Modern fridges use roughly 25% as much energy as fridges from the 70s according to this page though: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html

I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.

The question is, why do modern fridges seem to break more frequently after a few years than older fridges. Is it:

1. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break

2. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new one (planned obsolescence)

3. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)

There are at least a few additional options to those three to consider here:

- The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.

- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed.

- throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading)

- some combination of all of the above.

Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.

I'd say it's certainly possible to get everyone involved to pursue profits in such a way as to accidentally completely disregard longevity.

I think it's possible too. But also think it's a little implausible nobody realized what was going on: longevity is too important (if only for guarantee purposes) for producers to have completely forgotten about it - well, most of em anyhow. And given how commercially self-serving the outcome, and how actively firms strategize for all kinds of income flows, I can't really buy the idea that it's all a benign unfortunate accident. It's possible; sure - but it wouldn't be my first guess for most non-tiny firms anyhow.

It doesn't take "nobody" to realize what was going on; it only takes the decision makers to either not realize it or to actively decide for profit against longevity.

Imagine a situation: Investors say: give me investment returns! People in charge say: give me profits! People making decisions say: profits or quality! People conducting day-to-day operations say: worry about regulations first, then profits, then quality! People doing the work say: this quality is poor, but I need my job and don't want to rock the boat!

Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but that's generally been my experience over the past 10 to 15 years of doing things

Yeah, I agree completely. I just think that kind of behavior deserves a certain small amount of opprobrium ;-).

My uncle repairs appliances. A couple of factors that he's encountered in his years of experience: 1. Energy star compliance. Many of the pumps now use far less power but are more prone to burnout. Keeping a fridge door accidentally open too long is much more detrimental to pumps than it used to be. 2. Firmware. Never been an issue with older fridges but it's now another point of failure.

There's certainly many more but those are some of the most common ones he runs into.

I don't believe in full fledged Survivor Bias here. Too many people were naturally angry at recent devices. They all noticed a substantial regression. Especially since you also naturally expect companies to have mastered and made progress and provide something better.

In my electronics/audio experience, the market twist the design toward shittier components that provide acceptable function with a few marketing buzzwords (HD audio, 24 bit audio) that will make people buy something; where their old gear was clearly superior in terms of quality. It's a reflex to think economies of scale provide improvements and progress.

I think the budget options available now didn't exist in the past either; components are cheap now — you may be able to get a fridge for $300 that lasts 5 years, but 50 years ago your only option might be paying the equivilant of $2k for something that lasted 30 years. Today I'd guess a $3,000 fridge lasts longer than a $300 one, and most people are buying a $300 fridge (if someone can prove otherwise, I'd be happy to be proven wrong).

Even a $3000 fridge only has a 1 year warranty these days, and speaking from recent experience spending $2k on a fridge does not make it more reliable - in fact most refrigerators are made with the same internals and body but minor tweaks and sold at 3-5 different price points under different brand names (see Whirlpool - Frigidaire - Kitchenaid). Nothing that's changed between the different brands changes the reliability, only the aesthetics.

So on a component level in terms of the cooling elements: the $3,000 and the $300 are essentially the same to a consumer?

Is there no market for a refrigerator produced with high-quality components? or does higher-quality component price outpace the gained longevity?

What about so-called "commercial grade" appliances — surely they should have a longer lifespan?

Miele offers long warranties. It's simple: Buy the appliance with the longest warranty and disregard other things.

Commercial is different. I'd guess things like serviceability and a local repair network to be the most important qualities there. And although mean time between services are important, commercial also disregards stuff like noise.

> and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)

No, old gear was definitely constructed better. I've repaired many appliances over the years and stuff from the 60's was built to last with a noticeable degradation in quality over the 70's and the 80's, since the 90's it's pretty much a constant. There is absolutely no way that a household appliance made after 1975 lasts for 60 years.

