[HN Gopher] Toyota to remanufacture cars up to three times in UK
___________________________________________________________________
Toyota to remanufacture cars up to three times in UK
Author : clouddrover
Score : 181 points
Date : 2022-01-08 13:46 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.autocar.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.autocar.co.uk)
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Where the improvement is no longer rapid, I'd prefer the
| longevity and repair model for things like phones, electronics,
| and cars.
|
| It keeps a pool of skill locally and of course done correctly it
| reduces unnecessary garbage.
|
| There's a real temptation for companies to follow the Apple
| model, however, where the product is designed to be
| unserviceable; or the cost is prohibitively expensive.
| nikkinana wrote:
| yua_mikami wrote:
| Does this get around restrictions on new sales of more polluting
| vehicles (i.e. non-electric) after 2030?
| gambiting wrote:
| No, how would it? They just sell the same car that's been
| refurbished - it's a second hand car, not a new one. The ban is
| on new vehicles only.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| That's how some companies were going around RoHS. Buying old
| or damaged stock and rebuilding and selling as "new".
| gambiting wrote:
| Well I don't think they can legally sell it as new.
|
| Land rover actually did something similar with the V8
| Defender, they wanted to build one for the 50th anniversary
| of the defender but there was no chance a "new" defender
| model would have been been able to go through regulatory
| approval on that old chassis, so instead they bought
| hundreds(thousands?) of old second hand defenders off the
| market, restored them to factory condition and retrofitted
| them with a brand new V8 engine, gearbox and interior. But
| those were never sold as "new", your V5C document would
| always show it as originally registered as whatever the car
| used to be before the refurbishment.
| alfor wrote:
| They talk about 'reusing' car up to 10 years!
|
| In Canada Toyota car are used for about 20 years without the
| manufacturer involvement.
|
| There is very few thing to 'fix' of a less than 10y Toyota in a
| climate without salt on the road.
| dharmab wrote:
| A few things I can think of:
|
| - Suspension rebuild. The car will function with old suspension
| but the ride quality will be poor.
|
| - Servicing of engine internals. A car would be down on power
| significantly after 10 years of wear and can be restored by
| adjust valve clearances, replacing seals and piston rings,
| cleaning parts, etc.
|
| - Replacement of hybrid/EV battery. This is already something
| owners of old Priuses do to restore their cars' range.
|
| - Repair of damaged interiors, especially seat bolstering. Also
| deep cleaning and ozone treatment.
|
| - Repainting, especially if the car was stored outdoors where
| UV light wore the paint
|
| - Hardware and software updates for the infotainment system
| MrFoof wrote:
| >Servicing of engine internals. A car would be down on power
| significantly after 10 years of wear and can be restored by
| adjust valve clearances, replacing seals and piston rings,
| cleaning parts, etc.
|
| This has been functionally debunked by hundreds and hundreds
| of YouTube videos by dozens of channels who buy bangers and
| put them on a dyno.
|
| At 10 years, usually only 3-5% power reduction. 20 years?
| More like 5-6%.
|
| I'm not talking about spring chickens which were babied by
| retirees, either. I'm talking cars that clearly have had a
| hard life with tons of deferred maintenance.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Do all of these and you are going to lose money on that
| operation.
| dharmab wrote:
| Suspension is a few hundred plus labor. Prius battery
| replacement is $1500 plus labor. Paint can be done
| efficiently at scale in a factory.
|
| Ship the car overseas for the work and labor costs could be
| quite low.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I wondered if they were talking about battery powered/electric
| vehicles, and just forgot to mention that part? But it is a bit
| weird. My Toyota Corolla is 8 years old and runs perfectly
| without having been "remanufactured" once, and my experience is
| by no means unusual (from Toyota, anyway).
| Lio wrote:
| We regularly salt our roads in winter in the UK even if it's
| not as cold as Canada.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Wait until they make the eventual switch to liquid magnesium
| chloride. Amazing for roads and ice. Pretty awful for rust.
| posguy wrote:
| Here in Seattle the DOT is proud to salt the roads, in
| spite of the damage it causes to plants, cars and the dirty
| runoff it generates.
|
| Considering we didn't let a current mayor make it to the
| runoffs over his mishandling of snowmageddon a decade ago,
| I don't think SDOT will be considering modern salt
| alternatives anytime soon.
|
| It is kinda odd, in snowier rural Oregon they just used red
| rock cinders to deliver snow and ice traction effectively.
| But salt seems to be a lower effort solution?
|
| https://www.theurbanist.org/2019/02/06/seattles-salt-
| addicti...
| mantas wrote:
| Different use cases.
|
| Salt works great when it's re-freezing back and forth
| multiple times a day. Stone chips are great when it
| freezes once and stays for a long time.
| coryrc wrote:
| Without a sufficient number of snow plows, they can't
| keep the snow on roads down to an acceptable amount, so
| just adding traction elements doesn't help. They never
| even plowed the almost-arterial near my house, let alone
| my actual road. At least with salt it will keep the snow
| softer and more likely to be pushed away by traffic.
| mantas wrote:
| And that mushy mass won't freeze, unless it's -13c or
| colder
| sharpneli wrote:
| Salting is useless if it gets too cold. So it's only done at
| max -7C or so (if memory serves right). Here in Finland the
| southern parts are a salth bath. But the colder northern
| parts are not salted, and that shows in the average rust
| levels of cars.
| samwillis wrote:
| Salting of roads is only done a very narrow band of
| environments, the UK sitting in the middle of it. If it's too
| cold, only a couple of degrees lower than a UK winter, then
| the salted melt water will re-freeze into deadly black ice. I
| believe the UK is fairly unique in how much we salt roads,
| most other countries will grit roads but not salt them.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Yeah I had a good laugh at that too. I don't even look at cars
| less than 10 years old when I shop for a "new" car. Let someone
| else take the depreciation hit and find all the lemons. I'll
| pick up a survivor for a tenth of what the car cost when new.
| [deleted]
| jacquesm wrote:
| This is my strategy now too, but I add another decade. That
| gives me a car with less stuff that can break.
| specialist wrote:
| A step towards selling mileage as a service. Eli Goldratt would
| be proud.
|
| Something like BMW's Car2Go is the logical endpoint. I'm curious
| why that effort seems stalled.
|
| Maybe Tesla's move into auto insurance is the better path.
| Financially. Free capital, like Buffett did with Geico.
| ezconnect wrote:
| Yes, the sellers dream of selling the same item three times and
| making profit three times.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Would love it if they offered a plug-in hybrid upgrade for my
| 2018 RAV4 Hybrid.
| sharpneli wrote:
| Might be tricky, mostly due to how the transaxle works. Even if
| you find a space for the battery (the 2021 Rav4 PHEV has bit
| less ground clearance) the electrical motor of that generation
| might not be able to drive it on faster speeds without the ICE
| on. For normal city driving it might work just fine though,
| kinda like the old custom PHEV swaps for priuses.
