PeterE wrote:
In fact in many respects (particularly bodywork) cars are more durable than they ever have been.
I agree.
When I bought my first car it was approximately 10 years old and had covered about 50,000 miles. I picked that one after considering many others because the bodywork was in better than average condition, yet even so I had to do a fair amount of welding and renewing of wings, sills etc, and also the engine was pretty much life expired, so I fitted a reconditioned one about 3,000 miles later. I got a further two years motoring out of it then scrapped it as the bodywork had deteriorated yet further to a point where the thing was basically worthless.
If I bought a ten year old car now I'd expect to get one with pretty decent bodywork - certainly no structural rot - and it would likely have covered 100-120 k miles and be capable of another 50k without any major engine problems. Also, as long as you use the right people (or do it yourself) routine servicing is generally simpler and cheaper than it was 20 years ago.
On balance I'd say that the motor industry has served us pretty well in recent years. Ok, we all get a bit misty eyed and nostalgic about cars like BMC Minis and MK1 Escorts, but in reality their quality and reliability was bloody dreadful compared to pretty much
any modern car.
Most cars these days get scrapped simply because they have become undesirable compared to newer replacements. Whilst we might whinge about the process of continual development that makes this so, at the same time we should recognise that it is this same process that has delivered cars that last twice as long as they used to.
And as for built in obsolescence, I think most manufacturers recognise that good residuals are an important factor in new car sales, and that to get good residuals you need to build cars that last well and therefore appeal to the used car buyer when they are ten years old.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
