8 ms·

This is a good place to share this with geeks who may not be into cars: I drive a 1994 Mercedes (W124 chassis). One of the most reliable cars ever made. Simple

• Swizec 11y ago
  You should look up crash tests between cars considered safe in 1994 and modern cars. I saw one for two Renault Espace models. The old one was so crumply compared to the new one, that the new one didn't even deploy airbags because there was no need. Both got top safety ratings when new. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQS-7heF-og https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQS-7heF-og
  • qume 11y ago
    Great point. I have watched hundreds (not exaggerating). Sobering. New in general is much better than old. But, it gets complicated. The strength of the cage the passengers are in hasn't improved much, what has is how they behave in very specific crash tests. Go outside of that (go off a bank and roll down the hill over and over) and you'll find an old GL750 Volvo or '79 W116 merc will still have kept it's integrity in the passenger compartment (the doors will probably still open) where most modern cars would be crushed, passengers included. Basically the bottom line is if you're going to buy an older car, get one that is still considered safe today. That leaves you with all mercs, volvos, most BMWs and Saabs from the post-airbag era. And get ABS - avoid the accident in the first place.
  • qume 11y ago
    Oh, and one more thing. Go walk around the yard of a tow company. Be prepared to feel sick. You'll come away with the conclusion that the standard crash tests, which are well designed for common accidents, are still just a small minority of serious accidents. And the most horrifying thing that I came away with is the number of wrecks where there is 'car' where the passengers should be. Even in trucks and SUVs. The strongest cars ever built historically are still the strongest cars on the road, even though there have been some great innovations that they miss out on. This is just for fun really, not trying to make a point with it, but this is an old Volvo destroying other cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R95yOXPoR_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R95yOXPoR_s
    • userbinator 11y ago
      Volvos definitely have a well-deserved reputation; for many years, their slogan was "Drive Safely", and they took it seriously. Here's another video where the Volvo's passenger compartment doesn't even change shape while the other car's is completely crushed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0oQsRvtWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0oQsRvtWI Although a downside is that, as the joke goes, "a Volvo doesn't need a crumple zone; it uses the other car." Not so good if the other car also happens to be a Volvo...
      • reitanqild 11y ago
        Older models are a popular choice for the low budget motorcross competitions :-)
      • Swizec 11y ago
        Another issue is that of energy dissipation. Car being too stiff means passengers get to absorb the energy. Modern cars also have a lot more airbags. Electronic stability systems also do a great job of preventing a lot of crashes.
      • kerberosg 11y ago
        That is only true if the other car is of the same era. Verus newer cars the crumple roles are very much reserved https://youtu.be/qBDyeWofcLY?t=105 https://youtu.be/qBDyeWofcLY?t=105
  • frik 11y ago
    Volvo and Mercedes are known to be very safe and reliable ( and that for many decades). (Mercedes cars manufactured until 1999 last literally many decades) "Modern" safety features like airbags, ABS, security glass were first introduced by those companies many years ago. There is a reason why presidents, the pope, etc drive in such cars. The common US and EU standard crash test don't cover all real world crash situations and it has been shown in various recent tests that many newer car that got a 5 star rating aren't that safe in the real world. They were specifically designed for the well known crash tests, if another car hits you in a different angel or overlap, you have bad luck. Watch old episodes of the Top Gears TV series where the drive in "christmas special episodes" through Africa, Asia, etc with old cars - old Mercs and Volvo's survived, other cars failed because of mechanic or electronic issues.
    • Swizec 11y ago
      I watched that episode. The Beemer's airbag deployed due to vibration from the road. That can't have been fun,
• Retric 11y ago
  @20.8 mpg city when new that's 10,000 gallons of fuel for 200k miles or ~30,000$ while gas is cheap. A Tesla model 3 (To Be Unveiled March 31st) is 35,000$, costs far less (~1/10th) for fuel, and is not 22 years old. That's why people care about electric cars.
  • MagnumOpus 11y ago
    10k gallons costs you $18,000 or less right now "while gas is cheap" - for a TCO of $20,000 in 20 years (plus cheap-ish repairs) - and you are driving a Merc. The model 3 (once you can actually get hold of it) will cost you $35,000 up front, plus about $7,000 in electricity for 200k miles at prices of 13-15c/kWh, plus about two battery replacements - battery lifetime is 8 years or 125k miles - at $10,000ish a pop - for a TCO of $62,000 plus repairs.
    • qume 11y ago
      And don't forget the 'cost of money'. Take the purchase price, $35k, minus an old car, say $5k, and you have $30k making money for you over the 20 years. Conservatively, even in a bank in some countries, the return from $30k in the bank is going to pay for your gas then you'll still have the principle left over at the end.
      • jjawssd 11y ago
        Can you please clarify where your numbers are coming from and what they are referencing
        • qume 11y ago
          They come from my keyboard, just above the QWERTYUIOP keys. They are referencing currency.
          • nkurz 11y ago
            What 'jjawssd' was actually asking was an explanation of the math you used to come up with those particular numbers. He's doubting that you could pay for the gas using the interest on $30K. While you do have a point that one should pay attention to the 'cost of money', it also seems possible that you were neglecting to account for the withdrawals to purchase gas along the way. 10,000 gallons of gas in 20 years equates to about 40 gallons per month. At $2/gallon, this is $80 per month. If you plug these into a compound interest calculator (https://www.investor.gov/tools/calculators/compound-interest-calculator https://www.investor.gov/tools/calculators/compound-interest...) with -$80 for the monthly addition, you find that at a 3.25% APR you can pay for your gas and still have the principal remaining at the end. 3.25% is currently higher than you can find for any US bank account, but as you say, there are definitely places in the world where this is possible. At 1% (still high by US current standards), you'd have $15,000 of your principal left at the end --- a $5,000 difference from not receiving any interest. Worth considering, but not too likely to be a deciding factor.