Do you think it's a natural market behavior that enticed manufacturers to aim at entry level market by cutting corners AMAP then realizing it also increased frequency of renewal thus making even more economical sense ?

Personally I believe this is the default behaviour of unrestricted market competition. Under competitive pressure, companies try to cut costs by gradually optimizing the product into the cheapest version that still sells - which in the end will be so tight on tolerances that it'll break quickly.

I suppose at some point there were business people who noticed that planned obsolescence creates repeat purchases, and that pricing is an arbitrary thing so they can sell the same hyper-optimized crap on different price tiers and people mostly won't notice - but I think the main driving force wasn't malice, just the usual thing that happens in the market economy.

In this way, I see the period of 1960s - 1990s as a time of discovering new ways to cheap out on materials and construction. After all, optimizing for manufacturing costs takes time and lots of smarts. Barely working crap doesn't happen by default (conversely, and this reminds me of the discussions around Juicero teardown, the initial design of any working appliance will likely be heavily overengineered).

yeah I know that cutting cost is almost a definition of business, I meant the fact that in the same time it forces a different rhythm that is very self sustaining; it's a double win, and I wonder how long they knew that fact. It's probably a naive question, I remember seeing old quotes about "if doctor cured you of all, they'd be jobless" or one about Michelin "they knew how to make 10x better 10x cheaper, but why should they release that".. it's just the dual.

The cost of disposing goods is not borne by the manufacturer. If it were, you might start seeing products that last longer.

When I bought a fridge some years ago, the capital cost of a new fridge was about €100, the annual operating cost was about €50. Investing in a more efficient fridge pays of quickly. Second hand fridges (€50 capital, €80 operating) made no sense.

And this is not a mere frugality argument. The economics more or less reflects environmental impact as well. There is a point where discarding a perfectly functioning but inefficient appliance for a newer is the environmental choice.

My wife and I want to get a new fridge, but almost everything new out there (consumer-oriented) won't fit into the space our current fridge occupies.

Our house was built in the 1970s, with 8 foot ceilings. Also, in the kitchen area for the fridge, the standard thing was to put a cabinet above the fridge; so we are limited in height. Newer homes have 9 foot or higher ceilings, and recently, new fridges has grown a bit taller. Tall enough, so that while one might fit into our space, it wouldn't have enough clearance around the top to provide proper air circulation for the unit.

So our choices have been limited by what the market wants:

1. Remove the cabinets (which would be really expensive for the small remodelling effort on top of the cost of a new fridge).

2. Get an ugly new fridge (some of the over-unders will fit, but they tend to be much smaller than we want, and have other features missing - though they do tend to be much cheaper).

3. Move to a new house (not a reasonable option at this time).

4. Purchase an older fridge that'll fit.

So right now, we're "nursing" our current side-by-side along; it still runs ok and keeps things cold, but the ice maker no longer works, nor does the water on the door. We've considered getting those fixed, but it would likely cost several hundred dollars, and the fridge is closing in on 20 years old anyway.

One other option we're considering is going with a commercial unit; unfortunately, from what we've researched, such units are not sized properly at all for a consumer kitchen (too deep, too tall, too narrow, or too wide).

So our only real option is #4 - unless we want to spend a big chunk of change in one manner or another.

We paid around €700 for an A+++ fridge from AEG which produced way too much ice and condensation and broke down after 6 years. Horrible investment. We replaced it with a €850 AEG fridge.

I'm curious, you seemed to have a pretty bad experience with your first AEG fridge. What made you go for the same brand again?

It wasn't my first choice, but when ordering an entire kitchen, it's easiest when all machines come from the same manufacturer. Bosch was another option, but slightly more expensive. AEG let us stay within our budget.

And although I admit I've hated AEG for their crappy fridge, it's probably not AEG's fault. It was installed by an independent installer, and it seems he royally fucked up. Although I think we did have an AEG mechanic take a look at the fridge, and he didn't fix the problems. So AEG isn't entirely blameless.