| throwaway4220 wrote:
| I'm interested to go down this route - I remember they had
| Prius plug in kits in the 2000s but they were third party
| heisenbit wrote:
| Cars are currently used beyond 10 years which is more than the 3
| cycles talked about here. Almost reads like a scheme to cut of
| the long tail.
| bnt wrote:
| More like keeping cars which are intended to be leased/rented
| in service longer.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| And make Toyota more money.
|
| At least here, these leased vehicles are sold as second-hand,
| and often sold once or twice again after that. This works
| fairly well, and most vehicles live a fairly long life.
| However Toyota only really makes money on the first sale.
|
| By taking the cars in and refurbishing them, Toyota can make
| money on the second and third sale.
|
| Good thing is this might make cars be around for longer,
| which can have environmental benefits. However one potential
| downside is that older cars are usually fundamentally less
| safe than newer cars, so it might be detrimental to Vision
| Zero[1]. I doubt the refurb would drastically change safety
| features like crash structures, number of airbags and
| similar.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
| Normal_gaussian wrote:
| Toyota injects itself into second and third sales via
| helping their dealers do countrywide reselling and then
| offering finance products on it. I assume most
| manufacturers do similar. When you buy through this you get
| a Toyota warranty and guarantee, as well as a serviced
| vehicle and confidence around inspections/descriptions.
|
| The remanufacture stuff sounds a lot more like they reckon
| there is an ability to increase the quality of these
| resales - which is highly likely. BEVs want battery
| replace/refurbs but most second hand vehicles have a snag
| list that is too much of a hassle for dealers to handle,
| but isn't that expensive. They are also then given
| upselling opportunity (towbar / reversing cam / etc.) which
| would add new margin (and many buyers want).
|
| Of course the main driver is that we are going to soon have
| large scale sticker shock - going from ICE to EV is PSPSPS,
| particularly for second/third owner. To lose market share
| and finance here in the next two decades is likely for any
| manufacturer, and market share is their main value prop for
| shareholders.
| hijinks wrote:
| it really sounds to me that car companies want a subscription
| model. Where I will never be able to own a car but I rent one
| for the rest of my life.
| sxg wrote:
| That sounds great, and I can't wait! Car ownership is a
| massive pain and time suck for me. Finding and paying for
| parking, insurance, and maintenance are huge costs in terms
| of both money and time. Not to mention the fact that my car
| spends 99% of its life doing absolutely nothing while also
| representing my single biggest depreciating asset, greatest
| risk to my health, and substantial cost to the environment. I
| would gladly offload as much of that as I can to the
| manufacturer in exchange for a monthly subscription that lets
| me use a car whenever I need (either rental car or ride-
| sharing model).
| darkstar999 wrote:
| Zipcar. Doesn't work well with a regular commute.
| sofixa wrote:
| What you're describing sounds an awful lot like public
| transit.
| ghaff wrote:
| What you're describing sounds like using rental and
| taxis/"ride shares"/transit for everything which you can do
| today if your use case/location supports it. Involving a
| car manufacturer won't change anything fundamental.
| est31 wrote:
| Yeah this is what the great reset is about. It has advantages
| and disadvantages. Advantage is less incentives to produce
| short lived products. Disadvantage is that individuals have
| way less control over things.
| ghaff wrote:
| If we ever get to actual autonomous driving, that seems
| inevitable. A manufacturer can't be expected to own liability
| unless they also own maintenance and upgrades.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Don't worry, they'll find a way to make it subscription
| based. But also, making the mfg own liability for self-
| driving is a really interesting topic that will change
| automotive.
|
| As an automotive EE, I'm much more skeptical about
| autonomous than almost every other person here, but I look
| forward to being driven to work just the same.
| ghaff wrote:
| Oh, I'm as skeptical as anyone--at least outside of
| certain defined conditions like interstates in good
| weather. But I don't see how manufacturers _can 't_ own
| liability (or something like the vaccine pool). If you
| sell me a car that's billed/approved as fully autonomous
| (fully, not in the Tesla FSD sense), it sure as hell
| isn't on me if it kills someone.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > certain defined conditions like interstates in good
| weather.
|
| That's where it is for me. I've been around the world and
| driven in all conditions. I don't buy blinding whiteout
| snow, other drivers (Michigan esp)... without vehicle to
| infrastructure and to vehicle, I don't buy it.
|
| I think the solution to both our topics is it'll be
| "mostly self driving", maybe that only helps a little for
| liability.
| jsodw wrote:
| "You will own nothing and you will be happy."
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| But surely that business model has already existed for
| decades. It's called leasing.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| This is painful to read; Alexa how do I get a thought out of
| my head?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Don't read this then: https://www.volvocars.com/uk/care-by-
| volvo/
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Goodbye bangernomics. Let's hope we do something about the dire
| public transport in the UK to fill the gap.
| Lio wrote:
| Better support for local ebike use would go a long way to
| filling the gap.
|
| Things like good, secure parking and segregated paths.
| _dain_ wrote:
| It's getting better, slowly.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| This is a pretty innovative idea, and would add good value to the
| second and third round owners of vehicles.
|
| I wonder if it would ease depreciation too, making vehicles
| bought on PCP more affordable, and therefore shifting the bias of
| sales more towards new. That would help achieve the target if
| getting ICE car volumes down.
| fnord77 wrote:
| > In order to extend its contact time with customers "at least to
| 10 years", Toyota will take vehicles back to the factory after
| their first use cycle (ie a typical lease contract) and refurbish
| them "to the best standard" to ensure the second user has as new
| a vehicle as possible.
|
| I don't understand this. They're saying they'll refurbish
| customer cars starting at 3 years. But modern cars are still look
| and run like new after 3 years. Also, a few years ago, the
| average age of a used car in the US was 9 years. Probably greater
| than that now. Without refurbishment.
| thaeli wrote:
| They might mean "put new upholstery and interior plastics in"
| which, yeah, an off lease vehicle isn't going to be brand new
| inside.
|
| As someone who runs vehicles for 20+ years, while interior
| durability has improved, I still do find myself needing to do a
| midlife reupholstering.
| tompccs wrote:
| Ironically something which makes this much less viable (unless
| the cars are exported after being refreshed) are the ever-
| shifting goalposts of EU emission standards. This is
| fundamentally what limits the usable life of a car in the UK -
| many cars end up on the second hand market not because they don't
| run anymore but because parking and congestion charge costs in
| certain cities (ie, London), make the marginal cost of buying a
| new car (which has better emissions ratings and therefore lower
| tax,etc) and selling the old one much lower.
| switch007 wrote:
| I think this is overstating the issue, given how relatively few
| places in the UK have low emissions zones tied to EU emission
| standards.
|
| Also, as we are no longer in the EU, I would take a guess that
| many of those EU emission standards are now UK standards. I'd
| take another wild guess that they are very similar in a lot of
| respects, and if so, going forward, you can now blame the UK
| government entirely, instead of the EU
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| My read is that Toyota is trying to find a way to continue to
| make money from sales but without strictly producing new cars.
