[HN Gopher] The rise of the disposable car
___________________________________________________________________
The rise of the disposable car
Author : rntn
Score : 77 points
Date : 2024-05-29 14:44 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| rntn wrote:
| https://archive.ph/N4uIU
| pfdietz wrote:
| For a humorous and oddly interesting YouTube view on what happens
| to bad engines in cars, see the I Do Cars YouTube channel. Come
| for the oil starvation, stay for the newly installed inspection
| ports. On a good day, he'll get some parts to sell from each
| core. He also occasionally goes through the process of pulling
| usable parts from an entire junked car.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@I_Do_Cars
| pjbk wrote:
| Yes! Enjoyable and I have learned a lot about how car engines
| work and are built watching it. And how some companies (cough -
| Audi - cough) intentionally overengineer their designs so much
| to boost service and repair cash flows.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| I'll add: https://www.youtube.com/@TheCarCareNut
|
| SUVs and smaller trucks are now almost universally moving to
| 4cyl and 6cyl turbos with iffy CVTs. The channels run by folks
| with greasy overalls are pretty uniform in saying these
| vehicles won't last like their predecessors (even the Toyotas).
| yareally wrote:
| Is this a genuine sentiment or just people upset that their
| favorite vehicle won't have a massive gas guzzling engine
| anymore? There are a number of people that also dislike
| trucks with aluminum bodies, despite that aluminum alloys can
| be strong (aircraft use them all the time) and it keeps your
| truck from turning into a rust bucket after 5 years of snowy
| winters. Car ownership is not always a rational thing and
| people will defend some strange platforms based only on
| emotion.
|
| How are the CVTs in these trucks iffy compared to other CVTs?
| There's a number of reliable auto makers using CVTs for
| years, such as Subaru, Honda and even Toyota on their other
| vehicles. CVT transmissions have been in mass produced cars
| longer than most of us have been alive.
| pfdietz wrote:
| CVTs are also much cheaper to manufacture than traditional
| transmissions.
| yareally wrote:
| That doesn't alone make them terrible though. CVTs have
| less complexity, so they will be cheaper. Dependable cars
| have CVTs for reasons other than cheapness.
|
| For example, a dual clutch transmission is complex and
| expensive, but at the same time, I wouldn't call it
| better. There's tradeoffs in all types of transmissions.
| My car might have one, but if I were driving a truck, I
| don't think I would want a DSG.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Indeed, that was not a criticism.
| jandrese wrote:
| Which also makes them cheaper to replace, which is good
| because you will likely need to replace it at least once
| in the lifetime of the car.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Both turbos and cvts are genuinely a reliability downgrade.
| It's because of fundamental and unavoidable reasons in each
| case. This applies to all vehicles, old or new, including
| ones they've already been used in for years like how turbo
| is a standard part of practically all large deisels.
|
| "a number of reliable auto makers using CVTs for years" is
| an utterly valueless statement. It says, proves, disproves,
| or even merely indicates, nothing.
|
| There are countless reasons for any company to do anything,
| including for a "reliable" automaker to use a less-reliable
| part or design.
|
| Both turbos and cvts increase gas mileage. Simple as that.
| That one thing has become so important that it's now worth
| sacrificing other things to get it.
| vel0city wrote:
| CVTs (generally) rely on belts sliding on cones. With more
| weight, you need more torque, with more torque you get more
| wear on the internal components. This is a big reason why
| CVTs have historically targeted smaller cars instead of
| larger trucks.
|
| When it comes to motor reliability, generally speaking a
| smaller engine with higher compression running closer to
| its peak output all the time will have more wear than a
| slightly larger engine that doesn't have to run at as high
| of pressures and load percentage. Lower RPMs needed for the
| same power output means less friction on all the components
| in the motor. There's a lot of variances in that so it is
| not exactly a given.
|
| These kind of go away with more modern "eCVTs" which don't
| rely on belts and hybrid systems which can help even out
| that peak engine load challenge. But still, turbos will
| generally reduce your reliability. More moving parts,
| higher pressures, etc. The questions are, will the
| increased efficiency balance out the reduced reliability
| and will the motor reliability be the thing that does the
| car in at the end.
| timw4mail wrote:
| My understanding is that CVTs are more like a chain, i.e.
| a segmented metal belt.
|
| It sure seems like they would be great for large trucks
| if they could be made beefy enough.