Still, they're supposed to be good, even if our fridge was basically wasted.

In the end, though, it was really my wife who made the decision. She apparently doesn't hold irrational grudges against manufacturers like I do.

I think a brand is a very poor predictor of quality. For starters, the link between brand and manufacturer is tenuous at best. Brands get sold all the time.

There are only two or three big manufacturers left, and they each own many brands. They rotate which one is reliable to create more consumer confusion and trick you into buying major appliances more frequently.

The difference between a 3 year and 20 year fridge is usually only a few dollars (maybe 10), and has nothing to do with efficiency.

Case in point: The outer shell of new chest freezers are made of substantially thinner sheet metal and paint. This causes them to dent rapidly, and, in moist climates, rust through. It also reduces shipping and manufacturing costs, since it cuts the weight by a few pounds.

> They rotate which one is reliable to create more consumer confusion and trick you into buying major appliances more frequently.

Do you have a source for this? It may well be true, but to my ear it sounds like one of those "everybody knows..." conspiracy theories.

Interesting, a €100 fridge is good enough ? I had to buy an expensive one for idiotic reasons, but I thought that cheap ones were probably innefficient.

Ikea, at least at the time, had very affordable fridges with A++ and A+++ energy certification. I trusted the energy certification, and assumed name-brands had no significant advantage over white-labeled (since it's all Chinese import anyway). It lasted a at least decade till I sold it to the next tenant (at a profit ;)).

Interesting, thanks.

We have a small fridge in our small kitchen which will need replacing soon as the door has gone rusty underneath and the seal is beginning to go.

It used to be a standard size of fridge but they're all wider and deeper now (maybe to allow thicker walls for better efficiency - the internal dimensions are often no bigger) and we can't find a name brand model to fit in the space, only cheap budget brands. So it's good to know that a cheap fridge can be just as good.

Meanwhile, our other name brand white goods have needed replacing after 2-3 years each. It's impossible to find anything with a decent warranty. Strange to remember that my parents' fridge, cooker, washer, drier when I was a teenager were all older than me.

Ikea also has a 5 year warranty on their electrical appliances.

actually big appliances don't make that much sense to build in China and import... because they're big. there are quite a few factories on EU territory for this reason. always worth checking.

The cost of moving things like fridges is almost entirely in the last few miles. Shipping heavy things is really, really cheap (in bulk).

i understand that it's not about weight but volume/footprint and by correlation time from factory to warehouse to shop/customer. having factory on the same continent cuts your supply chain response time by months which means you can allocate floor area better.

OTOH i don't sell fridges, so that's all just thinking aloud :)

Still, Poland is a major production hub for heavy appliances (fridges, washers, dishwashers).

Well, maybe they're actually simply competitive ;-). And don't forget that factories cost a lot, as does training personnel - so if poland happened to have a stable enough climate and rules that don't scare away investors, then than might well compensate for a higher hourly wage (and in any case, wages in china aren't exactly what they were 20 years ago!). Finally, I'm not sure what kind of tariffs and bureaucratic issues there are - some perhaps overhead; but some to ensure product safety and standardization - but that too means importing has some extra costs.

I'm totally no expert, but any or all of that sounds more plausible than shipping cost issues; I did some quick googling and rough guesstimation (40ft container fits 67 cubic meters, so say 33000$ of goods, at around 1000$ to ship from shanghai to rotterdam), and I guess it's no more than a 3% surcharge; possibly less if you consider I bet I didn't find the best deals. It's not nothing, but neither is it particularly shocking (and you might save on trucking costs because you can pick the port and that port is likely particularly well connected).

That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years.

This is not only about electrical stuff, but also, say, simple mechanical kitchen tools: they break easily today. Like a cheese grater. The one my mom has is 50 years old and almost as good as new. Stained a bit, maybe, but works perfectly. She got it from her mom as a present. It's sheet metal, relatively cheap stuff, but still decent enough quality made to last long. They tried to make it simple, durable, and affordable.

Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings, but these things are still made to look good, not to last long. You can bet there are small plastic pins hidden somewhere that break off soon, probably due to some unnecessary bell or whistle. This is the pain of today's products.

[edit: language]

> That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years.

Isn't it possible that the complexity that makes something energy efficient also causes it break sooner?

It is. For instance, if elements that move under power are changed from metal (heavy) to plastic (light), you need less power to move them.

However if making something more energy efficient causes it to break more often, you have to expand the scope to include the energy costs of manufacturing a replacement copy. Even if the marginal costs of manufacturing an appliance are so low repairs no longer make sense, I still doubt that e.g. more efficient washing machine that you have to replace 3 times over 10 years uses, in total, more energy than one less efficient washing machine that doesn't break for 10 years.

No. The complexity does not make anything break. You only have to engineer something once, and coordinating the failure rates of the different subsystems is part of the engineering.

If anything, managing the additional complexity by skimping on the engineering work is what causes the failures--that is, engineering a more complex device with the same or smaller engineering effort.

The ideal situation when engineering a new device is that every part of it is likely to break simultaneously, the day after the warranty runs out. If that happens, you know that your device was made as cheaply as possible, but no cheaper, and that you will never need to repair such a device, because buying a new one will always be cheaper.

Repairs are only an issue when different parts are likely to break at different times.

>Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings

Huh? I have owned the same stainless steel cheese grater for probably at least a decade, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It is also just sheet metal after all. It's totally beyond me how you think you're going to break a "shiny stainless solid steel..." grater like this [1].

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/

Based on the images, I'd imagine those soft formed parts around the base and handle would become brittle, crack, and either peel off in one piece or crumble away bit by bit.

The point grandparent was making is that the "deluxe" models often use the visible metal parts to provide the appearance of durability, when the internals are identical between models. It applies more to refrigerator doors than to box graters. That stainless steel fridge is going to have the same crappy plastic blower fan as one with a painted door, but may sell at a higher price, because it looks more durable to anyone who doesn't own a screwdriver.

The usual implication is that that the manufacturer didn't cut that specific corner, so there may be other corners that were not cut. It's like replacing the hood ornament of your VW beetle with one made from solid gold. It will then be the only part that doesn't rust all the way through.

1/4 of consumption but 1/10 of lifespan, does this balance ?

If the total cost of energy exceeds the purchase cost, yes. A rough indication of the annual running cost of a refrigerator with freezer for a new model from that year¹:

    1990    €110  (500kWh)
    2000     €77  (350kWh)
    2010     €46  (210kWh)
    2015     €32  (145kWh)

Replacing a fridge from the nineties is cost-neutral after three to ten years, depending on the model chosen.

1 (Dutch): http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-...

Uhm, I think I'm going to stick a meter on my fridge and see how much energy it's using.

All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top.

This makes "do the cheapest thing possible" a surprisingly good proxy for "do the most energy efficient thing".

Of course, if you know something about the manufacturing chain, you can use that knowledge to do something better, but that is usually taking second order effects into account.

Taking cars as an example: buying a $100,000 Model S Tesla instead of a $35K gas guzzler to save $10K on gas is probably bad for the environment, if you only look at the marginal effect of that one car (and ignore subsidizing Tesla R&D, etc).

If the Tesla is only $35K, then you saved $10K of gas and the Tesla manufacturing process had a much lower energy footprint, so it is probably a huge win.

> All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top.

That would be if markets were efficient :).

As it is, the costs of goods are still dominated by middle men - people who have nothing to do with neither manufacturing nor selling the thing to the end customer. Prices today aren't good signals, because they're pretty arbitrary - shaped by supply/demand in long term, yes, but in short term directed by various business tricks (like market segmentation, brand value, contracts, etc.).

