Must be nice to mechanically incline.
To me, Honda has already made the disposable car. How can a car company design a vehicle with a timing belt that when it breaks, your engine is totaled? Ever price a rebuilt engine for a late 80's/early 90's Honda? They are about $3000, they come shipped from Japan (the japanese have such strict emissions laws, they sell their cars at about 60k miles for dirt cheap prices). The Honda owners manual don't even mention changing the timing belt until the 1994 model year.
I destroyed a Honda like this- one sweet Prelude, which had a cracked camshaft and 8 bent valves (unfixable, according to Honda, need a new engine). The price of engine and install exceeded the price of the car. I had to junk it for $250.
Toyotas, Subarus, and Nissans, along with many other American cars have designed their cars with timing chains or non-interfering engines. I like Hondas, but I think this is another way to make you buy another Honda.
...just about every car that has a timing chain is an interference engine. If the timing chain in my '57 DeSoto, '67 Catalina, '89 Gran Fury, or whatever, decided to suddenly snap, I'm sure there'd be some pretty serious valve damage. So it's not just a belt vs chain thing.
Although don't timing chains usually give you enough warning, such as stretching out and just making the car hard to tune? So usually you have to get it fixed anyway before it breaks?
Ohmygosh. I know I'm dating myself, but I have the hardest time convincing my Dad that it's OK to drive a car over 100K. It's not without some justification. Our family cars in those days were 60s and 70s models. They would rattle, rust out, and have severe electrical problems around 100,000 miles.
Even the difference between my 1988, and 1991 cars is a phenominal increase in quality. Quite Frankly Toyota has raised the bar for quality on all vehicles. Other companies have to adapt or die out.
This hardly makes newer cars disposible.
One problem I have with newer cars is not enough room for easy repairs. Timing belts for example on 2 of my cars has to be a real pain because there is only about 2 inches of working room. Older cars in the 60s and 70 had so much room that you could actually stand in the engine bay.
There was a big difference in quality between the '80 Malibu and the '86 Monte Carlo that my Mom had. She bought both of 'em brand new. I got the Malibu in early '87, and drove it for about 3 years. It had about 100K miles on it when I "retired" it for a '69 Dart GT. I remember it had gone through an alternator, 1 or 2 a/c compressors, a muffler, a rear end, a heater core, and a water pump in the time we had it. It had also been banged up a bit, and the first spec of rust was just starting to come through one of the rear 1/4 panels.
OTOH, the Monte went through a water pump, an electronic ignition module, the metal tubes that inject air into the cylinders, a windshield wiper motor, and a few minor odds and ends in its lifetime. I had it "retired" for me in 1998, with about 192K on the clock, when someone T-boned me. But it was still on its original 305, 4-speed automatic, rear end, a/c compressor, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it ate a starter or alternator or 2 in that time span too, though, and I'm sure it had some exhaust work along the line. I think GM had a better grasp on the smog crap by '86, too. I only had that Monte for about 3-4 months (March-June, 1998), but it never stalled or hesitated on me, and was very responsive. Never gave me any warm-up fits, either. That Malibu though, was a different story, espeically when it got cold or damp.
Mrdetailer, it sounds like you're making better progress than I am! I'm having problems convincing my grandfather that it's okay to keep a car more than 3 or 4 years! He was used to always trading up every few years, but his last car, a '94 Taurus, only has about 30,000 miles on it now. But by his reasoning, he should've traded it for a '97 or '98, and should be ready to trade again now!
my prelude had 161,000 miles. Quite a bit, but it burned no oil and the compression was good due to the fact that I only used Mobil 1 from Day 1. Best car I ever owned, that car still had every original part. Even the A/C was still cold.
I changed the original timing belt at 90k. My point is that you never know when a belt will break. After taking my car apart, my mechanic told me that a few of the rubber teeth on the inside of the belt wore out, but the steel belts on the outside probably still had another 25k. He said it was probably a defective belt and an extremely rare occurance.
To end a cars life on something stupid and trivial like a worn out belt is just foolish on Hondas part. It's too much of a gamble. Some belts wear at 30k, some at 60k, you never can tell. A guy I know had a Honda with 188k on the original belt before it snapped. Mine broke with only 70k. How much extra could a chain cost?!
WEll, if you build as many cars as Hondas does, $5 a car adds up you know?
Besides, belts are quieter and people these days like their engines to purr don't you know. Chains can get ornery when the engine is very cold. My Saab growled like an old bear every morning.
