5 ms·

> Cars are more reliable now too This is hard to believe. If anything they are more disposable.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
Average age has been ticking up for a while, at least in the US. https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc... I feel like the disposability angle comes from having relatively expensive parts/repair costs with low value older vehicles, which results in them being retired because of the economics of having someone else repair them.
- pnutjam 6y ago
  That and the ever present complaint that they can't take a hit like they used too. Never mind that makes them way safer and saves tons of lives. Some people want to crash up derby their car every weekend.
  - mrguyorama 6y ago
    It's also not even remotely true. Check out the IIHS crashing a 60s bel air into a modern malibu. "They don't make them like they used to" has always been a nostalgic crock of shit, like the people who think the NES was the golden age of video games, despite the vast majority of the 700 or so releases being utter trash for $60 that sometimes didn't even work! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      I think they're talking about damage from low speed hits. Older cars can take those without as much apparent damage because they have big heavy bumpers and aren't designed for occupant/pedestrian safety, but like you said they'll fold up like a tin can in higher speed crashes.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      That's a promotional video for showcasing how far safety has come. It's about as grounded in reality as that Top Gear episode with the Hilux that the online fanboys all beat it to but people who actually work in industry roll their eyes at. Nobody's ever done an 80s Town Car vs a 2010 Town Car at 30mph because a crash test where the result is "both drivers would have walked away" is boring and doesn't make for the kinds of DARE-esque media that the people who do crash testing have found it worthwhile to put out.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      I can give you an anecdote. A modern car crashed on our nissan from 1990's a while ago and while absolutely nothing happened to ours the other car looked like a wreck. Maybe the behind of the car is made to be more durable than the front? I do not know.
      - mrguyorama 6y ago
        The body may not have warped much, but that just means the force was transferred directly to the occupants with zero reduction from crumple zones. This is terrible for safety but good for the pocket book if you are lucky enough to escape unscathed. With significant and well engineered crumple zones and fairly expensive components, modern cars are significantly easier to total.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Having a crumple zone turn to mush in a 10mph parking lot mishap does pretty much nothing to make your car more survivable in a crash that might hurt you. There's no real reason slow speed crashes have to be as damaging as they are. It's just a result of what our tests our and natural optimization toward them. If the NHTSA reintroduced a "is the vehicle drive-able after a minor hit" type crash things would get a lot better very quickly.
- sjg007 6y ago
  I'd imagine that there are companies that buy these vehicles from salvage or auction and rehab them for sale in other countries.
floren 6y ago
People used to consider it a major milestone for their car to hit 100,000 miles. It wouldn't be particularly surprising if you needed your engine or transmission rebuilt before that point. American cars didn't even have 6-digit odometers for a long time. These days, your average inexpensive sedan will hit 100,000 miles with nothing but oil changes (every 10,000 miles instead of every 3,000 like it used to be), a couple sets of tires, and some new brake pads. Of course, if it breaks, it's full of all these complex little systems that let modern cars run for hundreds of thousands of miles at 40mpg, and you'll need to pull in a professional, but they break a LOT less frequently.
- Amezarak 6y ago
  My experience is that the drivetrain is MUCH more reliable than it used to be, but the various electronic systems are subject to high failure rates - displays, buttons, computers, sensors, etc. Many of these failures don't impact your actual driving ability, but are just a nuisance, like if your AC button stops working or your cars information displays.
DavidPeiffer 6y ago
Going back to when my parents were growing up, a car with 60,000 miles was near the end of its life. They checked the oil every time they got gas out of necessity. Now almost nobody needs to check the oil that frequently (though it'd be good practice) and even lower end cars routinely last to 100,000 miles. I'm driving a 2010 Honda Civic with 100k miles and fully expect to replace it with a newer vehicle out of concern for safety, desire for an electric vehicle, and wanting some better creature comforts. The thing will probably run to 250k miles, which would take me another 13 years to achieve.
lostapathy 6y ago
Cars today may be harder/more expensive to fix, but they do seem to last a lot longer before they need it, and as pointed out down thread they tend to last a lot longer in the absolute sense. As a kid, we had a van that made it to 150k miles and my parents friends were amazed it was still on the road. I've personally owned 4 or 5 vehicles older than that, all in better shape than that van at 150k.
refurb 6y ago
You must be a youngster. Cars are more reliable by several orders of magnitude compared to 50 years ago. It wasn’t unusual to be stranded on the side of the road because your car stopped working. Maybe once per year? You rarely see that now. And if your car hit 100k miles/160k km, that was pretty much it’s life span. Now hitting 300-400k km is not that unusual. And good luck starting your car in the 80’s if it got cold out. Or too hot out. Fuel injection has made cars way more reliable.