Your Tesla example actually shows it pretty well - in order to quantify its environment impact, you need to know at least that a) Tesla is electric, b) where your energy comes from.

Price would be a good proxy for a lot of things, if it wasn't so messed up by various parties trying to profit at each level of the supply chain.

Do you think we could design a distribution system that would enforce price nearing cost instead of submitting to market demand bias ?

Friendly reminder that energy footprint is measured in joules and not dollars :)

That fridge is a survivor by definition. It may even be the last surviving fridge of that type. There may have been 10,000 similar fridges once upon a time, but how many of them broke within the first year? How many of them lasted 10 years?

How many fridges of any model sold since the 90' survived 15 years or more ?

My grandma fridge was 30 years old.

So yeah 60 years is an exception, but one that could just not happen today.

Speaking of fridges, they along with other large appliances, seem like the perfect products for repair rather than replacement. I imagine that most fridges that stop working do so because of the cooling system. Yet fridges, especially the higher end ones I see in stores, have a ton of large, precision machined metal pieces. The same can be said for washers/dryers. It seems like such a shame to throw something like that out when the cooling or motor breaks down.

Edit: I went to an antiques market in Long Beach a few months ago and there was a vendor displaying meticulously restored, and fully functional, fridges from the 50s-60s along with similar era stoves and ranges. They were fairly expensive, I assume the resto work is quite labor intensive, and since the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen, but it was great to see them continuing to function.

Minus one detail, old fridge might be using illegal cooling fluid/gas. So it might be a complex job to fix it.

You're right, I hadn't considered that. This thread makes me curious how hard replacing and modernizing the cooling system of an older fridge would be.

Google. "R12 to R134 conversion"

People do it on cars all the time. It would be harder on something that isn't designed to be disassembled but it's nor hard.

I understand your point though, minus legal/toxic issues, I like the idea of repairing/repurposing things.

Much of our machines have tiny motors that can be reused in about anything you want. Fridge compressors too.

I'm pretty sure the parts are mostly stamped. The parts that come out of the process are high quality, but it is a rapid process. This How It's Made for a fridge starts with the forming of the body:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE-TqX-FBeI

Yeah, "machined" was an embarrassingly poor choice of words on my part. Cool video.

>>the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen

Apart from the looks, why the hell would you want 60s kitchen appliances? Clunky, loud as hell, inefficient washing machines and dishwashers are something that people not only actively search for, but are willing to pay premium for?

That old Zoppas fridge inner design was actually interesting; a bit more cute, a bit more solid and thoughtful than the fridge I had to buy last year. It felt entirely made for pleasure of using it, instead of the recent ones who put cute LEDs to be like smartphones.

>Apart from the looks

I'm pretty sure the main reason is aesthetics. And to be clear, I only saw fridges and stoves/ranges, no washing machines or dishwashers.

There are actually quite a lot of very nice smaller MCM homes in the area, Long Beach specifically has some great ones, and they are becoming fairly popular to renovate while keeping the original design. Some are quite small, by modern standards, and I think maybe the smaller size of the appliances are also attractive, but I haven't been appliance shopping much and I've never done a kitchen renovation so don't take this as gospel.

Edit: messed up formatting

Hmmmm ok, fair enough.

I just think that if someone has the money then a company like AGA makes cookers which I'm sure have looked exactly the same for the past 60 years - so you get the vintage look but modern efficiency:

http://www.agaliving.com/aga-range-cookers/range-cookers

Those AGA stoves do indeed look great. This was a few months ago so my memory is a bit hazy, but I believe the prices for the smaller 24" cast iron stoves were around $3000, which I found to be pricey. The AGA cast iron stoves in that size range seem to be $7000+ here in the US, although this was a quick look at pricing so I may be off. I can see why someone looking for that style might go with a restored stove.

On another note, I can definitely see that modern​ appliances like dishwashers or washing machines/dryers would be much better and more effective than older versions. I do wonder if there's any noticable difference in comparing something like an old cast iron gas stove to a modern gas stove?

