The usual boneyard model these days immediately cut off the high-value parts for themselves (cat converters, rims, batteries or tires if they're newer, maybe body parts), drop it on cinder blocks for 3 months for U-pullers to take off other parts, and then crush them.
(This is why I buy mass-model Toyotas, easy to fix, always spare parts, always a buyer)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
Totally wrong, it's only 20%
Think about it - if most of emission wad in production, electric cars would make no sence, they have higher production footprint and lower running footprint
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/201...
The footprints can be reduced at scale over time, whereas these cars will be continuously producing more pollution as they age.
Pardon me, but isn't that the definition of 'discounting'?. As in, you're ignoring that portion of the carbon footprint.
Which arguably supports driving older cars longer because not only does it reduce the overall frequency of car manufacturer, it also pushes that manufacturing process further into the future when the environmental impact of manufacturing a replacement would be lower.
- No bluetooth.
- No touchscreens.
- Really, no screens at all.
- Cabled audio input.
A rearview camera is a good thing, except it still manages to make the car worse overall because the manufacturers somehow can't stop themselves from using the screen to display other things that should have been displayed in another way.
Manufacturers definitely went wrong putting important controls in the touch screen. That’s a usability nightmare. I’d consider the rest to be personal preference.
As far as the "questionable utility goes", I frankly love it. I love just walking up to my car and having it unlock for me. Sure, it's not much, but it's kind of the equivalent of Touch ID or Face ID on a phone these days. Sure, entering a PIN code isn't the hardest thing in the world, but it's the little things that make life just a smidge less annoying, right?
You didn't address my point regarding their ubiquity now, so I feel like you kinda decided to only address half my point...
I'm not sure I'd consider permanent connectivity and the related telemetry and OTA updates to be personal preference. These are often being used in ways contrary to the owner's or driver's interests, from invading privacy to "licensing" vehicle features that can be disabled later, and they come with significant security and safety risks.
Matter of perspective.. the only thing you list that I'd consider a concern to investigate is the "dash lit up like a chrismas tree". Everything else you mention is cheap replacement work.
The warning lights could be just a few cheap sensors but could also be very expensive ECU replacements. So that one I'd have to dig deeper but the rest wouldn't bother me to buy such a car and fix it up in a weekend.
They maintain value because a Sienna that's had an easy 100k miles with by the book maintenance is in much nicer shape and inherently has more life left than a Pacifica that was rode hard and put away wet over the same time period and distance.
I might spend $1500 on my 12 year old car (which is "only" worth 4200 according to KBB), instead of spending lot more money to get a different used car with unknown issues or a hefty monthly payment.
Same here. Bought a Volvo which is more expensive and has a more powerful engine than the Opel that I had before for 16 years, I have even added some options to the insurance coverage compared to before, but now I pay 300$ less than before => of course I'm happy, but it's weird, didn't expect this... .
Maybe the car's brand has as well something to do with it? Maybe some statistics show that for some reason Opel drivers cause more damages or whatever... . Misterious... .
Theft premium stays the same, even though replacement cost has gone down and it's less valuable as a target. You'd think other cars becoming safer on average would decrease the risk of getting into accidents at their fault and at my fault, but the comprehensive premium stays the same on a now older car.
I find it hard to believe that auto thieves somehow avoid the equally dense town 1hr down the highway.
Your calculation is silly and so many people fall into this trap. If you want to calculate whether a repair is worth it you have to either calculate cost per mile or cost per month. If a repair costs 1000€ and buying a new car would get you 200€ monthly payments and the repaired car survives 5 months then you just broke even and every month after that is profit. Your new car is never going to make you a profit.
The only thing you lost is the opportunity cost of not driving a new car.
When people say "where the cost of the repair exceeds the value of the vehicle." what they really mean is that they want a new car and there is nothing wrong with that but it is absolutely not cheaper than maintaining the old car a little bit longer.
I don’t think they’re saying “get a new car with a monthly loan.”
Assuming we're talking economic cars (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, etc), it is very difficult to imagine spending $3K a year in maintenance. Maybe once in a decade if you're super unlucky.