161K on a Prelude is commendable. Usually the Japanese cars go a long, long distance, but the body structure and trim starts to disintegrate long before the engine/trans.
So people end up with a great running shabby car that they are reluctant to keep putting money in. Advertising has taught them that if your car has a dent or is over 10 years old, you are a "loser".
I have an '84 318i BMW with 270000 miles on it. I paid 6000 for it about 5 years ago. I bought it because it drives and feels very safe and was comfortable and fun (what else is there?). The car has 100000 'wife-driven' miles on it (my wife is a killer driver, has no sense for mechanical stuff), and that's testament to me of the durability of the vehicle. I live in California and the car is now burning enough oil that it will probably not pass smog on my next registration. At that point, I sell it to the state for $1000. So, I buy a car for 6k, put about 7k into over the past 5 years, put 135000 miles on it (it had 135k when I bought it) and I'd keep it around if it passed smog because I like it. But not enough to put a new engine in it. I'm happy with the experience. I just bought a 1986 300E Benz for 8000 because it was what I could afford for a safe car. It has 63000 miles on and looks new. I drove it to Vegas and back to SF over the holidays and I can say this will be a good long-term vehicle for me. For 8k I can put 7k into it and still be far ahead of new vehicles costing 15000. There is a risk buying any vehicle, new or used, and you don't have browse TownHall very long to find that out.
Comments
This doesn't mean that the car is undrivable or beyond repair. It probably gets sold to a different demographic group. These groups often live in different areas of the city, state or country. Since these areas often don't overlap, it creates a "disappearing effect".
For some reason, it always seems a disproportionate amount of small cars camp in the left lane. Seems it should be just the opposite, as it's a lot harder to intimidate a big car out of there.
I think he meant "poor" monetarily, not bad drivers (see the post before and it makes sense). Actually though, I don't think that's true anymore, because the common older used cars now are from the '80s, which are mostly small or midsize cars (Toyotas, Hondas, Chrysler K-body, GM A-body). But I bet it was definitely true in the '80s, when the wealthier people bought those cars new and the less so ended up driving 1975 Caprices and the like :-)
-Andrew l
Andrew L: thx for the comments. First thing my brother said when I told him I bought a Cavalier was : "Great. Those things run forever".
There is another reason for the keep it simple choices as well:when it's paid off, money I WOULD have used for payments can go for other things like additional principle payments on the house or more for the savings account.
I just wonder if you can call all this extra complexity progress, when it is unrepairable and unusable after a certain # of years. The thing that scares me are the transportation elitists who would LOVE to see the masses unable to afford personal transport and are doing their best behind the scenes to make sure that parts from scrapped cars become crushed rather than reused.[it's not REALLY about saving the environment as having to build new takes more energy than reusing or recycling, it's about control and despising the automobile and making it impossible for more than a few people to drive]. Oooh do I go off on a tangent.
Even with the "planned obsolescence" of the 50s and 60s you could STILL affordably repair those cars.I wonder if that means that the big show boats of today will disappear and the Metro style vehicles will have the last laugh, simply because repairs can be made to them to keep them running.
What a tremendous waste though..........
I think you're right about the luxury cars actually getting scrapped before the economy models because it's so hard to repair their electronic systems. Just ask someone who owns a 1980s Lincoln with the air-ride suspension, or any 1980s car with a digital dash. I'm told those systems are nearly impossible to repair.
Interestingly, my Pontiac has one "modern" feature, an early ABS-like brake system called Powermaster, whereby the brake boost comes from a dedicated electric motor rather than engine vacuum or the power steering pump. During the first year I owned this car (I bought it 3/2000), I had to spend about $400 (and experience a scary brake failure) in order to get that system working properly. And I had to do the diagnostics myself with info I found online, because my mechanic had never worked on a Powermaster before. AAAHHHH! I can only imagine in 15 years when someone buys a used 2002 Pontiac Bonneville, and has those sorts of problems with every single system in the car.
-Andrew L
I like the concept well enough of the 150k mile throwaway car but would only feel comfortable with the idea if it were accompanied by some sort of known maintenance costs (ie. a warranty).
An ugly underside of reliability engineering combined with high complexity is the car falling off warranty (at say, 60k or 75k miles). Imagine the fun you could have blowing up a BMW V12 with 90k miles and getting back a repair bid. In addition, complex subsystems (climate control, ABS, active suspensions) will no doubt act up during the last half of the car's 150k mile life. Nasty.
