By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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".