In my experience, the main thing that distinguishes gas stoves is how precise the flame control is and how much heat you can throw off on at least one burner. (And, I guess, the flame pattern although given decently thick-bottomed pans it doesn't really matter much.)

But in general, a gas stove is a ring of flame. There's not much to it. You need enough flame and you need to be able to control it. If you have those two things, an old stovetop is fine.

Ovens are more complicated and I'm not generally a fan of gas ovens.

I would love to give my wife a fully restored, cobalt blue O'Keefe-Merritt Grillevator stove (as part of a full kitchen remodel to boot, because it would require it). Unfortunately, we don't have gas in our neighborhood, and the nearest supply is at the corner of our street (I once asked the utility what it would cost to run a hookup to our house - it would be cheaper to buy another house).

Which is unfortunate - they are awesome looking and very functional units; there is nothing on the market like them today.

How much does it cost to install a large propane tank and convert the old appliance? Older appliances are easier to convert than newer ones.

And if it hasn't been restored yet, just convert as part of the refurbishment process.

> I imagine that most fridges that stop working do so because of the cooling system

What else is there in a fridge that could stop working except for the cooling system?

There are many other components in a modern fridge besides the cooling system, from thermostats to multiple circuit boards, and the rubber around the freezer door is heated.

Fridge issues are often caused by software bugs and are fixed by reprogramming the circuit board with newer firmware, or just by reinstalling the current version. This also applies to other house appliances with programmable parts, including washing machines.

The little light that helps you decide what delicious snacks you can munch on at midnight. :)

And on a less frivolous note: the rubber around the doors can perish/tear.

The door gasket is likely a 5 minute repair. Pulls out, snaps in.

I recently did it. The biggest issue was that the first one the company sent was dirty and poorly made.

That's good to know, actually. I have grown up with an "it's broken - chuck it and buy a new one" mentality, and the fact that it often costs a comparable amount: £30 for a repair guy to come out and "see if he can fix the problem", and then undefined labour costs and parts vs known cost of a new one doesn't help.

I suppose if you're chucking the old one out anyway, it's worth trying to fix it yourself for a bit, but I've always got time constraints (I'm a serial procrastinator), and I never do.

Well, that was kind of my point. I doubt many fridges break because the metal corrodes or the doors fall off. A fridge is made of quite a bit of material that isn't comprised of the cooling system, and it seems like a shame to throw it all out when the cooling system could be replaced.

That's a very particular spot to discuss. I often wonder what the hell is in a new washing machine. I suspect that most of the new machines mostly give you a bit newer dashboard and a few program options.

All in all, if house appliance were designed to be modular, you could keep a piece and use another one with it.

Alas I don't want it to end up like the computer world where standard competes and forces other problems.

Maybe a middle ground with blocks that aren't too coupled/soldered and more modder communities to discuss how to adapt etc

You would need standard form factors. Like my ATX tower computer case, which hosted a grand total of three different motherboards before I ended up with some free cap-rot era Dell workstations. After re-capping their boards, I discovered they were not ATX compliant, and couldn't be moved to any other case. My high-quality ATX case thus sits idle, awaiting the day when I get a new board for my newer mini-ITX case, and make it my backup machine.

Those non-standard Dell cases and power supplies will go into the trash.

It's more economical to recycle the metal parts and built new appliances than to reuse existing bodies. There is no technical uniformity in refrigerator designs, so retrofitting each one becomes bespoke engineering rather than simple assembly. Costs would skyrocket.

It would probably be more efficient (from an economic as well as an environmental standpoint) to force manufacturers to design appliances that can be fully disassembled and recycled with a minimum of effort (in terms of labour and energy). That way the raw materials used stay in use with minimal loss, and buying a new one won't be a waste at all.

People will not fork over loads of money for restoration and bespoke craftsmanship because they think its economical.