You can sort of see the same problem occurring with more frequency in higher end, commercial (ie. non-military) computer systems (as used in embedded systems for example). There are an awful lot of 'high reliability/mission critical' boxes out there which use commercial PC's (ie. motherboard/disk drives/io systems) which are identical to those used on desktop systems. This stuff is pretty darn reliable in some ways due to the high numbers built allowing a certain degree of perfection in manufacturing practices, but really, PC components are driven more by price than by quality. In addition, generational changes in hardware cause problems similar to the model year issues in car parts.
You can argue that the end result (for cars) will be an evolution towards universal acceptance of a rent/lease sort of arrangement rather than an outright ownership. I can't see much difference in a (say) 10 year car loan which results in a valueless vehicle vs. renting a car for 10 years (with no equity involved). The nice thing about this system is that the early years of ownership would be more expensive (since the car is in better shape) than the later ones. In addition, the manufacturer could exert more control from a maintenance standpoint.
I remember back in the early 90's, one of my co-workers had an early 80's Continental Sedan. One of those tarted-up Fairmonts with the Seville-esque "bustleback" rear end. It had the air-ride suspension, which failed on him a few months after he bought the car. I don't know how much it would've cost to fix, but it was enough that he decided to dump the car!
Of course, another problem there is, what if you prefer the older cars?
dave
I agree with your philosophy, I shudder at the thought of junking my 1986 Pontiac. I plan to keep it at least until it becomes old enough to be called "classic" (I believe that's 25 model years, and it's 16 now, so it's getting there). People seem to love the old wagons from the '60s and '70s these days. Apparently the '71-76 GM wagons with the electric "clamshell" tailgates are becoming much sought-after among wagon enthusiasts now, so in another decade I'm sure the '77-90 variety will be considered equally cool. Mine already gets compliments from everyone who gets the opportunity to ride in it, so I'm sure it will seem even more novel a decade from now.
Judging from the above post and your other one in "Non-Collectible Old Cars", jrosas, you would have loved this junkyard I visited in Wisconsin this summer. The place had been there for 30 years, and they had just driven the cars into the woods as they came in, and left them where they stopped. Many of them were basically untouched since the day they were dropped off at the place, and they had never crushed anything. They had everything from big Bonnevilles and Caprices from the '60s and '70s to first-generation compact cars (Vegas, Pintos, Capris, Coronas, B210s, etc.), complete with faded "Nixon's The One" stickers and stuff. The place was like a 1975 parking lot frozen in time. I spent a whole day just wandering around the place. If I suddenly became independently wealthy, I think I would buy that place and restore some of those old boats :-)
-Andrew L
I guess that external cosmetic stuff could be kept up...paint jobs, upholstery, carpets, some rust repair, etc., but do you guys really think that the expertise or spare parts will be available for the upcoming crop of ABS designs, engine/transmission management systems, traction control systems, and all the interactions between these? If nothing else, various ghosts in the machine may well require inordinate amounts of work. While anything can be fixed given enough money, it would suprise the heck out of me to see anyone performing ground up resto's on the current crop of V12 BMW's (for instance) in 30 years.
If nothing else, the lower number of cars being restored implies a smaller old parts catalog implies a lower number of cars being restored.
The only exception I can come up with (aside from nuts of course) is super low production, homologation-ish cars. Things along the line of an Audi Sport Quattro built in 2010.
Leo
It's the expertise that will be the problem. Who will save all the diagrams, data, schematics, TBSs, etc? And even if they are saved somewhere, where's the access? And on what media?
Ever try to play an 8-track tape lately without a player?
And even if this info resides somewhere on the internet, what about the old test equipment? And who will be burning new chips for old sedans worth $2,500 in the year 2010?
Geez, dealers can't even fix new cars anymore. I wonder what they will do about ten year old ones?
Leo
Leo
I would never suggest that a car be thrown away if it is still useful and safe. But there is a certain amount of prudence that has to be exercised. I don't think dangerous or rusty cars should be driven anymore, no.
An exception seems to be with pick-up trucks. See alot of older trucks. Wonder why that is??
Leo
Truck owners seem to classify their vehicles as "durable" (different than reliable) and have no hesitation to replace/rebuild engines/transmissions. There seems to many 10+ older trucks out there than cars (just base on observaton). Trucks don't seem to be "as disposable" as cars. Have you notice any trend like this?