| vel0city wrote:
| When people use the term "chain" in this context, they're
| usually thinking of it moving a sprocket with teeth that
| fit in between gaps on the chain. You're right that
| automotive CVTs are made with a lot of metal bits
| connected on a band for greater durability, but most
| would still just call it a belt as it relies on the
| friction between the edges of it and the cones to move
| the cones instead of pulling on teeth. Think the
| differences between a timing "belt" versus a timing
| "chain", but I do acknowledge a timing belt is usually
| non-metallic.
|
| Sure, one could spend quite a bit of money making it even
| beefier with more and more exotic materials, but in the
| end its kind of hard to match the friction efficiency of
| well-fitting gears directly connecting the torque. You're
| pretty much guaranteed to encounter more friction on the
| belt sliding on the cones compared to well lubricated and
| properly made gears, and more friction means more wear
| which means shorter life.
|
| But this is kind of the idea of eCVTs. Instead of belts
| sliding on cones (pulleys), they use motor/generators and
| novel gearset placements to change how the torque flows
| through the system. In this way friction is considerably
| reduced. There are no belts to stretch or wear out.
| floxy wrote:
| >There's a number of reliable auto makers using CVTs for
| years, such as Subaru
|
| Isn't the CVT going bad one of the main complaints people
| have with Subaru? Like at 100,000-150,000 miles. Other than
| the head gasket issue which was fixed a decade ago? Asking,
| since I'm in the market for a used vehicle, and the CVT
| reliability has me hesitant.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| Subaru CVTs tend to burn up a solenoid in the valve body.
| They are available for $30-40 on eBay and take about 3
| hours to do for the first time.
|
| Dealers charge $3000 for the job. They install all new
| valve bodies for about $1200, and for some reason want 8
| hours for the job.
|
| I helped a friend do it after watching some YouTube
| videos, and we just swapped the one bad solenoid. 20k
| miles later, 120k total, everything is fine.
|
| The problem isn't always the cars even. It's the entire
| repair model.
| pfdietz wrote:
| I just saw a video about a Nissan truck where you can't
| get transmission parts -- you can only buy entire
| transmissions. It's outrageous. Seal leaking? Time for a
| new transmission!
| talldatethrow wrote:
| Yes that video from Dave's shop has been making the
| rounds. Its definitely a problem but honestly if the seal
| was removed and the exterior, interior, and depth were
| measured it can be purchased by spec instead of by a
| parts match for the exact transmission. That's like
| saying a furniture company won't sell me a screw that I
| lost, so the cabinet is worthless. I spec what kind of
| screw I need by taking a sample of another or
| measurements of another and go buy a generic screw.
| bluGill wrote:
| If you have a large engine and a small engine producing the
| same amount of power the large one will have a lot less
| load and so will last longer (assuming all else is equal -
| which is never the case). However it doesn't matter in
| practice as a modern car body and suspension system will
| wear out long before the engine in most cases.
| emmelaich wrote:
| The feel of a CVT in bigger vehicles is weird. Very
| difficult to get used to. Especially in ECO mode (Kia)
| which it defaults to.
| dragontamer wrote:
| https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/avera...
|
| The opposite. With cars reaching much more advanced ages today,
| when a collision happens it's a write-off.
|
| The modern car isn't 'disposable'. In fact, all statistics point
| to us holding onto cars longer today than ever before. Today's
| cars are the most durable that they've ever been.
| dsalfdslfdsa wrote:
| The OP's article was careful to make this distinction, and I
| think it's very interesting (as well as being the crucial point
| of the article). Cars are now more reliable and last longer,
| but when they do develop a problem, it's less economically
| viable to repair them.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The definition of 'Totaled' is when a comparable car on the
| used market can replace your vehicle for less than or equal
| to the repair costs.
|
| As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle. You
| should instead buy a comparable used vehicle.
|
| But saying the word 'Disposable' is pretty bad with regards
| to the headline. It doesn't capture the full effect of what
| the stats are showing. That is, we are all keeping vehicles
| for longer. Longer miles, longer life.
|
| Repair costs for old vehicles always grows as old parts tend
| to be harder to find (factories have shifted production to
| newer vehicles. So you are forced to look for scrap).
| Meanwhile, older cars lose more and more value as they age.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| > As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle.
| You should instead buy a comparable used vehicle.