Restoration is purely a design/aesthetic choice for a rarefied high-end market.

Not necessarily. In my own case, if I had known, I'd have hacked my now dead fridge. The new ones are below it in every department. The market can aim at stupid if it provides sales and profit; while old models were designed to be actually useful.

We even asked with a two doors large fridge was the same price as vertical-stack slightly thinner one, the salesman ended up admitting that it was because it's designed to be more practical (better volumes).

We still have a 1995 fridge that runs continuously and never had a single problem with it. I suspect even the bulbs are still original. And no, it wasn't an expensive fancy model - just a cheap Electrolux larder fridge.

So...22 years and counting? What I mean is that it doesn't prove absolutely anything. Our electrolux fridge might survive another 40 years. Or it might break tomorrow.

I would lean on the side of that 60-year old fridge being an extremely weird exception, rather than a rule or proof of longevity of old stuff.

You know I didn't mean to say all lived 60 years, but more a "we were wrong on the limit". I've never heard of even 40 years lifespan. At best once a 30yo washing machine. The usual is 20 years (and tears). 3x

That certainly has never been my experience. Oh, I've had repairs now and then. Ice makers are notoriously finicky in freezers. And there was one apparently designed PCB for the display in my oven. (A remanufactured board seems to have finally fixed things.)

But I've got a dryer that was old when I moved into my house 20 years ago. And everything except the washer--which also was in the house when I arrived--was installed shortly after I moved in. I think all my dad's appliances, except for the microwave, are at least as old.

Probably between lower prices in general and more delicate electronics the situation is worse today but major appliances really do last for quite a while most of the time. (TVs have been far worse for me but, then, there tend to be reasons to upgrade them over time.)

Until two years ago I had a Miele washing machine that I bought used from an old lady for 20 € (an inlet pipe was broken but could easily be fixed), and I used it for almost four years before getting a new one and selling the old one to the next owner (it still worked perfectly). And while the new machine is more efficient in terms of energy and water use, the quality of the results is not much better actually. The old machine was built in 1983 and weighed close to 100 kg, with almost all exterior parts realized as enameled metal and all mechanical parts built with (seemingly) large tolerances. The new machine, on the other hand (which is also a Miele) sports many plastic parts and (obviously) is much more complex on the inside, with more control programs and a digital display (it is also significantly lighter, which might be good or bad). I'm not saying that the new model is worse than the old one (it definitely has its merit), I just find it awesome that Miele built machines with such a large lifespan, and I hope they'll continue doing so. We'll see if the new one also lasts 30 years ;)

I've had multiple fridges which were two or three decades old, through renting prefurnished or buying along with a home. I've never had a fridge break down on me. It seems reasonable for a fridge made today to last 60 years.

Of course it could happen today... If you buy it at the same inflation-adjusted price. Drop a few thousand on a Miele and you've got a strong chance it will last 60 years.

You are right on that. Buying this thing was quite a luxury for them.

How many would have lasted years longer, but the owners decided to upgrade to better features?

Realistically, those old devices should have been shot in the head years ago. Energy wasters, space wasters, toxic materials used in their manufacture, environmental hazards.

We recently had to replace a built-in fridge that broke after 6 years. Repairing was not an option; it had to be replaced. This was an expensive A brand (AEG) fridge that was supposedly very energy efficient, but it seems it had been installed wrong and probably wasted way too much energy.

The fridge I had before that was my parents' old stand-alone fridge which was 20 years old when I got it, and was still working perfectly fine 8 years later when we replaced it because we bought a new kitchen with built-in fridge. It never had any problems.

I recently came across a recommendation to replace old fridges because they were energy inefficient, but I have my doubts. I do think stand-alone fridges are probably always going to be better than built-in ones. Easier access, easier to repair, and no issues with somebody installing it incorrectly.