Leo
.10 year old trucks have a better resale value than a 10 year old equivalent car.
.High resale value implies willingness to get the thing fixed.
.Running vehicle implies better resale value.
In addition, they (at least until recently) had simpler systems (non-drivetrain that is) than cars. Now with goofy climate control systems, butt warmers, ABS, electronic forms of traction control, etc. making their way in, and conversely, as trucks become car substitutes, perhaps they'll track car realities.
I also agree with post #70.
Pickup trucks also tend not to change their styling as much as cars, so they just don't look outdated as quickly as a car does. Although honestly, I think cars quit advancing in style (where the new models would make the previous models look "old") about 10 years ago!
I think now that trucks and SUV's are becoming trendy, it may affect their resale more in the years to come. Like Shifty said, nobody cares what a truck looks like, as long as it can still haul stuff to the dump. But now that a lot of 'em are just hauling one or two butts around, they're filling the same purpose as cars.
Yes manufactuers have "engineered in" complicated,proprietary and eventually irreplaceable parts,but as always people will decide which models are popular,desireable and collectable and overcome the obstacles that keep them from operating for practical and nostalgic purposes.
It is sad the days of almost infinite,simple,economical,interchangeability of parts is basically over; but the consumer let it happen-even helped fund it,by lining up to pay for the latest gimmick,instead of boycotting planned obsolesence.But to most people autos are just transportation,expensive utilities that fulfill a purpose like another appliance.
The major market would rather spend time in front of a big screen sitting on a massaging lazyboy in a air conditioned house then pulling wrenches under their hoods.So like Hollywood-you give them what they ask for,and for the highest price possible.
Im almost 50 yrs old and have never paid more than $1600 for a car or truck.I have maintained a 57 chevy,69 GTO and a 70 Chevy pickup for over 20 yrs with a combined mileage of 660,000 miles.The only service done by others was tire changes,wheel balances,turning drums and rotors,1 transmission rebuild (it let go on a vacation trip),and couple paint jobs-only because I never had the equipment to do it myself.I have so enjoyed it and easily saved enough cash to buy many new cars over the years.
Then we had a family and finally bought a 2001 chevy crew cab shortbox this year.Its now an interesting experience to live on both sides of the automotive fence...
Leo
Leo
His '89 Spirit's transmission, for instance, will cost a lot less to rebuild than a 2002s tranny, I would imagine. And he doesn't have variable valve timing and 4 valves per cylinder and he doesn't have to meet 2002 emission specifications ten years down the road.
And besides that, the body and interior on his Spirit will deteriorate, even if it runs great for another five years. It's pretty hard to be sinking money into a car that looks shabby.
I have the same philosophy and optimism about the ingenuity of people in dealing with the automotive after market needs of the future.
That 89 Sprit leomort referred to in an earlier post is a perfect example of a car that, were this conversation being had in 1990, the same arguments would have used about IT'S complexity and dubious long term [decades,decades I'm talking like my 63 Valiant ---in for paint this week Andre! shoo shoooo!!!] future.
I think every generation believes it has reached the highest pinnacle of development, sophistication and complexity and fears the same thing about long term prospects and repairs.
I am certain old timers said similar things about hydraulic brakes, power steering, and automatic transmissions.
Does anyone really give a rip about resale value on a pickup truck? At least BEFORE the pimping out of the current batch? I think their longevity[which is a wonderful observation, btw]has to do with their simplicity, they're rear wheel drive and yes; people ARE more willing to repair and replace with a truck than to trade than they are with a car. This is fascinating and I'd love to know the psychology of this.Any ideas?
What you say was true about people in 1968 complaining how complicated VW fuel injection was back then and how nobody will be able to fix it.
And you know, they were right. Fixing 1968 VW fuel injection is a royal pain in the butt, and the cars that have it aren't worth much (old squarebacks and vans), so most are junked because of the defective injection.
I just helped a friend square away his VW van injection, (bad air box mostly) and it took us about 60 man hours of diagnosis and struggle and parts hunting. Figure that out in California shop time (@ $75/hr).
Were it not for our friendship and skills and the fact that this was a fully euipped camper, this car would have been junked.
Nobody is going to save an 1989 Spirit when it has major problems, not even that determined guy. He's one of the lucky few.
If you get down to it, that's one of the major advantages older cars have in terms of long term maintenance. The subsystems are discrete enough that they can be replaced and/or heavily modified rather than restored.
AND, if it's a VW van, it will be a real gas hog with dual carbs.