|
| I sometimes wonder how much the carbon footprint of the
| auto industry would change if people preferred to fix them
| instead of throwing the whole thing away just because of a
| fender bender or an expensive part broke
| sokoloff wrote:
| Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty
| likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going
| to end up being higher than the insurance company is
| willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a
| massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it
| like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the
| overall footprint.)
|
| I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I
| have a car that I could replace for $8K plus the cost of
| replicating some mods [CarPlay head unit, tow hitch, and
| heated seats] and would salvage for $1K, I can't
| reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay
| $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use
| plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in
| a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K
| plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value. What
| other carbon reduction could be bought for that extra $3K
| in costs vs. repairing our damaged car?
|
| From the at-fault driver's and their insurance company's
| point of view: the driver's negligence caused around
| $8-9K of direct damages to me plus several hundred in
| incidental/related expenses. _That 's_ what the driver is
| liable for (and the insurance company on the hook to
| cover as per their agreement), not a $12+K figure for a
| liability for damages amount that was thousands lower.
| kd5bjo wrote:
| > I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If
| I have a car that I could replace for $8K and would
| salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's
| insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs
| plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus
| incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have
| a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my
| pocket for diminished value.
|
| The problem with that logic is the assumption that the
| car can be replaced for $8K. To some (maybe most) people,
| cars are non-fungible and there is a significant amount
| of personal, non-transferrable value in _one particular_
| vehicle, due e.g. to the memories acquired in connection
| with it.
|
| Part of the reason that people get upset when the
| insurance company decides to declare their car totaled is
| that the replacement value offered is significantly lower
| than they would have accepted for the car had it not been
| in an accident-- The actuarial value assigned isn't
| properly valuing the intangibles.
|
| _Edit to add:_ Or, in other words, if the market-
| clearing price of "comparable" vehicles represented the
| actual value of the car to its owner, the car would have
| already been on the used market. The fact that it wasn't
| signals that there must be some premium over the market
| price that's necessary to make the owner whole.
| sokoloff wrote:
| True. As a car person, I'm expecting an annoying battle
| here, and that's over just replacing the utilitarian
| aspects of what is a pure utility car for us.
|
| If it was my fairly modified (by me) '66 Mustang, that
| would be very difficult to get to a settlement figure
| that I'd find fair.
| linuxftw wrote:
| What you describe would be insurance over the minimum
| coverage, which is available. If you take the minimum,
| expect to get the 'market value' of a replacement because
| that's what you agreed to when you initiated the policy.
| sokoloff wrote:
| There are two key cases: when you are forced to deal with
| your insurance company because no one else is at fault.
| In that case, you get what you bought.
|
| When another driver is at fault and you elect to not use
| your insurance company for whatever reason. In that case,
| you didn't have any opportunity to pre-arrange with this
| other driver's insurance company and you have to fall
| back on the law as a backstop.
| jandrese wrote:
| Here is another angle on that "sentimentality" you're
| talking about. If I've been following the book on every
| maintenance item, driving gently, and proactively going
| after any rust that starts to form on the vehicle that is
| then smashed up in an accident I don't want an
| "equivalent market value" used vehicle that was neglected
| and beat to shit by the previous owner just because it's
| the same make, model, and age. Especially since that
| previous owner was a chain smoker.
| vel0city wrote:
| All dozen of my kids were conceived in the back of that
| 1997 Toyota Camry. The car was given to me from my
| Grandpa after he passed. All those memories from the past
| 27 years clearly has a ton of sentimental value; I put it
| at $2M. I'll settle for half of that though.
| philwelch wrote:
| When you buy car insurance, you're insuring the car for
| its market value, not for its sentimental value to you
| personally.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| I literally can't get another light truck that's as
| compact and as useful as the one I have. My choice is to
| buy a giant semi truck or an suv with a 4-foot box bed.
| There's more to vehicles then sentimental or book value.
|
| As it stands I'll probably try to get a mini van and put
| vinyl floors in.
| nytesky wrote:
| The total valued does not include the significant time of
| finding an equivalent vehicle at that price in the rough
| and tumble used car market.
|
| It also does not price in the significant risk that a
| used car of this vintage significant undisclosed defects
| that are hard to detect by inspection at purchase.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Agree on the first.
|
| In theory (and I think in practice), the second is priced
| into the used car market already.
| quadyeast wrote:
| ... including the gently driven car that just got
| totaled.
