# Why do cars last longer?



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

7 to 8 years used to be about the average age of a car on the road, but the average has inched up to over 11 years old. So I searched why? 

One proposed reason I found was implied it was an accident, not manufacturer good will. It goes like this: to meet legislated emissions standards engines had to burn/use less oil. So they tightened tolerances in cylinders preventing oil bypass. The result was engines last longer. 

Any other reasons you engineers know of?


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I am not an engineer (IT guy) but I would say that technology has played a major part.

Better manufacturing QA. Robotics. Better, more reliable parts through technological improvements.

Competition. Remember the crap that GM, Chrysler, and Ford used to produce. Finally the public got wise thanks to foreign competition and to some degree consumer legislation. Bankruptcy forced these companies to improve their products. Look at the mess the Cadillac and Lincoln products were just a few short years ago. Thanks to competition and management changes these brands have been revitalized and improved.

It was not all that long ago that GM was lobbying our Federal Gov't that they could not meet the requirement for a very simple mandatory road safety 'lights on during the day time' without significant cost increases. How silly was that? Fortunately no one in Government was stupid enough to buy their argument.

My Toyotal Camry XLE is 20 years old in August. 350K plus miles on it. Never a problem. My son now has it and it is still going strong. I very much doubt that if I had bought a North American label that the car would have lasted that long and beenas trouble free.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Pluto said:


> 7 to 8 years used to be about the average age of a car on the road, but the average has inched up to over 11 years old.


Could it be people are just keeping their cars longer, as in fixing instead of buying new(er)?

FWIW, I've never had an engine die on me. I even tried to kill my last one by not changing the oil for 40,000 kms ... still didn't die.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Interesting. My perception had been that nobody seems to drive an old clunker anymore, that "everyone" seems to be driving cars that are 5yrs old or less. I wonder how much that varies depending where you live. Clearly emissions laws have kept the worst from staying on the road past their expiry date.
Our last car, an Impala we had for 10 yrs until it met its brethren (a deer) on the road one night. My first car was a 67 Pontiac Laurentian that I paid $200 for used, drove from 80k miles to 230k miles with repairs easily handled at the Canadian Tire parts counter. Sold it for $200 when it was 25yrs old and lost track of it at 250k miles. Used to see a lot more of those old clunkers on the road.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> 7 to 8 years used to be about the average age of a car on the road, but the average has inched up to over 11 years old. So I searched why?
> 
> One proposed reason I found was implied it was an accident, not manufacturer good will. It goes like this: to meet legislated emissions standards engines had to burn/use less oil. So they tightened tolerances in cylinders preventing oil bypass. The result was engines last longer.
> 
> Any other reasons you engineers know of?


Better metal used in the bodies with more rust protection inside and out. 
The winter effects on the sheet metal bodies under the floor pans and wheel wells prematurely aged most of the cars in the early 2000 period.

PS: I am not an automotive engineer, but I would like to play one on TV. :biggrin:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Our last car, an Impala we had for 10 yrs until it met its brethren (a deer) on the road one night. My first car was a 67 Pontiac Laurentian that I paid $200 for used, drove from 80k miles to 230k miles with repairs easily handled at the Canadian Tire parts counter. Sold it for $200 when it was 25yrs old and lost track of it at 250k miles. Used to see a lot more of those old clunkers on the road.


Those Chevy/Pontiac full size cars were very good for their day. Taxi drivers used them back them because they were roomy, provided some adequate crash protection and weathered the years fairly well. The bigger engines (V8's mostly) and 3 speed trannies resulting in very poor gas consumption in city driving is what started the decline to downsizing those models/ use of more plastics on the newer ones.

Clunkers or not, they served their purpose as full size family cars until the SUV generation came along.
You could easily get 15 or even up tp 20 years from those cars as long as the sheet metal held out.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I think it depends on which cars we are talking about.

American cars had reasonable drive trains, but the bodies rusted out very quickly in our climate. Not so in Southern USA (and Cuba!) where the mechanical parts did fail, but they were simple and inexpensive to fix. Domestic cars slowly got better, but mainly because of competition from Asia and Europe. They almost went out of business (some did)

Asian cars when they first arrived - Honda, Datsun, Toyata, Hyundai etc were really bad cars and all had serious corrosion problems. But to their credit, they worked on improvement. I read somewhere that the likes of Honda and Toyota aim at a life of 160k km. They feel that original owner will buy another car from them if they have few problems before time comes to change.

European cars at same time had superior quality. Talking Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Peugeot, Saab, Volvo, maybe even euro built VW and some others. However, if anything, their quality has deteriorated. Mercedes were at their best in about 1990. They now have to compete with the upper end Asian cars and that means cutting corners.

The current crop of cars are so complex. This due to emission systems but also widespread use of electronics. For example, no mechanical link between accelerator and engine throttle. The new systems may work well, but they are VERY expensive to repair. As a result, people are leasing more or trading once their warranty runs out. Because of this, otherwise great used cars are being sold for a song. So despite improvements in manufacturing and technology, used cars are worth less than they used to be. 

