So I didn’t want to give the company name because it’s just an anecdote, but it’s from a company that is usually in the top off people’s minds when asked about car manufacturers who are synonymous with quality.

I don’t think the Sprinter vs Transit example is a very illustrative one. Personally, I’d rather have a used Ford or Dodge simply because the life cycle cost of a Sprinter is insane where I live due to maintenance costs. They have similar base prices new but with any features the Sprinter quickly outpaces (ha) a similar American van in initial cost as well. I don’t think they are apples to apples.

It didn’t work for the Big Three because at the time, Japanese were trying to differentiate themselves and they did it on the quality front. I tend to think it was more about complacency than planned obsolescence.

I think people generally look at mechanical and electronics very differently. People often look at simplicity in mechanical designs as a feature, where I think the opposite is true in electronics. I’m skeptical that people will be buying EVs expecting to drive the same one for 30 years, but we’ll see.

> So I didn’t want to give the company name because it’s just an anecdote, but it’s from a company that is usually in the top off people’s minds when asked about car manufacturers who are synonymous with quality.

I'll take this as a non answer then.

I’m sorry, I don’t think you asked an actual question. I know speculation is a hobby on forums but I don’t think the precise name adds much to the discussion in this case

You the one dismissing that a drive train that lasts two to three times longer than a conventional gasoline one will have no effect on cars lifespan. And thus no effect on capital expenses.

That seems to go against what I know about basic accounting.

You’re extrapolating a bit here. I do think it will have an effect of life cycle costs just not to the extent that cars will last that long or people will suddenly start keeping cars for 30 years. That goes against basic reliability theory as well as human behavior.

You have parts in an ICE vehicle that can last 30 years or longer. But the reliability of your vehicle is the totality of the overall reliability. The drivetrain is a major constituent so obviously iimproving reliability will increase the overall design life. But it won’t bring the other components up to the same. For example, my last car was replaced because the suspension was rotting from harsh winters. The drivetrain was still perfect, but it didn’t make sense to maintain/keep it considering the depreciated value of the car.

Besides that, many people look at cars as a status symbol rather than strictly on utilitarian means. I doubt many people will keep their EVs long, just like most don’t keep their perfectly working cell phones for a decade. The current stock price of TSLA seems to indicate most don’t think the market will shrink this much

I think our difference of opinion is based on, you have no experience owning cars older then 10 years. And I have experience with cars older than 20 years. So you aren't familiar with that breaks on older cars and what doesn't. Nor do you know how much it costs to fix the various things that break.

So for me imagining going from 20 year year old cars to 30 year old ones is not a stretch. Where for you it's going from 5 years to 30.

After some quick mental accounting, 9 of my last 11 vehicles (cars/trucks/vans/motorcycles) were over 10 years old when I bought them. One of the remaining was 7 years old at purchase. My current vehicles are 7 and 26 years old. I also realize yours and my car preferences are not representative of the general public.

I’ve worked as a controls engineer at an automotive assembly plant side-by-side with quality engineers. I’ve also worked as a reliability engineer.

Methinks you make too many assumptions :-)