| nytesky wrote:
| So if someone else is at fault, their insurance can total
| your car? I thought that was only a factor for your own
| comprehensive/collision insurance. I would expect if my
| car is damaged and the repairs are $X, that is the other
| drivers liability regardless of the value of my car??
| sokoloff wrote:
| Imagine your 1990 Honda Accord is smashed into a 2' x 2'
| x 2' cube or caught fire and burned to the ground as a
| result of the accident that was someone else's fault.
|
| Do you think that the other insurance should be on the
| hook to repair the remains of your car into a functioning
| 1990 Honda Accord?
|
| Or is paying to replace the car with like sufficient? (I
| hate it, but I have to agree that it's far more practical
| to allow the replacement.)
| bluGill wrote:
| That depends. In the general case I'd call a 2000 Toyota
| close enough because I don't consider the 1990 Honda
| collectable. However if you are a collector that 1990 is
| a 30 year old classic and you can demand more. To demand
| more than means you need to show you will - get a special
| insurance policy that will demand a 1990 Honda if
| anything happens. You also won't be driving this 1990
| Honda on the roads except in context of a parade (you put
| it on a trailer to get to the parade).
| odyssey7 wrote:
| People might prefer to fix them. The paradigm of
| replacing rather than repairing is effectively enforced
| by insurance policies.
|
| A different insurance model would be necessary to adopt a
| repair orientation. Maybe it's the equivalent of paying
| more to be "green," except that consumers don't really
| consider it as an option when they buy a car insurance
| policy. It seems like this kind of option would justify
| higher insurance premiums, so maybe a major insurer could
| consider promoting one as environmentally friendly.
| its_ethan wrote:
| I think the issue is mostly from misaligned motivations
| from insurance companies and car manufacturers.
|
| On the insurance side, they're motivated by finances. If
| the quote to fix a car is $10k and the car itself was
| only worth $8k, the insurance company is just going to
| give you $8k to find yourself an equivalent car to the
| one you "totaled". There's no intrinsic motivation for
| the insurance company to go for the $10k repair? Maybe
| allow them to have carbon credits or something for
| spending an extra $2k to keep the same car on the road?
| How do you tease out how much of a carbon win this is?
| (and who is in charge of deciding that?)
|
| So then on the car manufacturer side, they're motivated
| by sales/ brand reliability. Maybe if cars were more
| repair-friendly that would help change the equation? That
| comes with the potential trade-off of new cars being more
| expensive and/or less reliable if they can't be as
| tightly integrated as they currently are. So if car
| manufacturers are motivated to make the most
| reliable/cheap car, they are going to forgo making them
| less repairable.
|
| If you try and get both sides of this equation onto the
| same page, I don't know that you could trust that there
| wouldn't be some under the table shenanigans going on
| without making things so overregulated that both new cars
| and car repairs are both more expensive?
| sarchertech wrote:
| If you priced carbon emissions for building the car into
| the cost of new cars, it would fix this. In the case of
| your example, the used car would be worth more than $8k
| because new cars would be correspondingly more expensive.
|
| Of course the problem is as you said how do you price
| carbon emissions.
| kube-system wrote:
| > instead of throwing the whole thing away
|
| But, that already isn't what happens. A totaled vehicle
| is almost never thrown away. They're sold for salvage
| value. Some of them _are_ repaired, and sold as rebuilt
| vehicles. Others are stripped for parts that are recycled
| to fix _other_ vehicles. And anything left over is
| recycled for raw material.
| linkjuice4all wrote:
| The change to unibody construction in the 70s/80s and the
| more-recent move to 'gigapressing' an entire car with
| body work has unfortunately made repair much more
| difficult.
|
| In the past body shops would realign frames, pull body
| work back into shape, and weld in new pieces but it's
| just not safe and practical to do that with unibody
| vehicles even if you did have the tooling and machinery
| to ensure that it was done right and everything is
| actually back into factory spec and alignment.
|
| It's almost a shame that the electric vehicle
| 'skateboard' concept (essentially a rolling chassis in
| industrial/truck vehicle terminology) didn't really get
| anywhere - but I have to imagine that design constraints,
| extra weight from attaching the body to the chassis, and
| other relevant factors that pushed us into unibody
| vehicles in the first place also made concept unfeasible.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > weld in new pieces but it's just not safe and practical
| to do that with unibody vehicles
|
| Unibody cars are repaired safely all the time, whether
| for collision or rust repair. It may have been easier in
| the body-on-frame days, but it safe and practical now
| still.