Average age has been ticking up for a while, at least in the US. https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc... I feel like the disposability angle comes from having relatively expensive parts/repair costs with low value older vehicles, which results in them being retired because of the economics of having someone else repair them.

pnutjam 6y ago
That and the ever present complaint that they can't take a hit like they used too. Never mind that makes them way safer and saves tons of lives. Some people want to crash up derby their car every weekend.
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  It's also not even remotely true. Check out the IIHS crashing a 60s bel air into a modern malibu. "They don't make them like they used to" has always been a nostalgic crock of shit, like the people who think the NES was the golden age of video games, despite the vast majority of the 700 or so releases being utter trash for $60 that sometimes didn't even work! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    I think they're talking about damage from low speed hits. Older cars can take those without as much apparent damage because they have big heavy bumpers and aren't designed for occupant/pedestrian safety, but like you said they'll fold up like a tin can in higher speed crashes.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    That's a promotional video for showcasing how far safety has come. It's about as grounded in reality as that Top Gear episode with the Hilux that the online fanboys all beat it to but people who actually work in industry roll their eyes at. Nobody's ever done an 80s Town Car vs a 2010 Town Car at 30mph because a crash test where the result is "both drivers would have walked away" is boring and doesn't make for the kinds of DARE-esque media that the people who do crash testing have found it worthwhile to put out.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    I can give you an anecdote. A modern car crashed on our nissan from 1990's a while ago and while absolutely nothing happened to ours the other car looked like a wreck. Maybe the behind of the car is made to be more durable than the front? I do not know.
    - mrguyorama 6y ago
      The body may not have warped much, but that just means the force was transferred directly to the occupants with zero reduction from crumple zones. This is terrible for safety but good for the pocket book if you are lucky enough to escape unscathed. With significant and well engineered crumple zones and fairly expensive components, modern cars are significantly easier to total.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Having a crumple zone turn to mush in a 10mph parking lot mishap does pretty much nothing to make your car more survivable in a crash that might hurt you. There's no real reason slow speed crashes have to be as damaging as they are. It's just a result of what our tests our and natural optimization toward them. If the NHTSA reintroduced a "is the vehicle drive-able after a minor hit" type crash things would get a lot better very quickly.
sjg007 6y ago
I'd imagine that there are companies that buy these vehicles from salvage or auction and rehab them for sale in other countries.

floren 6y ago

People used to consider it a major milestone for their car to hit 100,000 miles. It wouldn't be particularly surprising if you needed your engine or transmission rebuilt before that point. American cars didn't even have 6-digit odometers for a long time. These days, your average inexpensive sedan will hit 100,000 miles with nothing but oil changes (every 10,000 miles instead of every 3,000 like it used to be), a couple sets of tires, and some new brake pads. Of course, if it breaks, it's full of all these complex little systems that let modern cars run for hundreds of thousands of miles at 40mpg, and you'll need to pull in a professional, but they break a LOT less frequently.

Amezarak 6y ago
My experience is that the drivetrain is MUCH more reliable than it used to be, but the various electronic systems are subject to high failure rates - displays, buttons, computers, sensors, etc. Many of these failures don't impact your actual driving ability, but are just a nuisance, like if your AC button stops working or your cars information displays.

DavidPeiffer 6y ago

Going back to when my parents were growing up, a car with 60,000 miles was near the end of its life. They checked the oil every time they got gas out of necessity. Now almost nobody needs to check the oil that frequently (though it'd be good practice) and even lower end cars routinely last to 100,000 miles. I'm driving a 2010 Honda Civic with 100k miles and fully expect to replace it with a newer vehicle out of concern for safety, desire for an electric vehicle, and wanting some better creature comforts. The thing will probably run to 250k miles, which would take me another 13 years to achieve.

lostapathy 6y ago

Cars today may be harder/more expensive to fix, but they do seem to last a lot longer before they need it, and as pointed out down thread they tend to last a lot longer in the absolute sense. As a kid, we had a van that made it to 150k miles and my parents friends were amazed it was still on the road. I've personally owned 4 or 5 vehicles older than that, all in better shape than that van at 150k.

refurb 6y ago

You must be a youngster. Cars are more reliable by several orders of magnitude compared to 50 years ago. It wasn’t unusual to be stranded on the side of the road because your car stopped working. Maybe once per year? You rarely see that now. And if your car hit 100k miles/160k km, that was pretty much it’s life span. Now hitting 300-400k km is not that unusual. And good luck starting your car in the 80’s if it got cold out. Or too hot out. Fuel injection has made cars way more reliable.