| Overall, if this program is not extending the useful life of
| their products, it's not a gain for the environment.
|
| Toyotas have positive resale value up to an average of 210,000
| [0]. After that point the cost of maintaining them is
| (theoretically) greater than the resale value.
|
| It seems they are targeting a refresh about every 3 years, and
| doing that 2 times. The lifetime would then come in at about 10
| years, which is right in the ballpark of 200,000 miles.
|
| [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2014/05/31/toyota-
| lead...
| posguy wrote:
| 20k miles a year is significantly above average, most car
| insurers in the USA were quoting policies based on 1000 miles a
| month or 10k miles a year this year, same as when I last
| shopped around in 2018.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| golemotron wrote:
| Great way to charge new car prices for old cars. This will become
| normal.
| manomanowicz wrote:
| Given the rapid improvements being made in electric power trains,
| this seems like a no brainer. Take for example a 1st generation
| Nissan leaf which is now being retrofitted with newer battery
| packs (with improved cell technology) [1]. Currently this is
| being done by third party companies but I imagine manufacturers
| are looking to capitalise on this as volumes of electric cars
| increase. They are definitely best placed to design and install
| such an upgrade.
|
| There has been a general rise in battery electric drive train
| retrofitting in classic cars from 60s and 70s so perhaps we could
| see Toyota refit 3 or 5 year old gasoline/hybrids with electric
| powertrains as consumer preferences or emissions regulations
| change.
|
| While Toyota have the car, they could also update a whole host of
| things to add value. Interiors and car technology seem to date
| horribly so getting the latest in car entertainment or driver
| assistance systems could be another potential revenue stream.
| Cars also undergo 'mid cycle refresh' so Toyota could do
| something as simple as bumper updates and swap out newer body
| parts. Generally the under body remains unchanged in a vehicle
| lifecycle so swapping out headlights and a bumper would be
| trivial.
|
| The car industry has for a while been in a existential crisis
| regarding projections of falling sales and lower revenues. First
| it was the rise of ride sharing removing the need for personal
| vehicles, next it was the autonomous driving and now it is
| electric vehicles with longer service lives and improved
| reliability. For auto manufacturers, they have been looking for
| other revenue streams. Recently it has been the growth in
| services - namely subscription services promising vehicle feature
| updates and access to 'connected' features. The re-maufacture of
| vehicles with improved battery packs and the electric drive
| trains along with other vehicle updates is just another area they
| could create new revenue streams.
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4nS_tSQiVQ
| dfee wrote:
| Do you have more info about retrofitting classic cars with EV
| technology? This is a very neat concept, but I've not got the
| best Google-fu to break into this domain, it seems.
| decryption wrote:
| I don't know where you're located, but in Australia there's a
| handful of workshops that'll convert a classic car to
| electric.
|
| e.g: http://ev-torque.com.au/ https://www.evmachina.com/
| https://www.ozdiyelectricvehicles.com/
| https://www.evclassic.com.au/
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| This almost reads like that chip shortages will actually continue
| to at least 2025 if not longer.
| whazor wrote:
| What about potential (carbon) import taxes? If you reuse the
| frame and other parts in the car it saves you quite some money,
| plus there might be recycling subsidies. Also a battery only
| lasts 8 years while other parts of the car could easily last 30
| years.
| [deleted]
| posguy wrote:
| There are plenty of EVs on the road with batteries at 8 years
| old, some of which have seen minimal range degradation, like
| most Fiat 500e owners.
|
| For those cars that do suffer from range degradation (eg:
| 2011 Nissan Leafs), battery swapping has become common, and
| at a reasonable $3500 and up price point:
| https://evridesllc.com/battery-upgrade-service/
| intricatedetail wrote:
| My friend company got estimate for crucial chips back in stock
| at spring 2027. They had to cancel many products.
| aronpye wrote:
| Environmentally probably a good idea. From a consumer rights
| point of view this is going to be bad.
|
| The cynical side of me thinks this is just a way to control the
| after-market and eliminate third party repair shops and
| mechanics.
|
| A better way would be to design their cars with right to repair
| in mind, that way the environment and the consumer benefits.
| samwillis wrote:
| This is clearly about BEVs, they are much harder for a local
| mechanic to "overhaul" when the key component, the battery,
| reaches the end of its life.
|
| I think its great that they are thinking ahead like this, it's
| also good for the communities where Toyota have factories in the
| UK. There has been so much talk about how the lifetime of a BEV
| is much longer than a ICE, bringing them back to the factories
| for "re-manufacturing" helps to ensure jobs in communities that
| have been badly hurt by the automotive industry before.
|
| I suspect this is where the whole industry is going to go, the
| smaller local mechanics are sadly going to disappear but if we
| see the remanufacturing happening in the countries of use that's
| at least a plus.
|
| The other thing this does though is further entrench the
| manufactures in the second hand market and tie yet more customers
| to their financing plans.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Wanted to add, that this also helps the manufacture keep control
| of the value in the battery's which is probably the largest
| single const in a BEV. Remanufacturing the battery's themselves
| will be massively important.
|
| It will be interesting to see how this effects British Car
| Auctions (the company) who have a near monopoly on the second
| hand market.
| rjsw wrote:
| There is maybe also a market for "re-manufacturing" ICE cars as
| battery ones.
| samwillis wrote:
| As much as that sounds like a nice idea ICE and BEV are so
| fundamentally different I think it's incredibly unlikely.
|
| To properly take advantage of BEVs the drive chain is very
| different resulting in an incompatible mechanical structure.
| Also battery's are very heavy (BEVs are significantly heavier
| than their ICE equivalents) which is why the battery's are
| placed as low as possible. Retrofitting battery's into ICE to
| make a BEV would result in a very bad and potentially
| dangerous weight distribution.
|
| That's not to say there aren't components from an ICE that
| can't be reused if they haven't reached the end of their
| useful life (much of the interior for example). However there
| is already a good scrap market for these and so I think it's
| unlikely manufactures will do it themselves.
| rjsw wrote:
| There are plenty of recent TV programmes that show turning
| classic ICE cars into a BEV, typical range seems to be
| about 150 miles which would be fine for a lot of people.
| I'm just thinking that this could be done in a more
| systematic way instead of custom builds.
|
| The alternative is to completely replace every current car
| with a new BEV, I don't think this can be done quickly
| enough or at low enough cost for most people.
| samwillis wrote:
| Quite right, and there is definitely going to be a
| cottage industry of ICE to BEV conversions but I don't
| see it as something that manufactures will want to get
| involved with due to the compromises needed.
| jethro_tell wrote:
| You can already buy a battery Ford 351 crate motor and it's
| a drop in replacement for an ICE, you gotta do the
| batteries and we need to replace the heater with something
| electric, little baby heat pump.
|
| Working on doing one now on a truck out at the family farm.
| I think this is going to be more common as we move away
| from ICE.
