Still, do not despair. The problem here is not that the car is considered disposable by that criteria. The problem is the criteria itself, in particular: 1)

Still, do not despair. The problem here is not that the car is considered disposable by that criteria. The problem is the criteria itself, in particular: 1) the definition of the asset's value, 2) the definition of maintenance costs, and 3) the notion that the asset should be considered "disposed" when those ill-defined maintenance costs exceed that ill-defined value. The problem with #1 is that an asset's value to its owner is only partially represented by the amount of money for which it can be liquidated. The problem with #2, is that they include operational costs (fuel, etc.) that one would bear regardless of which car they owned. The problem with #3 is your concept of 'disposable', which may work for you but is not universal. Someone else might only consider it 'disposable' when problems begin to appear in a notoriously expensive-to-repair subsystem, like the transmission. And, even then, the car tends to not actually be disposed because its parts can be used to keep other similar models alive. I guess I feel like your lament hinges upon one very narrow possible meaning of the word 'disposable'. Perhaps "fully depreciated" is more close to the idea you wanted to capture?