Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of the disposable car

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 267 posts

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#171

Post by Clubber »

bloomingeek wrote: post #153

Old timer here, back in the day (60s thru 80s) owners worked on their cars to save money, this kept garage repair prices in check because they knew we had another choice, ourselves. Today, I still service my vehicles because I purchased the electronic meters and testers that are required. (I realize not everyone thinks they have the ability to service their car, YouTube is a great source. Maybe you don't want to get…

YouTube is a great resource for instructional videos on how to do stuff like that and fix things around the house. Lots of things.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#172

Post by _yb2s »

AdamN wrote: post #112
nimbius wrote: post #75

The rich have been flogging this idea since cash for clunkers. That, because they run through cars like shit through a goose, you will too. Speaking as a master diesel mechanic, this is a deleterious line of thinking for anyone with less than a few million dollars. Every car has 20 years of parts, and most Japanese cars have closer into 50 years of parts. Any engine built after 2010 will likely last half a million mi…

Cars more than about 10-15 years old just aren't as safe as newer ones. That's the fundamental issue. With that said there are ways to mitigate the risk (drive more cautiously/slower, etc...).

That's really only true if you consider within the same class or model of car, where the technology has advanced... but old cars are so affordable you can get a much higher end and much safer car. Do you think a 2024 Chevy Trax is safer than a 2012 Audi Q5? Both are compact SUVs but you can buy 3-4 nice condition low mileage Q5s for the price of the Chevy.

Regardless of tech like changes in crumple zone design, you also can't negate the safety benefits of substantially better brakes, handling, driver comfort, and road visibility from a better designed car made with higher end parts and materials.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#173

Post by babypuncher »

dragontamer wrote: post #4

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/avera... The opposite. With cars reaching much more advanced ages today, when a collision happens it's a write-off. The modern car isn't 'disposable'. In fact, all statistics point to us holding onto cars longer today than ever before. Today's cars are the most durable that they've ever been.

It's been something of a give and take. Modern cars are significantly more reliable than they used to be, often going 150k miles without any issues beyond regular maintenance. But when they do break, repairs are a lot more costly.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#174

Post by babypuncher »

skhunted wrote: post #108
a1371 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of argument ignores the real cost of having to upkeep a 50s car: the human suffering. Cubans are forced to use this option and their society suffers from it.

From an environmental perspective it’s a good thing. Don’t know if that makes it worth it but we are creating far too much pollution.

Keeping an old car functioning is only better for the environment up to a certain point. If your cars are staying on the road long enough, eventually it makes more environmental sense to replace a 50 year old car that gets 18 miles per gallon with a new one that gets 45 and can last another 50 years.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#175

Post by karma_pharmer »

neuralRiot wrote: post #138
snakeyjake wrote: post #127

The increase in total loss designations by insurance companies is due to the extremely high costs charged by the shops contracted by them to do repairs. The designation of a car as "totaled" is often an illusion and there is a thriving parallel market of auction houses, repair shops, salvage titling companies, and resellers who take the "ruined" cars, fix them, and sell them on the used market. Insurance companies co…

The catch is that most banks won’t finance “rebuilt-titled” cars, you don’t have a dealer warranty (and most plainly refuse to work on rebuilt cars) and the vehicle has a 50-60% (or less) resale value than a “clean-title”.

That's a feature not a bug.

It's selective definancialization, and I love it. Same reason why buying tax foreclosures is such a great bargain: you don't have to compete with bank-financed buyers!

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#176

Post by cityofdelusion »

_yb2s wrote: post #126
nimbius wrote: post #75

The rich have been flogging this idea since cash for clunkers. That, because they run through cars like shit through a goose, you will too. Speaking as a master diesel mechanic, this is a deleterious line of thinking for anyone with less than a few million dollars. Every car has 20 years of parts, and most Japanese cars have closer into 50 years of parts. Any engine built after 2010 will likely last half a million mi…

Older cars are massively undervalued in the USA because of social norms, which is a massive opportunity to anyone willing to exploit it to get reliable transportation for nearly free. People are afraid that older cars are dangerous, unreliable, or (worst of all) will make you look poor, but all 3 are just misinformation. Boats and airplanes are just as reliable when old as new because they're maintained well- and car…

I love older cars, but they are significantly more dangerous. My 93 pickup had no airbags and was notorious for the engine intruding into the passenger compartment in collisions. My 91 sports car only has an air bag for the driver as a premium option, and they are known to not deploy due to the ancient explosives and electrical contacts. The A pillars on both cars are tiny and will fold in any kind of hit or rollover, plus both cars were designed for 55 mph max speeds, not the 85+ that is common today. An accident on the freeway in either would be a coin toss of survival.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#177

Post by ssl-3 »

jmrm wrote: post #114
toast0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my area, the problem is labor costs. If you can do things yourself, it's great. If you need a mechanic to do it, you're looking at a big expense, because mechanic labor is expensive and there's a lot more covers and harder to get to parts these days. 'Maintenance free' transmissions are very common in newer cars, and they do tend to need less maintenance, but when they do, there's often not a great way to…

> 'Maintenance free' transmissions are very common in newer cars I take advantage to your comment to write this PSA (that probably you already know): All transmissions require maintenance, and even manual ones. Those automatic tagged as 'maintenance free' from the brand aren't, and if you call the manufacturer of that transmission, Getrag, ZF, or whatever it is, they should say which ATF and filters it needs and in w…

How does find a phone number for General Motors that lets someone talk to the person who knows these details and is both willing and able to relay them?

[insert rant here about BMW's "lifetime" fluid in the 4L30E that they used in E36s]

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#178

Post by Workaccount2 »

_yb2s wrote: post #172
AdamN wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars more than about 10-15 years old just aren't as safe as newer ones. That's the fundamental issue. With that said there are ways to mitigate the risk (drive more cautiously/slower, etc...).

That's really only true if you consider within the same class or model of car, where the technology has advanced... but old cars are so affordable you can get a much higher end and much safer car. Do you think a 2024 Chevy Trax is safer than a 2012 Audi Q5? Both are compact SUVs but you can buy 3-4 nice condition low mileage Q5s for the price of the Chevy. Regardless of tech like changes in crumple zone design, you a…

Whatever you save on the upfront cost of a used Q5 you'll pay on the backend the first time it needs service.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#179

Post by karma_pharmer »

bobthepanda wrote: post #137
throwaway48476 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern cars aren't designed to be easy to work on which really inflates the labor hours required for even trivial issues.

right, the $42K Rivian fender bender was a particularly egregious example. https://www.theautopian.com/heres-why-that-rivian-r1t-repair...

oh my god.

what exactly were the rivian engineers thinking?

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#180

Post by _yb2s »

nimbius wrote: post #86
jandrese wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually not the engine that fails. The transmission is far more likely to be the weak point, and after that it is rust destroying the body or frame. The average age of a car is like 13 years old. Most people are definitely not buying new ones every 5 years.

I agree, a transmission is really only good for around 200k miles. However, you can buy a used transmission in most cases for under 3 grand, and again labor for this thanks to automation is likely less than $500. The real blocker I dont mention is time. Your shop will need that car for a few days and shipping will take time too. At some point the wait isnt worth it anymore. The upside is, 2 used Toyotas are still che…

I think you have those switched... a used transmission is probably about $300, and 3 grand to install it.

On most cars the transmission is probably the biggest failure liability- I pretty much only drive manuals for that reason, doing a clutch is a lot cheaper than replacing an automatic, and the better you are at driving it the less you need to do it.

Post reply on HN