| vel0city wrote:
| Its considerably more labor intensive though, which means
| $$$.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| As GP said, the author recognized that people are keeping
| cars longer and that they are more durable. However a new
| wrinkle is that "the proportion of brand new vehicles being
| written off has increased." This is due to the costs of
| repairing "Advanced Driver Assistance Systems" such as
| automatic braking and lane-keeping assistance. These
| systems include sensors, cameras, and other equipment that
| must be carefully calibrated, which adds a lot of skilled
| labor costs to the repairs. It's no longer the case that a
| repair is just hammering out dents and spraying some paint.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Any collision that sets of the airbags in a modern car is
| almost guaranteed to be a write-off.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yep, they are surprisingly complex and expensive sensor-
| controlled devices, and a modern car might have a dozen
| of them. Just their replacement alone will be thousands
| of dollars, on top of the actual collision repair work.
| emmelaich wrote:
| I've spoken to a number of people lately that have had to
| take their Audi/VW/Mercedes/ other to the shop for repair
| because of the electronics.
|
| One was charged thousands to fix a snow sensor. We don't
| get snow in Sydney.
|
| Guy who runs a fleet of luxury vehicles said the sensors
| are cheap and simply fail after five or so years.
|
| My own VW Passat randomly failed to start occasionally
| with some mysterious light on. (I forget the details). I
| sold it.
| nradov wrote:
| It makes sense to repair a totaled vehicle if you can do
| most of the repair work yourself instead of paying the
| market rate. A friend has an older Volkswagen Jetta that
| was hit from behind at an intersection. There was no frame
| damage or airbag deployment but the insurance company
| totaled it because inflation has driven labor charges for
| simple repairs to ridiculous levels. My friend took the
| insurance payout and repaired it himself using a junkyard
| bumper. Works fine. But he had more free time and better
| mechanical skills than most people.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That also works well when you are willing to accept less
| than fully restoring the car to the pre-accident
| condition.
|
| Many people are happy to have a mismatched bumper or hood
| in exchange for $700 in their pocket.
| kube-system wrote:
| > The definition of 'Totaled' is when a comparable car on
| the used market can replace your vehicle for less than or
| equal to the repair costs.
|
| Only in Texas and Colorado. Almost all states require cars
| to be declared a total loss before that.
|
| The most common definitions are
|
| 1. The Total Loss Formula, which is when the value of the
| car is less than or equal to the repair costs _plus the
| salvage value_ of the vehicle
|
| 2. 75% threshold -- which is when the repair costs are 75%
| of the price to replace your vehicle
|
| https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/total-loss-
| thresholds....
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I can't get the link to work at the moment so I was
| wondering: are the stats being covered here including or
| excluding EVs? I've read elsewhere that EV repair costs are
| artificially high due to various other factors surrounding
| the manufacture and distribution of their parts versus ICE
| vehicles, not only but especially the batteries being SO
| expensive that it borderline out-prices a new car.
| skhunted wrote:
| What do you think about Cubans keeping cars from 1950s running
| for as long as they did? It seems to me that maybe we live in a
| society that is overly permissive of replacing items.
| a1371 wrote:
| This kind of argument ignores the real cost of having to
| upkeep a 50s car: the human suffering. Cubans are forced to
| use this option and their society suffers from it.
| skhunted wrote:
| From an environmental perspective it's a good thing. Don't
| know if that makes it worth it but we are creating far too
| much pollution.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Cars from the 50s are less energy efficient and require
| more overall resources to maintain than a new car. They
| are also significantly less safe.
| skhunted wrote:
| I imagine the mining of materials, waste from discarded
| car, etc. makes up for these things but I don't know. I
| do think overall we are a very wasteful society and we
| cause way too much pollution.
| bluGill wrote:
| A scrapped car is recycled for the metals in it. So if
| you recycle the old car you can count much less costs
| against the new car.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Keeping an old car functioning is only better for the
| environment up to a certain point. If your cars are
| staying on the road long enough, eventually it makes more
| environmental sense to replace a 50 year old car that
| gets 18 miles per gallon with a new one that gets 45 and
| can last another 50 years.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| Cars from the 50s and 60s were comparatively less complex and
| easier to maintain and repair. Of course, they don't get the
| gas mileage or meet the same emissions criteria, and in a
| crash they aren't as survivable because they don't compress
| to reduce force on the occupants.