• bambax 11y ago
  Which model exactly? How is it more environmentally friendly than a Tesla? Surely the mileage is very poor...? (I'm in the market for a cheap car and am genuinely interested in your answers ;-)
  • JshWright 11y ago
    It's more environmentally friendly because it's already built.
    • wlesieutre 11y ago
      Note that this is true of any car in a car dealer lot. But it only matters as a comparison when a car is potentially at end-of-life, and whether it stays on the road or gets shoved in a junkyard and replaced with a new one is an open question. If somebody decides to replace their 2013 model, it's basically 100% odds of staying on the road, and that car being on the road maybe represents one less new car that could have been made. But person who buys the used 2013 might be selling their 2001 to someone who takes it and then scraps their 1992 model. The net effect is one new car being manufactured, and one old car being scrapped. We can't take each transaction in the chain and say "This sale prevented a new car from needing to be made and saved a bunch of energy and material costs, and so did this one, and so did this one." That's only with respect to the manufacturing side, or what we'd call "embodied energy". There are considerations from ongoing costs too, like how the gas mileage (probably fine, I've clocked my 1998 Civic at around 32 MPG) or emissions (I have no idea) compare against a newer car.
      • qume 11y ago
        I would wager that 80% of cars that are crushed (which weren't in an accident) could be repaired (if broken) or 'fixed up' to operate better than the last owner thought possible for less than a days work and perhaps a few hundred dollars. I do appreciate your point, but I think people are far too afraid of older cars and they are scrapped too soon. I was hoping to convince some folk in this tech community that old cars can be a good idea. Save money, have fun, help the environment. Hell, buy an old Rolls Royce... why not?!
• huuu 11y ago
  They are not environment friendly in cities. That's why a lot of European cities are banning them.
  • qume 11y ago
    It's gasoline. You're thinking of diesel.
    • icebraining 11y ago
      Here in Lisbon no such distinction is made, any diesel or gasoline car built before 2000 is banned from the city center.
      • qume 11y ago
        Wow that's very interesting, I didn't know that. Although going by year is a little arbitrary (a 1995 honda vs a 2005 GM SUV?) I do support the concept. Personally I'd like to see most city centers car free.
        • icebraining 11y ago
          I agree that the cutoff by year is somewhat arbitrary, though SUVs have never been popular around here, with gas being so expensive; right now, it's at ~1.36€/liter (aprox $5.67/gallon), while our median salary is less than $1600/month.
        • mywittyname 11y ago
          Emissions standards get more strict each year, so it's not arbitrary at all. As technology advances, emissions systems get more advanced and ten years makes a world of difference. A 1995 Honda might be legally allowed to spew 1000x the amount of NOx that a 2005 Tahoe can. So a newer car could be much cleaner than an old one, even with a 3x larger engine. This is also completely ignoring the fact that older engines are more likely to have various parts of their engine and emission systems degrade over time, reducing their effectiveness.
• carlivar 11y ago
  Your window regulator will fail again within a year or two. (Learned this from experience installing Chinese-made replacement parts in my 90's VW)
  • leesalminen 11y ago
    My E46 3 series (BMW) would chew through these as well. OEM or knockoff.
    • xeromal 11y ago
      omg dude. My E46 chews through turn signal bulbs, Final stage relays, lock actuators, and oil. I love the car but jeez.
      • jjawssd 11y ago
        I have a motorcycle with a low-tension engine oil ring to keep the upper cylinder lubricated at 10-15k RPM. To stop oil burn-off I recommend slowly increasing oil weight over time and monitoring burn-off. Have you considered Rotella T6?
  • qume 11y ago
    I'm sure it will. $23 for a few years is Ok though... it only takes 30 mins to swap it out.
    • Vik1ng 11y ago
      Certainly better that a $1200 Tesla Model S door handle that has to be activated ;D
    • carlivar 11y ago
      30 minutes, that's impressive. Personally, I can't stand dealing with interior panels. I feel like every time I take apart a door panel I'm rolling the dice if I'm going to break any of the plastic pieces. I prefer to do work in these areas as infrequently as possible.
• legitster 11y ago
  As someone who owns both an E30 BMW and a Ford Escort, there is kind of a "myth" about cost of repair and reliability when it comes to luxury brands. I don't think any BMW or Merc is going to be more reliable or cheaper to repair than a comparable "cheap" car. It's just that people a). take better care of luxury cars and b). people are more likely to keep them running.
  • sf_rob 11y ago
    Not to mention that reliability =/= cheap repairs. The cost of repairs is much higher on many luxury cars even if repairs are few and far between.
• ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The world is going to make a lot more new cars over the next few decades, millions upon millions of them. They can either be new electric cars or new ICE cars. The former is better for the environment. Yes, bikes, mopeds, taxis, busses and trains would be more efficient than cars in many places, and electric versions of those are better for the environment too. (Special addendum defending electric bikes: the assumption here is that they displace car journeys not non-electric bike journeys.
• pmarreck 11y ago
  > FAR FAR more environmentally friendly than a new Tesla Are you referring to this sort of analysis? https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/33wqgm/calculating_the_co2_emissions_per_mile_of_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/33wqgm/calcula...