Some manufacturers are offering longer warranty periods. Others optional extended warranties. Personally , I wouldn't consider buying a modern car without at least 6 or 7 years of warranty. Otherwise, leasing would be my choice. You can't predict maintenance costs, but leasing/warranty costs are known up front.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

My first car was a 77 Plymouth Fury, received when it was about 10 years old. It was far from being described as a beater.

I think perhaps some may live in a region where it's not socially acceptable to drive an older car. Possibly the same areas where McMansions exist, and where people think it's great to pay $500,000 to 1 million for a house that elsewhere may cost $120,000 to $250,000. I've noticed this in several areas I've lived. Where I come from, and live again, you drive it til it dies, or you pass it on to a kid. Lots of older model cars on the road, that don't look like beaters.


----------



## Ben1491 (Jan 13, 2012)

carverman said:


> Better metal used in the bodies with more rust protection inside and out.
> The winter effects on the sheet metal bodies under the floor pans and wheel wells prematurely aged most of the cars in the early 2000 period.


+1 
Mandatory Rust Perforation Warranty and non-leaded gas.......


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Ben1491 said:


> +1
> Mandatory Rust Perforation Warranty and non-leaded gas.......


Krown and Rust Check may have also helped a little ??


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Car quality took a real nose dive from the late 60s to the early 80s due to the numbskull pollution and safety regulations out of Washington. It took a long time to figure out how to build a car that met the regulations and ran decent but they eventually figured it out.

Small, reliable computers were a big part of it. They allowed for electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition and electronic control systems to replace carburetors, ignition points and mechanical controls.

Then there was the steady march of progress that has been going on for the last 100+ years, that is mostly taken for granted.

Foreign competition can take some bows. If there had been no Japanese cars there would have been less incentive for Detroit to improve.

Today's cars are way better than the cars of the past, in ways most people can't appreciate. As a fan of the older cars I hate to admit it, but it's true.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

agent99 said:


> I think it depends on which cars we are talking about.
> 
> American cars had reasonable drive trains, but the bodies rusted out very quickly in our climate. Not so in Southern USA (and Cuba!) where the mechanical parts did fail, but they were simple and inexpensive to fix. Domestic cars slowly got better, but mainly because of competition from Asia and Europe. They almost went out of business (some did)
> 
> Asian cars when they first arrived - Honda, Datsun, Toyata, Hyundai etc were really bad cars and all had serious corrosion problems. But to their credit, they worked on improvement. I read somewhere that the likes of Honda and Toyota aim at a life of 160k km. They feel that original owner will buy another car from them if they have few problems before time comes to change.


Earlier Asian cars didn't last..they used recycled metal (old melted down scrap for making the steel panels). Those impurities plus the thin sheet metal
and not having lots of rust protection everywhere led to earlier demise of these cars, even though the engines and trannies were still good for a few thousand km more, the bodies rusting out, especially the uni-body floor pans made them UNSAFE to drive. Most ended up in the scrap heap because they would not pass the safety test. 



> The current crop of cars are so complex. This due to emission systems but also widespread use of electronics. For example, no mechanical link between accelerator and engine throttle. The new systems may work well, but they are VERY expensive to repair. As a result, people are leasing more or trading once their warranty runs out. Because of this, otherwise great used cars are being sold for a song. So despite improvements in manufacturing and technology, used cars are worth less than they used to be.


Yes, that annoying "check engine' light..in most cases requires hundreds of dollars of repairs to pass even the emission test.

Case in Point:
My friend, recently sent his 2002 Mazda Protoge to the scrapyard for $100. The floor pan had rusted out so bad in the last 3 years, that even a $800 repair to weld (somehow) a steel support brace (2 years ago) on the drivers side, got him 
only 2 more winters and that was it. 

Mechanically it was still a very reliable car..but the body had rusted out to the point that any mechanic who had it up on a hoist told him it was unsafe to drive. he bought it used about 6 yrs old then, and owned it for almost 10 years..Ottawa winters with all that salt finally did it in. 

In early April, he ran over a pothole and the left rear wheel struct broke off in the strut tower (which is just under the rear deck). There wasn't enough metal left that was not rusted, not enough solid metal to repair and even
if you could repair it, the repairs would cost a lot more than the car was worth at this point in it's life.



> Some manufacturers are offering longer warranty periods. Others optional extended warranties. Personally , I wouldn't consider buying a modern car without at least 6 or 7 years of warranty. Otherwise, leasing would be my choice. You can't predict maintenance costs, but leasing/warranty costs are known up front.


Not sure if the extended warranties are worth the extra money. You pretty much have to buy them at the time of purchase, and there have been cases of car owners buying the extended warranty to find out that when they go to collect on the warranty, the warranty company (usually a third party) has gone out of business.

The other thing is that these warranties can be difficult to collect..as the warranty companies have been know to weasel out
of expensive repairs ( such as complete engine/transmission). Wear and tear items are never covered.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

carverman said:


> Not sure if the extended warranties are worth the extra money. You pretty much have to buy them at the time of purchase, and there have been cases of car owners buying the extended warranty to find out that when they go to collect on the warranty, the warranty company (usually a third party) has gone out of business.
> 
> The other thing is that these warranties can be difficult to collect..as the warranty companies have been know to weasel out
> of expensive repairs ( such as complete engine/transmission). Wear and tear items are never covered.