| leoedin wrote:
| Generally in the UK cars get scrapped because they failed their
| MOT. Everything tested during an MOT (except emissions, which
| I've never seen fail) is also present on electric cars. It's
| basically checking brakes, suspension, lights and body rust.
|
| Maybe there'll be less mechanics, but I doubt they'll disappear
| because they can't do engine work. Engines are super reliable
| these days - it's the stuff around them which develops
| problems.
| michaelt wrote:
| Well, the article says:-
|
| _> "I think we're very familiar with the usual two- to
| three-year cycles that are extremely popular in the UK, [...]
| Toyota will take vehicles back to the factory after their
| first use cycle (ie a typical lease contract) and refurbish
| them_
|
| This article isn't about "remanufacturing" cars at end-of-
| life - it's about three-year-old cars.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| This sounds like the US concept of a Certified Pre-Owned
| car (at least that's Ford's term for it).
|
| The car is used, often just off-lease, but it's inspected
| by the dealership and minor repairs are done so it can be
| resold with the original warranty essentially reset as if
| it were new.
| samwillis wrote:
| We have that here in the UK, the thing that's different
| with this plan it to take the cars back to a factory
| (potentially alongside new cars being built) to be worked
| on.
|
| It is much more like how Apple, for example, sell
| refurbished devices that have been put back down a
| production line for remanufacturing.
|
| I think the intention is for the remanufactured cars to
| be almost indistinguishable from a brand new car (as an
| Apple refurbished device is).
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I would wager very little beyond a detail cleaning is
| done to a "Certified Pre-Owned" car. Maybe they give it a
| mechanical once-over and a quick computer diagnostic scan
| to be sure it doesn't have any obvious problems.
|
| Make it _look_ as new as you can, sell it at a premium as
| a "certifed" car, with maybe a 2-year warranty. Profit.
|
| Even a 5 year old car is very unlikely to have any major
| mechanical issues unless it has been abused.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| I bought a certified pre-owned Mazda CX-5 and it had new
| brakes, all fluids flushed, new battery, new serpentine
| bet, new tires, and many other refreshed replacements and
| cleanings. It was really only $1000 more than like used
| CX-5 and came with a new manufacturer warranty. Was worth
| it in every way.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Right, you aren't paying for the inspection, you are
| buying the extended warranty with a pretty name.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Exactly. Those 100 point inspections that are used to
| "certify" a pre-owned vehicle may include such
| challenging tests as:
|
| - Car starts
|
| - Windshield wipers present
|
| - Door locks work
|
| - Key fobs work
|
| ...etc
| Closi wrote:
| It's specifically talking about lease cars too - car
| manufacturers actually already have agreements with lease
| companies to take back cars after 3 years, which is a key
| reason car manufacturers have 'approved used' car sales.
| This arrangement is particularly common with company cars.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Is that true, I always thought they ended up in the car
| auctions.
| to11mtm wrote:
| It depends on a few factors.
|
| Typically, what happens post-lease is that the inspection
| will help determine whether the vehicle is of the correct
| 'quality' to be Certified Pre-Owned (i.e. sufficient
| quality or fixing whatever's wrong and selling as CPO is
| worth doing) and that's kinda the first decision gate.
|
| After that, I would assume that the dealer getting the
| lease back has some pull as to whether they keep it, but
| that might be contingent on a few factors like what your
| agreement with the leasing company is and what your
| current floorplan is like. (Many dealers in the US don't
| own most of the inventory on their lots, so any car you
| keep on your lot eats into that line of credit.)
|
| Oh, also the agreements between the financing companies
| and the auctions themselves. In some cases the agreements
| are _extremely_ tight, and there are only small windows
| where someone doesn 't already have the 'rights' to sell
| a vehicle. (That was a fun project.)
| Closi wrote:
| These large corporate lease agreements aren't done
| through the dealer network in the UK - they are done
| through a lease company which liaises directly with the
| car manufacturers.
| Closi wrote:
| I'm from the UK and it may be different in other places -
| but I have a friend who works for a large automaker in
| their second hand ex-lease team who explained this to me,
| so it absolutely exists here at least!
| tomxor wrote:
| > cars at end-of-life - it's about three-year-old cars.
|
| That sounds so ridiculous to anyone living in the UK. The
| second hand market here dwarfs all other routes to
| obtaining your own vehicle. I've never bought a car less
| than 10 years old.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Yeah, but the majority of new cars on the road are leased
| or on finance. A lot of people/companies really do get
| new cars every three years or so.
| multjoy wrote:
| Citation needed.
| dan1234 wrote:
| Looks like new cars account for around 25% of all car
| sales in the UK[1].
|
| It would seem that of new car sales, 93% are leased[2]
|
| > The percentage of private new car sales financed by FLA
| members in the twelve months to October 2021 was 93.0%, a
| similar level to the same period in 2020.
|
| [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/299841/market-
| volumes-of...
|
| [2]https://www.fla.org.uk/research/motor-finance/
| simonjgreen wrote:
| First owners though tend to hold for 2-3 years as part of
| a PCP/PCH
| cfn wrote:
| My car failed the emissions MOT a few times inthe UK and it
| was less than 10 years old at the time.
| samwillis wrote:
| While I don't disagree it's also worth noting that for
| example the brakes on BEVs last _significantly_ longer due to
| regenerative braking, up to 200k miles I believe. This is
| much longer than the "three year cycles" that the article is
| taking about. There is also no more oil changes or exhausts
| on a BEV.
|
| So yes, there will be local mechanics for things such as
| bodywork and tires, but I wouldn't be surprised to see only
| 10-20% of the number of them in 20 years time.
| dijonman2 wrote:
| Electrical is a huge problem, as complexity skyrockets we
| need mechanics to diagnose and repair. Mechanics will
| adapt, not disappear.
|
| Brakes are dead simple to replace and cheap to do so.
| Regenerative braking is insignificant in the scheme of
| refurbishing vehicles.
| JackFr wrote:
| At some point do we stop calling the people who fix our
| cars "mechanics" and start calling them "electrics"?
| orra wrote:
| It's a fair question. The amount of earthing and
| electrical safety required, when repairing EVs, is quite
| something.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Electrical is the one thing my local mechanic struggles
| with. My guess is if EV's really take hold he will be
| heading for early retirement.
| gkop wrote:
| Yep, mechanics generally dislike electrical work.
| lttlrck wrote:
| Brake pads and discs last longer yes. But brake calipers
| can seize if left unmaintained, especially in northern
| states that use salt on the road (and this may be worsened
| if they are used less). Brake fluid is hygroscopic and
| should be replaced every 2-3 years regardless of use,
| otherwise corrosion can occur in the brake lines. There are
| plenty of hydraulic and mechanical items on BEVs to keep
| small shops busy.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| The current brakes and fluids are built on the assumption
| they'll be heavily used and wear out. We're already
| seeing changes in response to the new situation, e.g.