These are cars that'll go on nearly forever on just an oil change a year (less than $100) and belts and tires every so-many years (depending how much you drive).
There is no math in the world that'll make a new car cheaper to own and operate than an old reliable brand car. If you enjoy newer cars, enjoy! But it won't be cheaper.
It can never be cheaper to have a new car. Do the math objectively and this is clear.
It can be more predictable, if you value that. Lease a new car, you know exactly what you're paying every month and for how long. Sure. But it'll be a lot more than an old car.
> You can believe that if you want
I don't believe, I have all my car expenses tracked since the early 90s so I know what I spend. In those 30 years I've mostly had cheap reliable old cars and a few new cars. The new cars have their joy, but they are a huge money pit. Currently my newest car is 17 years old and the oldest is 33 years old.
No new cars for me ever again, I let others pay the depreciation so I can get nearly-free transportation.
If you wanted cheap transportation, there's nothing cheaper to own than a ~$3K-4K used Honda/Mazda/Toyota. You obviously cannot have 1K/year in depreciation on a car that cost so little. New cars will be guaranteed to depreciate way more than that though.
The strategy for cheap transportation is buy that reliable car for 3-4K, drive it for ten+ years with minimal maintenance, insure for liability only. At the end of the years you can sell it for pretty much same as the buy price if you kept it clean. You can easily verify this by looking at craigslist prices for, say, a Honda Civic from the 90s to the 00s. A clean running car will only depreciate to a certain point and no more. If you buy it at the bottom of the depreciation curve you won't lose any money in depreciation. For some models, if you hold them for a while, it'll actually appreciate.
A Citroen is not a Honda/Mazda/Toyota. With an esoteric car like that, I don't doubt parts are expensive and reliability is low.
Your experience may be that used cars are cheap. My experinece over 20 years is that’s not always the case. I’ve had good used cars and awful used cars, the awful ones costing more than my current lease even before you get into the less concrete value of reliability and comfort.
I don’t deny that used cars can be cheaper. I simply state that’s not always the case.
That's hardly a catastrophic failure, it'll just leak oil and you can schedule repairs at convenience. Having replaced a few, it's also a cheap part.
Friday afternoon. Although to be fair it was gray ATF smoke and not steam.
I stopped and asked the guy what was up because I probably could have helped if it was easy and the details of the situation favored doing so.
Turns out "muh million mile 4Runner" had sprung a leak in the transmission cooling plumbing. Based on the age of the vehicle I decided it would be better for him to get it towed than have me attempt a field repair so I lectured him on the basics of how an automatic transmission works and why he would be maxing an expensive gamble with bad odds if he were to pour a couple quarts in it and try to make it a few miles to where he was going rather than tow it.
New cars aren't, or at least weren't, always this massive financial blunder people claim.
If it ends up costing you a few grand more per decade, why not lease, live within bumper to bumper warranties, and create the vehicles people actually seem to want, used ones.
All told I am probably spending about 1/2 or less what you are per decade by swapping leases every 2.5 years vs buying new and keeping it until it’s not worth maintaining. And that’s with buying nice new cars and always getting it repaired at the dealership. Which conversely means you can also drive a nicer model at the same price.
New cars remind you every year how much you paid for them....
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1129864_nissan-leaf-lea...
Basically unobtainium lease rates outside of USA. In Canada, I'm seeing ~US$400/month for 60 month lease on a Leaf, and 40% more on a 3y lease: https://www.leasecosts.ca/en/cars/nissan/leaf-s-electric/202...
I feel like leasing in the UK is not a good deal, at least to me. I think a fair amount of people outside of tech get a company car allowance that probably props up prices a bit - I don't see why anyone else would pay these rates unless they absolutely must have a new car Vs a used one
I don't need the absolute latest and greatest computer safety features. Some of them sound nice but if it has side+passenger airbags and seatbelts then that is good enough for me.
On the flip side, one of my family members gets a new car every year through some kind of special leasing program. Not only does that seem wasteful from a number of angles but how do you not get attached to a car you love driving? Once I find a car I like then I don't want to give it up unless maintenance becomes prohibitively expensive and even then it can be tough.