I was thinking only about new car extended warranties offered by the manufacturer. I have one on our newest car and it provides same coverage as the original 4yr warranty for 2 more years and, I think, power train only for the 7th year. Cost $2800 at time but could be bought at any time before original warranty expired. Insurance and peace of mind. In addition, emission systems are covered for 8 years (for all cars in Canada) - this includes the expensive engine module, catalytic converters and anything emission related that turns that darned CE light on.


----------



## Durise (May 16, 2016)

Just take care of your car engine. It will increase your car life time longer.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Global warming. Not as much salt on the road. For instance, my 2002 Mazda Protege is completely rust free. Living on the Coast has its benefits (no snow for several years)..... now, if I can only discover how to dissuade the seagulls from crapping on my car.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Car models don't change shape as much as they used to, so buyers don't feel the need to buy an identical looking but new vehicle as the one they already own.

Since cars don't rust...........and don't have the tell tale changes that used to occur every year in auto manufacturing design, it is hard to even tell what year a car actually is without looking it up on Google.

The other day my interest was caught in a Miata Mx-5 sitting on a used car lot. It looked brand spanking new to me, as it was in terrific condition with low miles.

Turned out it was a 1992 and there have been 4 generations of new model since then. The new models underwent significant changes, but I never noticed over the years.

I went on Youtube and watched a comparison of all 4 generations and their plus and minuses. Who knew...........except for Miata enthusiasts.

Most people want to buy the coolest, latest, different thing..................not replace what they already have for more money.

Auto manufacturers save money by running the same or similar models year after year, but they also know that it hurts them in new car sales.

Production savings or sales............is the eternal debate within automotive manufacturing between the bean counters and the sales staff.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The Ministry of Transport has cut way, way down on salt use compared to the 70s. They had to, they were pouring so much salt on the roads they were actually turning the Great Lakes salty. This alone has cut down on rust out. 

In the 70s auto makers were forced to use water based paints because of pollution control regulations. The first efforts at making this type of paint were not successful, does anyone remember their very expensive Monte Carlos and Cadillacs breaking out in big rust blisters when they were one year old?

I think the base/clear paint systems had a lot to do with solving the rust problem. Plus the lack of salt on the roads.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The big three produced a lot of junk cars. Poor quality, poorly manufactured. I think that three things changed. The first was competition from improved Japanese products. Not just the car, but also the dealer service experience. The second was improved manufacturing processes from the parts suppliers through to the assembly line and inclusive of the introduction of computerized modules. The third, though no so much was pressure from Government both on manufacturing/safety and on what goes on the road in wintertime.

It was not so long ago that I can remember GM Canada actually lobbying the Canadian Gov't to not move forward with the regulation about forcing newly manufactured cars to have their lights on during the day. GM did not want to do it.....because of few cents difference in manufacturing cost. They actually threatened that it would cost jobs. Sad part about that is that their own shoddy products that were missing the market was the real cause for declining market share.

It took going bankrupt for a few of the big three to start focusing on what customers really wanted and on producing a decent product. Too late for us, we switched off the big three years ago.


----------



## carol palmer (Jul 12, 2016)

Take a look at this doc http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cars-now-last-longer-than-ever-will-yours/


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There was an interesting statement in the above article that if your car is older and needs a repair the advice is to do it if that repair costs less than half the value of the car.

I had that exact situation five years ago with my 15 year old Camry. It needed the usual mtce items...shocks, timing belt, etc. I almost decided to get rid of it just in case other items were going to fail. That was the last repair bill in five years and the car is still running like new. But, we have been very careful to follow the recommendations on fluid replacement. Saves a lot of money in the long run.


----------



## amack081 (Jun 23, 2015)

carverman said:


> Those Chevy/Pontiac full size cars were very good for their day. Taxi drivers used them back them because they were roomy, provided some adequate crash protection and weathered the years fairly well. The bigger engines (V8's mostly) and 3 speed trannies resulting in very poor gas consumption in city driving is what started the decline to downsizing those models/ use of more plastics on the newer ones.
> 
> Clunkers or not, they served their purpose as full size family cars until the SUV generation came along.
> You could easily get 15 or even up tp 20 years from those cars as long as the sheet metal held out.


Funny you mention that. I actually drive a 2003 Pontiac Sunfire (225,000KM). Aside from regular maintenance (brakes, oil changes etc) I haven't had any issues. 

Emissions test that is required in big city Ontario (northern Ontario doesn't require it) are a pain in the *** but the car has been a blessing.

I've spoken to my neighbor who is a mechanic a few times about older cars and the jist is the following. Keep rust off, perform regular engine maintenance (oil change, fluids are topped off) and hope the transmission doesn't go. If you have those things, you will easily hit 250,000KM.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

RCB said:


> My first car was a 77 Plymouth Fury


God drives a Plymouth. It says so in the Bible:

"God drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in a *Fury*​


----------