| using lighter, less corrosion prone metals so I'd expect
| to see continual improvements in this over time.
|
| https://www.designnews.com/automotive/lightweight-
| aluminum-b...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Tesla's have a 2 year maintenance cycle. They replace the
| brake fluid, the cabin air filter and do an inspection.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| Brake fluid is one of the last somewhat frequent
| maintenance items. It looks like newer Tesla's have all
| electric breaks so technically there's very little reason
| you would need a mechanic since replacing the air filter
| is easy (at least compared to brake fluid changes).
| dotancohen wrote:
| All electric brakes? Do you mean that there is no
| mechanical / hydraulic link between the pedal and the
| pads?
|
| What happens when the power fails?
| AlphaSite wrote:
| It's probably similar to how planes have red and at
| links.
| lb1lf wrote:
| -I guess the brakes need power to be disengaged against a
| spring force; this is quite common on electric motors in
| industrial use.
|
| So, power fails? It stops. Quickly.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| I mean it's common in air brakes used in commercial
| trucks as well. If air pressure is lost the brakes close:
| That's the failure condition.
|
| Done likely because these vehicles are larger and
| hydraulic brake fluid runs the risk of boiling (air
| compresses unlike fluid) and/or catching fire.
|
| As for brake fluid and fires, I had a neighbor's Ford
| Explorer (more like Exploder?) catch fire while parked
| and it burned down to the chassis due to this: https://ww
| w.cozen.com/admin/files/publications/Motor_Vehicle...
| eitland wrote:
| Around here a problem with discs and brake pads as well
| and forb electrical vehicles in particular.
|
| Wear keeps rust at bay but when they don't get enough
| wear to remove rust it can make the discs uneven and at
| that point it can easily spiral out of control.
| to11mtm wrote:
| I mean, I've had this happen a few times (I drive a
| manual, looking ahead and coasting/timing to avoid full
| stops means I'm light on the brakes.)
|
| But every time, it's exhibited as a 'pulsing' feel on the
| brakes that is alarming before it is dangerous. I suppose
| to the untrained it could be confused for ABS kicking in
| but to me it's a very distinct feeling.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, but replacing rotors and brake pads is the work of
| minutes on most modern cars.
|
| Bodywork can easily make a car a write off, especially if
| exotic materials (aluminum, carbon, composites) are used.
| doovd wrote:
| > Everything tested during an MOT (except emissions, which
| I've never seen fail)
|
| Don't think this is true, I was looking at the MOT record of
| a car a few days ago and emissions failure was definitely
| stated as MOT failure reason.
| dazc wrote:
| I drive a 12 year old car which has been brilliant
| mechanically but on the past two MOTs it has failed the
| emissions test but passed the second time with the aid of a
| fuel additive. My understanding is that this is now the
| defualt procedure with local garages.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Pro tip for the emissions test: make sure the catalytic
| converter has had a chance to get red hot (by taking the
| test after a high speed drive).
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm under the impression that many emissions testing
| programs (at least in the US) have discarded their more
| sophisticated testing mechanisms and now just rely on the
| ECU saying everything is okay. Since most cars on the
| road are new enough to have that ability. Oregon
| definitely ditched the dynos, and while they use a
| sniffer for really old cars, I wouldn't be surprised if
| they ditch that before much longer.
|
| They're getting a lot more strict on ECU testing, too.
| Used to be you just needed to have no check emissions
| codes being thrown. Now they're more thorough, for most
| ECUs they can check to also verify no modifications to
| the emissions settings (can't just tell the computer it
| has no cat so it doesn't throw codes).
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| In my state they will just do engine light & ECU test for
| new cars. On older cars (>=10 years) when they do the
| IM240 test on a dynamo but if you look at the emissions
| limits they are all 100x what a normal car produces.
| Here's the GPM values (reading/limit) from my last test
| on a 2011 Honda Pilot:
|
| Hydrocarbons 0.023/1.2 (1:50) CO 0.3/15 (1:50) CO2 502/NA
| (guess this one has no limit?) NOx 0.081/2 (1:25)
|
| Maybe some states apply newer, stricter limits to older
| cars retroactively but in my experience as long as a car
| is operating normally it is impossible to fail emissions.
| I wouldn't be surprised if the ECU threw a code before
| the dynamo test caught something. IMO the most practical
| check they actually do is the presence of a functioning
| gas cap.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > IMO the most practical check they actually do is the
| presence of a functioning gas cap.
|
| Even that throws a code these days. 14y.o. BMW has a pump
| that pressurizes the fuel system to check for leaks and
| it's usually the pump that breaks and throws a code.
|
| 17y.o. Corolla threw a fuel system code but it was the
| gas cap.
|
| Only thing is that this pressurization check system only
| runs when the weather is warm enough, so resetting a code
| usually lets you pass e-testing as "Not Ready" because
| months can go by. Maybe there's differences in
| summer/winter e-testing criteria.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I don't know if it happens this way any more, but my last
| Subaru would do the pressurization test about 30 minutes
| after the car was turned off. Kinda weirded me out the
| first time I went into the garage and heard what sounded
| like something in the rear of the car inflating. Turns
| out that is exactly what it was doing.
| klyrs wrote:
| Ah, goodhart's law strikes again. Car won't pass
| emissions? Drive it harder before the test!
| multjoy wrote:
| Mine failed an emissions test (11yr old diesel mondeo with
| 170000 on the clock), but passed when I took it for a
| thrash round the M25 and a load of additive in the fuel
| tank.
|
| The next year emissions weren't an issue, mainly because
| the only journey it did was a 250 mile run up the A1/A66/A6
| and back again on a weekly basis.
| the_biot wrote:
| Not to mention injecting themselves into the second-hand
| battery market, which I suspect is going to be huge.
| Zigurd wrote:
| You have it right but I do not think the battery is the reason.
| The battery, while heavy, is mechanically simple.
|
| Suspension bushings, springs, and shocks have a long life but,
| by the time the battery needs changing, are probably worn out.
| The wheels have been bashed enough to at least need
| straightening. The driver's seat padding and upholstery is
| probably shot. If it has a steel body it has dings and the
| corrosion protection and paint will need at least a touch up.
| The windshield is pitted.
|
| This means it's not just a job for the local mechanic. They
| don't do paint. The paint shop doesn't do upholstery. Wheel
| straightening is a speciality shop. The only place to do all
| this in one place is either a bespoke restoration shop, or a
| purpose built remanufacturing facility.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| This is I don't get. Why smaller mechanics can't work on these?
| beamatronic wrote:
| In the future everyone will be a battery mechanic. Just as dads
| in the 60's and 70's had a garage full of tools. But now they
| will have soldering stations and ammeters
| aronpye wrote:
| I think you need more specialist equipment and training if
| you want to mess with high voltage electrical systems on
| BEVs.
| markdown wrote:
| > BEVs
|
| What's this? You've used it multiple times as if we're supposed
| to know what it means.