All in all, the issue is too much hearsay and not enough ways to check anything. Maybe old fridge are less efficient than new ones, but for what reason ? electric conversion ? bad radiator ? stupid motor ??

How these built in fridge done ? how many ? (I guess a standalone is made in more numbers so they have more know-how and mileage)

Also brands are deceitful after some time. At once they meant skills (say 60-90s SONY) but after a while, on mainstream product it's mostly a tag. For instance I found an AEG beard trimmer and was thrilled because AEG means gold in my eyes, when opened, it was a generic chinese PCB / assembly with a cute and sexy AEG case (you pay for the rubber).

> Maybe old fridge are less efficient than new ones, but for what reason ? electric conversion ? bad radiator ? stupid motor ??

Motors are simple. My blind guess is that it's a mixture of improved insulation and improved heat flow.

Though speaking of heat flow, stand-alone fridges always come with requirements that they need a certain amount of space for the heat to escape the rear of the fridge. Builtin fridges don't have that heat. I now find myself wondering whether builtin fridges can ever be as efficient as standalone ones.

And you're right that it can be advantageous in the short term for quality companies to cut costs by cutting corners while coasting on their reputation. Who knows, AEG might be doing that right now. Your AEG beard trimmer makes me regret we didn't go with Bosch or Miele after all.

Yeah I recently read about thermodynamics and understand it needs a way to push heat away otherwise the gradient will lower.

I also read about people plugging water circuit on top to tranfer heat into a hot water container, it's probably useful for a hot shower..

there are many examples of mechanical SLRs from the 60s that still work and require only about an hour of reading instructions and watching Youtube to restore to mint condition.

There are a ton of Asahi Pentax cameras that come with a classic 55mm Takumar lens for $20-30 on Yahoo Auctions (Japan) right now.

Mechanical cameras are wonderful. I shoot with a 1960s Rollei and a 1970s Olympus, and it's a delight. No PCBs or transistors to worry about, I expect to keep using them for many years to come.

My guess is that early versions of products are over-engineered and therefore have long lifespans. The manufacturers haven't yet learnt where they can cut costs without risking immediate breakdown. So the best time to buy, say, a microwave would have been around 1980...

> So the best time to buy, say, a microwave would have been around 1980...

Actually, 1980s consumer microwaves weren't much better than today's microwave ovens as far a quality is concerned. They were roughly comparable.

If you want a microwave that will last - then or now - get a commercial unit. Not only will it last longer, it will be much easier to use (most have a single knob, and a single temperature - high), and much easier to clean (stainless steel, wipe down interior and exterior with few places for gunk and crumbs to hide, no turntable with gaps and parts that can break, etc).

The two main brands in this arena are the Amana Radar Range, and the various models Sharp makes.

The best way to figure out what to buy is to talk to restaurant managers about what they use, and ask them how theirs have worked out. You'll want to look for the regular sized microwaves (they do make commercial units that scale upwards of 10 kilowatts with multiple magnetrons for large-scale cooking/reheating - these are not what you are interested in for a home).

Another option to look into (if you have the counterspace and don't mind the commercial look) is to get a TurboChef; I don't know how to explain these machines, other than that they are something of a combination broiler, convection oven, and microwave system designed to cook food in record time, but without the downsides of the individual units. For instance, you can have the equivalent of a nice seared and grilled steak in a few minutes (from cold) - versus what it would take conventionally. If you eaten at a restaurant, chances are high that you've eaten a meal made with a TurboChef.

Thank you.

Reminds me of the TV I grew up with. Grandma bought it in the late 50's/early 60's and it was color enabled, even though color television was not here yet. The fact that she bought a television that would not have it's full feature set available for a few years is telling, they expected it to last. It was given to my parents when they bought their house in the mid 70's and remained in place until 1999, it was replaced for the 2000 Olympics (and had awful picture quality by then).

A few more years and it would have entertained a fourth generation, but I think lasting 4 decades and surviving long enough to play N64 games was quite an achievement.