My beater/commuter car is a 92 escort wagon, there are many brands of cheap parts for this car, for almost any component, from most any parts store in the world. And, since millions & millions of cars exactly like that one were made, they will continue to make those parts for years to come. same with accords, camrys, ford pickups, etc.
when you get into your obscure cars, e.g. merkur, sterling, diawoo, alfa romeo, and your high-dollar bmws, MB's & jags, etc., you're probably gonna be paying a HUGE price for parts, 20 years from now, if you can find 'em at all.
The point about cars becoming too high tech for anybody, even highly trained mechanics, to repair is a valid one. It will be a sad day when you can't repair a car, especially if you really like it, or you're too poor to get another!
My brother-in-law's car has the six cyl. He sys it's still pretty peppy. He has also sunk money into the car to keep it running. Three alternators, rebuilt engine/fixed head gasket. Replace radiator, changes his own brakes and does his oil changes. He did everything himself except the engine rebuild/head gasket. In his opinion, he'd rather sink the money into the car rather than using his repair money as down payment and then having payment for four or five years. To a certain point I agree with him. Must be nice to mechanically incline.
Leo
I'd rather put the money towards a house.
I can't believe the prices of new cars, ouch!! Especially since most of them depreciate like rocks!
Leo
Leo
I wonder if anyone keeps an SUV to rack up those 150-200k miles on them like people do with their cars?
Leo
I destroyed a Honda like this- one sweet Prelude, which had a cracked camshaft and 8 bent valves (unfixable, according to Honda, need a new engine). The price of engine and install exceeded the price of the car. I had to junk it for $250.
Toyotas, Subarus, and Nissans, along with many other American cars have designed their cars with timing chains or non-interfering engines. I like Hondas, but I think this is another way to make you buy another Honda.
Although don't timing chains usually give you enough warning, such as stretching out and just making the car hard to tune? So usually you have to get it fixed anyway before it breaks?
Even the difference between my 1988, and 1991 cars is a phenominal increase in quality. Quite Frankly Toyota has raised the bar for quality on all vehicles. Other companies have to adapt or die out.
This hardly makes newer cars disposible.
One problem I have with newer cars is not enough room for easy repairs. Timing belts for example on 2 of my cars has to be a real pain because there is only about 2 inches of working room. Older cars in the 60s and 70 had so much room that you could actually stand in the engine bay.
OTOH, the Monte went through a water pump, an electronic ignition module, the metal tubes that inject air into the cylinders, a windshield wiper motor, and a few minor odds and ends in its lifetime. I had it "retired" for me in 1998, with about 192K on the clock, when someone T-boned me. But it was still on its original 305, 4-speed automatic, rear end, a/c compressor, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it ate a starter or alternator or 2 in that time span too, though, and I'm sure it had some exhaust work along the line. I think GM had a better grasp on the smog crap by '86, too. I only had that Monte for about 3-4 months (March-June, 1998), but it never stalled or hesitated on me, and was very responsive. Never gave me any warm-up fits, either. That Malibu though, was a different story, espeically when it got cold or damp.
Mrdetailer, it sounds like you're making better progress than I am! I'm having problems convincing my grandfather that it's okay to keep a car more than 3 or 4 years! He was used to always trading up every few years, but his last car, a '94 Taurus, only has about 30,000 miles on it now. But by his reasoning, he should've traded it for a '97 or '98, and should be ready to trade again now!
I changed the original timing belt at 90k. My point is that you never know when a belt will break. After taking my car apart, my mechanic told me that a few of the rubber teeth on the inside of the belt wore out, but the steel belts on the outside probably still had another 25k. He said it was probably a defective belt and an extremely rare occurance.
To end a cars life on something stupid and trivial like a worn out belt is just foolish on Hondas part. It's too much of a gamble. Some belts wear at 30k, some at 60k, you never can tell. A guy I know had a Honda with 188k on the original belt before it snapped. Mine broke with only 70k. How much extra could a chain cost?!
Besides, belts are quieter and people these days like their engines to purr don't you know. Chains can get ornery when the engine is very cold. My Saab growled like an old bear every morning.
161K on a Prelude is commendable. Usually the Japanese cars go a long, long distance, but the body structure and trim starts to disintegrate long before the engine/trans.
So people end up with a great running shabby car that they are reluctant to keep putting money in. Advertising has taught them that if your car has a dent or is over 10 years old, you are a "loser".