| userbinator wrote:
| Battery Electric Vehicle
|
| You can mostly figure it out from the context.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > There has been so much talk about how the lifetime of a BEV
| is much longer than a ICE
|
| I haven't seen this talk - I think most cars get scrapped when
| the chassis rots, or the suspension goes, or the tech's
| obsolete - not when the engine dies which is probably the last
| thing to go. So BEV should be no different?
| ansible wrote:
| > _... not when the engine dies which is probably the last
| thing to go._
|
| The engine can be the last thing to go, if you are good about
| checking and changing your oil.
|
| If you let the oil run low, or let it sludge up, or don't
| promptly detect a cooling system leak [1], that will damage
| the bearings, and then it is only a matter of time before it
| dies.
|
| [1] Some engines can have the head gasket start to leak,
| which lets coolant into the combustion chamber (which is
| bad). Worse are the engine designs that integrate the water
| pump into the engine block. If the water pump leaks (which
| they often do, it drips coolant directly into the oil, which
| is super bad.
|
| An external water pump, in contrast, will just leak on the
| outside of the engine onto the ground. In either case, the
| coolant will run low, and eventually the engine will
| overheat. However, in the external pump case, you can just
| fix the leaky pump, and assuming you didn't try to run it
| overheated, you're fine.
|
| But with an internal water pump, by the time the coolant has
| run low, you've severely degraded the oil too, and likely
| damaged the bearings. In addition, replacing the internal
| pump usually means dropping the entire engine out of the
| vehicle, which is far more costly.
|
| Thus endeth my rant on water pumps.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Some engines can have the head gasket start to leak
|
| It's OK, I drive a Subaru too.
| skeletal88 wrote:
| My car has 160k km since 2005. The problems are everywhere
| else except the engine
|
| First - it is rusting a lot. Then the car door doesn't
| close properly when it is colder than -15 or -20. Then the
| car has decided that the esp is faulty 2 times on longer
| rides in cold weather and that the max speed should be
| 20kmh (luckily a restart of the car fixed that)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| This is it - a car's structure just rots away at a
| certain point if it's being used. It's not a mechanical
| thing you can refurbish or replace - the car as a whole
| just starts breaking apart.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| Something that is extremely anecdotal experience for me,
| especially given I have never owned a car, is that things
| like "check your oil" are weirdly a feature mainly of
| american media. To the extent that its sort of led me to
| believe its something that isn't really necessary, like
| taking vitamins when your doctor hasn't told you you have a
| deficiency. I'm only really realising this assumption of
| mine now, so is this even remotely true?
|
| I don't think ive ever heard about people talking about
| changing their oil here in europe in actual day-to-day
| life, but I have heard much more about antifreeze or
| windscreen wiper fluid or even water/coolant.
| bluGill wrote:
| In the 1970s and before getting 100,000 miles on a car
| was a big deal, you would call all your friends for that,
| put oil in the engine, drive off in a cloud of blue smoke
| and 10 minutes latter having crossed that mark return and
| put more oil in. In the 1980s cars got a lot more
| reliable and so most don't remember how bad they used to
| be. Few cars, even old worn out beaters need their oil
| checked between changes, but it used to be a big deal and
| not doing it's would destroy your engine fast since it
| would run out.
|
| So mostly it is pandering to old people, but it is still
| an expression
| sokoloff wrote:
| If your car is newish (under 8 years and under 100K
| miles), you can pretty safely ignore any routine oil
| _checking_ and just change it every year or ~12K miles.
| At some oil change, the mechanic will tell you [or you
| will see] that you have an oil leak or consumption issue
| and should then start checking it more often. A newer car
| will use way under a half-quart of oil in 10K miles,
| which can be ignored entirely.
|
| I change the oil on our CR-V every year (about 5-6K
| miles) and because it's 17 years and 225K miles old it
| uses some oil, which I top up twice between annual
| changes.
|
| The amount of oil changing done in the US is indeed
| excessive and driven by promoting the practice to
| consumers who, in general, couldn't find their oil filter
| nor explain the function of oil and oil filtration, and
| can only judge based on what everyone is doing and
| whether they can afford it. The little reminder stickers
| to bring your car back in 3K (yes!) miles are a critical
| business supply for an oil change franchise.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| In the 1980s, with conventional motor oil, 3k mile
| changes made sense. It was cheap insurance. With engines
| made today and synthetic oil, 10k mile intervals are not
| unusual. The quick-lube places will still put 3k miles on
| their reminder sticker, because it's more business for
| them.
|
| Also be sure they are actually using the correct
| synthetic oil for your car, and not conventional 10w40
| that would be appropriate for a 1978 Chevy.
| sokoloff wrote:
| The advent of closed-loop fuel control has helped oil
| service life as well, but I think the "it's cheap
| insurance" psychology is a message that makes sense to
| primitive human brains well beyond the underlying
| engineering data, leading us to over-service expensive
| things.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I looked up the oil change schedule for my car once. Same
| car and specs available in both the US and the UK (minor
| compliance issues like colour of indicators beside.) In
| the UK the manufacturer recommends changing every 20,000
| miles or two years, in the US every 5,000 miles or six
| months. Same car!
|
| I have never changed my oil in my car, despite having it
| over a year, and won't look to do it for another year
| yet. I think that would give most Americans a heart
| attack.
|
| They've got an _entire industry_ over there changing oil
| 4x more frequently than actually required.
|
| Absolutely bizarre.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| Is this possibly related to E10? E10 is the norm in the
| US but, as I understand it, E5 is more common in Europe.
| I don't know the chemistry but I do know that there are
| concerns about ethanol adversely affecting the life of
| engine seals, moreso in older vehicles not designed for
| it, but there's at least a fringe of people who insist
| it's an issue for modern engines as well.
|
| I also know that there are some appreciable differences
| between EU and US standards for diesel (higher cetane
| number in Europe) which adversely impacts the performance
| of small diesel engines in the US, but I don't know if
| there are any similar issues with gasoline.
|
| I'd also be curious about the manufacturer's specified
| oil. It is surprisingly common for new vehicles in the US
| to still specify conventional or blended oil, where 5k
| miles is a more common change interval. I've seen as high
| as 15k mile change interval specified in the manual for a
| US vehicle but the manual also specified full synthetic
| only (this was a turbocharged engine which tends to
| adversely impact life, I wonder if a similar naturally
| aspirated may have listed 20k).
|
| In any case the "change oil every 3k miles" guideline is
| long gone in the US, with 5k-14k being more common, but
| nonetheless 3k was common for long enough that it seems
| to be thoroughly instilled into the minds of many members
| of the baby boomer generation. I think this has given a
| certain license to the chain lube shops, long a source of
| suspect business practices, to continue to use 3k miles
| for their window stickers. That said I've seen even Jiffy
| Lube put in a window sticker for 7k miles, for a blended
| oil. There's a story (I don't know if it's true) that the
| 3k mile recommendation stuck around for so long only
| because the domestic automakers were uninterested in
| going to the expense of longer testing, and that
| situation changed due to both media involvement (Consumer
| Reports for example took this on as a big issue in the
| '90s) and competition from the Japanese automakers that
| had invested more money into research.
|
| 5k actually seems unusually low for a new production
| vehicle and I would tend to think that must have been
| specified for conventional or at least blended. Outside
| of some older engines with detergent-related concerns
| pretty much the only thing keeping conventional oil on
| the market is price and more and more vehicles are
| specifying synthetic only.
|
| Finally, temperatures across the UK are much more
| moderate than across the US. While synthetic oils have
| less issues this way, oil behavior in terms of actual
| viscosity and lubricity tends to vary appreciably by
| temperature, and worst of all mostly when it matters most
| right after startup. This has an adverse impact on both
| oil and engine life. It's become less common for US
| vehicles to specify different oil grades for different
| seasons/temperature ranges (although some still do), but
| US maintenance guidelines are still going to be developed
| for a pretty wide temperature range that notably includes
| ambient temperatures in the 80-100F/26-37C range that
| significantly thin oil and are uncommon in the UK. A
| similar problem exists at the low end, in parts of the US
| cold start temperatures of 20F/-7C are routine and most
| vehicle manuals no longer call for block heat until you
| get down to nearly 0F. Oil can take a long time to
| "limber" starting from these low temperatures and that's
| hard on engine life and puts a lot of metal shavings in
| the oil. Manufacturers kind of have to set their
| maintenance recommendations at "lowest common
| denominator" since practical experience with
| seasonal/climate-based oil recommendations have shown
| that vehicle owners and maintenance shops are both
| extremely bad at following them.
| aronpye wrote:
| An oil change is cheap. It's also far better to
| preventatively change the oil, that way the engine is
| running with optimum lubrication most of the time. If you
| wait to change the oil when it's black sludge, it's
| likely damage will slowly build up from allowing the
| engine to run with poor oil.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| So why don't the manufacturer recommend it? Especially
| since it's comprehensively warrantied for seven years so
| entirely their problem?
|
| Either 5 is justified by engineering or 20 is? One of
| them must be some kind of misrepresentation?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Maybe the oil sold in Europe is more uniformly higher
| grade?
|
| If I go to the local auto parts store here, I can spend
| ~$1.00/qt for oil or more than $10.00/qt for oil. Guess
| which oil most people will buy?
|
| Also I don't really have any confidence that the dealers
| are using factory specified oil. I think they probably
| use the cheapest bulk oil they can buy. That's why I
| change my own oil, that way I know what is in the engine.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| A counterpoint to this is that my car is manufactured in
| a single plant in Europe. It ships with engine oil in it
| (because it's driven on and off the transport ship). So I
| presume one sold in the UK and the US have the same oil
| in, yet Land Rover will tell you to change that exact
| same oil in the exact same engine after 20k miles in the
| UK and 5k miles in the US.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| There's a weird subset of Americans who are very
| "passionate" about motor oil. They argue about oil
| filters and formulations... almost audiophile like.
|
| My guess is the guidance is to avoid some PR nightmare.
| aronpye wrote:
| Fuel and oil quality is a lot more variable in the US, so
| are the environmental conditions, so you have to set the
| guidelines according to the minimum likely to be
| encountered.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Its hard to give a good recommendation as oil degrades at
| different rates depending on use age and weather. Lots of
| short and aggressive trips in the city will wear it out
| differently to some smooth motorway driving, mileage
| being equal.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Is it really a 4x difference? And don't British people
| drive more shorter trips than the US so even if that's
| the case it's also the wrong way around?
| aronpye wrote:
| Fuel and oil quality is a lot more variable in the US as
| it's set at the state level, plus it's just generally
| worse, so are the environmental conditions, so you have
| to set the guidelines according to the minimum / worst
| case likely to be encountered.
| aronpye wrote:
| I used to help develop Diesel Engines before I moved into
| Software Engineering.
|
| If they followed anything like what we did, they would
| just run load cycles on the engine in a test cell to
| simulate approximately however many miles of 'normal' use
| they want to validate the engine up to. During the
| testing the engine would be maintained, fueled, and oiled
| according to the maintenance schedule and customer
| guidelines the engine will be sold with.
|
| After the testing, the engine would be completely broken
| down and analyzed. If there weren't any signs of abnormal
| wear then the engine would be considered validated
| __under those conditions__.
|
| The problem is when real-world use deviates from the
| testing conditions. Which is pretty much always. Then the
| manufacturer guidelines no longer apply.
|
| If you run your engine harder than the test cycle load
| factor, you will need to replace the engine oil more
| regularly. If your fuel quality is crap, i.e. has any
| ethanol in it, you will need to replace your oil more
| regularly as fuel eventually gets into the oil, and
| ethanol results in high water content in fuels, and hence
| oil, which will break down seals as well as reduce
| overall lubrication.
|
| If your engine breaks down due to poor oil quality from
| lack of regular inspection and replacement, then as a
| manufacturer I'd be very resistant to paying out on any
| warranty claim. Even if you followed the "guidelines" for
| oil changes, you still have a duty to inspect the oil
| regularly, both as a responsible driver and under the car
| manual guidelines. Using bad oil and / or fuel is very
| easy to test for.
|
| Long story short, the oil change intervals guidelines are
| just that, guidelines, and real-world use dictates the
| maintenance schedule. Frequent oil changes, before the
| oil breaks down / becomes crap, is just a quick, cheap
| way to prolong the life of your engine or any mechanical
| device with bearings or sliding surfaces for that matter.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Even if you followed the "guidelines" for oil changes,
| you still have a duty to inspect the oil regularly, both
| as a responsible driver and under the car manual
| guidelines.
|
| No this isn't true. I check my oil as regularly as the
| manual tells me to, which is every two years. That's
| literally the published inspection schedule in the UK for
| this car. If that isn't regular enough and the engine
| wears that's a warranty issue covered by the
| manufacturer.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I presume that the UK schedule specifies synthetic oil,
| that does let the oil last a little bit longer. But not
| that massive difference.
|
| One of the reasons people give for buying German luxury
| cars is because they only need the oil changed once a
| year vs the 3-4x a year for American or Japanese or
| Volkswagen cars.
| scheme271 wrote:
| This isn't true. The VW service manuals for at least the
| last 15 years have had a 10k mile service interval for
| changing the oil and not 3-4X a year.
| teamonkey wrote:
| The plan I had with my VAG garage was a service once
| every 2 years. No need to change the oil more often than
| that unless I were to do a lot of miles.
| zepearl wrote:
| > _One of the reasons people give for buying German
| luxury cars is because they only need the oil changed
| once a year vs the 3-4x a year for American or Japanese
| or Volkswagen cars._
|
| No clue about American & Japanese cars, but for VW (and
| Opel) it's definitely just once per year (in
| Switzerland).
| logifail wrote:
| > need the oil changed once a year vs the 3-4x a year for
| American or Japanese or Volkswagen cars
|
| We bought a VW Polo, kept it for ten years, then changed
| it for a VW Sharan, and recently added a VW Up. Total
| miles driven must be around 200k.
|
| Based on a sekrit strategy - called reading then
| following the service manual - can confirm that (at least
| our) Volkswagens _do not_ need their oil changing "3-4x
| a year"!
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Are you in North America? The OP said that North America
| and Europe had very different oil change schedules. I
| haven't owned a Volkswagen for 30 years, so I guess it
| isn't surprising if it has changed.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| I have a Japanese car (Mitsubishi), made in Japan and
| imported to Poland, sold with a manual in Polish. The
| manual says to change oil every year or 20kkm, whichever
| comes first.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| And if it was sold in North America it would say
| something very different in the manual.
| [deleted]
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Newer cars will usually tell you. Iirc, it averages
| around 8-11k miles or 4-5 months for my Honda.
|
| It's a weird topic that people get religious about. I
| will say that in the 90s when I changed it myself, the
| viscosity of the oil was very different if you went
| longer between changes.
| ghaff wrote:
| With the exception of a crappy Dodge which lost a timing
| chain which took out a bunch of the powertrain (under
| warranty--but it was never the same again), it's mostly
| fair to say that every car I've owned was retired due to
| rust.
| JackFr wrote:
| When I was seventeen my dad said I could have the old
| family station wagon to drive if I would replace the water
| pump on it. He got me a water pump from a junk yard and the
| appropriate Chiltons manual for a 1973 Chevy Impala and it
| took me about four days (real mechanic time would probably
| be 4 hours) and then my dad sold me the car for $1.
|
| Some things about it stand out in memory. Engines were so
| big and un-compacted back then it was relatively easy to
| fit your hands and tools where ever they needed to go and
| pieces of the engine basically looked like what you'd
| expect them to be.
|
| The other thing I found out later was that my father was
| desperate to sell me the car, because it allowed him to get
| me off his insurance. I was a 17 year old boy, with one
| fender bender already under my belt and my parents had just
| bought a new Mercedes sedan. For insurance purposes, as a
| licensed driver living with them, without my own car the
| insurance company considered me a driver of the new car and
| the insurance was outrageous. After my dad sold me the car,
| I was off their main policy and on a separate one. Very
| tricky dad.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Toyota is famous for extreme durability in functional parts
| like engine or electronics. But also infamous, how the
| chassis rots away very fast.
|
| Don't know what is the current status. Audi started dipping
| the bodies in zinc since 1987. So technologies exist.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Toyota is famous for extreme durability in functional
| parts like engine or electronics. But also infamous, how
| the chassis rots away very fast.
|
| I wouldn't go that far. Toyota pickup chassis built by Dana
| (the rear end guys) were known to rust some time ago. Other
| than that, I do not know of any Toyotas that rusted away
| more than the average car would given any environmental
| conditions.
| gandalfian wrote:
| 'Don't know what is the current status. Audi started
| dipping the bodies in zinc since 1987."
|
| Fancy way to say galvanised?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Maybe galvanisation is a fancy way to say dipping in
| zinc?
| singlow wrote:
| Except galvanized is a common household term for a
| century but dipped in zinc sound exotic unless you
| realize the similarity.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Its so easy to kill an engine by just skipping oil changes.
| What's more, as engines become evermore complex, the amount
| of failure condition that can total the car grow too.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Changing the oil as part of an annual service is already
| more than enough. Engines don't break from oil in almost
| any use-case.
| [deleted]
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| In my (Australian) experience, the three main reasons cars
| get scrapped are engine failures, transmission problems, and
| kangaroos.
|
| Rust is much less of a problem for anything manufactured this
| century. Suspension is pretty cheap to fix, it cost me <$2000
| to get my entire front suspension replaced a while back.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| > Rust is much less of a problem for anything manufactured
| this century. Suspension is pretty cheap to fix, it cost me
| <$2000 to get my entire front suspension replaced a while
| back.
|
| I'm guessing you don't have below freezing temperatures,
| and roads sprinkled with salt every winter? That's the real
| suspension and car chassis killer.
|
| I've also heard that it's similar near seas (or oceans),
| where non negligible amounts of salt from the sea are
| present as aerosol in the air.
| mongol wrote:
| Perhaps it is because many ICE car components degrade with
| approximately similar pace. If it were just the suspension
| that would give up, it would be worthwhile to repair if the
| remainder had many km left in them. But if you know that it
| is just a matter of time until another expensive repair, then
| you throw in the towel at the first one, perhaps.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's not an ICE issue. Emissions controls drove
| reliability.
|
| No such thing drives similar changes for other components.
| I drove a 2003 Honda Pilot 265k miles and get rid of it in
| 2019. It needed shocks, brakes and would have needed the
| exhaust system replaced soon due to rust. Just wasn't worth
| the money.
|
| I sold it to a guy I know for $2000, he drove it until last
| year, removed the engine and transmission, and sold it.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| anpago wrote:
| The demand in the EU and UK Cars for existing models which do not
| have speed limit restrictions will be healthy.
|
| From my understanding any Newly launched models from 6th of June
| 2022 have to be fitted with a speed limiter.
|
| Of course the other reasons due to a shortage of second hand
| models and new models manufactured recently help With ICE cars
| soon being banned from being sold in 2030 just eight years time.
|
| So a well renovated, tried, tested and trusted existing model
| will suffice for many users. While Toyota save on R&D.
|
| Live in the middle of nowhere or no charging point near your
| residence? Simply want a car which is not as "restricted"? Plenty
| of customers will have a refurbed non restricted ICE car, even if
| a 2021 model years later.
|
| https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/mandatory-speed-li...
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >The demand in the EU and UK Cars for existing models which do
| not have speed limit restrictions will be healthy.
|
| Outside of the real enthusiasts I think most people won't care.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I read the proposal. It argues for making the accelerator
| "heavier" when over the speed limit. For safety (and
| political) reasons the driver will have full control over the
| throttle at all times.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| They will care if they live in the 20mph zone.
| srg0 wrote:
| I would be happy if no one could speed under my windows.
| Difference between 50 kmh and 30 kmh is equivalent to 50%
| noise reduction (~ -5 dB). And tyre noise becomes dominant
| just a little over 30 kmh (20 mph).
|
| https://workinggroupnoise.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/leafl
| e...
| scatters wrote:
| Traffic calming zones are generally highly popular with
| residents. Most people are smart enough to know not to shit
| where they eat.
| analog31 wrote:
| Wow, sign me up. I already buy refurbished laptops and
| cellphones.
|
| A potential issue is dealing with rust and crash damage, but just
| combining good parts and scrapping bad would be better than
| scrapping the whole car. Or, the cars that can't be fully
| refurb'd, can just be cleaned up and sold as used cars like they
| are today.
|
| Give each car a grade, in a standardized fashion, and price
| accordingly. Also, let me order one by mail.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-08 23:00 UTC)