| bluGill wrote:
| They did that at great cost - the cars are not very close to
| factory original - most parts of been replaced multiple
| times. Those are not the original engines. It would have been
| much less labor to just replace the cars with something more
| modern. However Cuba had plenty of low cost labor and no
| ability to import anything else so they did it anyway.
| francisofascii wrote:
| Cars can be both disposable, but also true we keep them longer.
| For example, my car's TPMS tire pressure gauge battery died,
| but the battery is internal to the system and isn't designed to
| replace the battery. So a repair/replacement is $600-900. But I
| am not replacing the car or getting the repair. I am simply
| living with the warning light on.
| Rapzid wrote:
| This is really good. The energy use for fabricating a car must
| be huge.
| babypuncher wrote:
| It's been something of a give and take. Modern cars are
| significantly more reliable than they used to be, often going
| 150k miles without any issues beyond regular maintenance. But
| when they do break, repairs are a lot more costly.
| beretguy wrote:
| Tangential but related:
|
| There are full parking lots with brand new cars that go under
| press or get disassembled for parts because dealership don't want
| sell them at a cheaper prices.
|
| https://www.costulessdirect.com/blog/where-brand-new-unsold-...
|
| From article:
|
| > the unsold cars that are older than two years old, will have no
| alternative but to be either crushed, dismantled and/or their
| parts recycled. Want to see for yourself? Do a quick search on
| Google Maps of Baltimore, Maryland, looking south of Broening Hwy
| in Dundalk, there you will see a massive expanse of space where
| many unsold cars are currently parked.
| ip26 wrote:
| _Every day in the United States, a large number of cars are
| being produced. Most of these cars never get sold to customers
| because people just can't afford them._
|
| Oh yes, that makes perfect sense, every day they make 100 cars
| and then scrap more than 50 of them.
|
| _The car manufacturing industry can't stop producing new
| automobiles because they would have to close their factories
| and lay off thousands of their workers._
|
| Right, layoffs, that never happens.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Yeah, I thought the actual premise was interesting (I'm sure
| there is a good amount of unsold inventory that is
| recycled/destroyed/etc., just like in any goods industry) and
| was interested to learn more about the mechanics of the
| process, but that article was just ridiculous - 0 actual
| numbers and it felt like it was written by a third grader.
| bluGill wrote:
| Layoffs do happen, but they are hard to do because the auto
| makers are selling some cars. The factory works at one speed,
| and so if they sell 100 cars but make 200 what can they do.
|
| The above is why companies try to do just in time
| manufacturing. However this is always easier on paper than
| the real world. Those factories need to shutdown for a week-
| several months every year to repair tools and rearrange for
| the next model year, and they need some cars saved up for
| that. In addition other disasters mean sometimes they can't
| get parts and so there is more reason to have a buffer of
| unsold cars.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Sometimes car manufacturers overproduce and you can see
| giant fields of cars on satellite imagery.
| floxy wrote:
| FWIW, Snopes says that story is false.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unsold-cars/
| rconti wrote:
| Please, set this clickbait car insurance ad on fire, and
| blackhole whatever "source" you got this from so it doesn't
| push junk on you again.
| rob74 wrote:
| > _currently, there are 6 billion people on our plant, and 10
| billion running cars. This is because most families own an
| average of two to three cars_
|
| False and false. According to more reputable sources, there are
| only ~ 1.5 billion cars in the world. And to the many families
| that own two or more cars _in the US_ , there are many more
| families that own 0 cars elsewhere in the world...
| sarchertech wrote:
| Not to mention that families are composed of more than one
| person, so families owning more than one car doesn't get you
| to more cars than people.
| jandrese wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. A family is by definition at least 2
| people, so if they own two cars that's still one car per
| person.
| vel0city wrote:
| That lot in Baltimore is a vehicle processing lot for the Port
| of Baltimore. Cars manufactured overaseas usually come by boat
| and delivered to places like that. The lot they're referencing
| is owned/managed by Wallenius Wilhelmsen which specializes in
| this RoRo style of logistics that are common with overseas car
| shipping. They'll sit there for a short period of time as all
| the customs work takes place and then shipped out all over the
| country after by rail or truck. Seeing a single snapshot in
| Google Maps of hundreds of new cars tells you nothing, you'd
| have to actually analyze how long those cars are staying there.
|
| Seeing a lot with a lot of new cars with delivery wrap still on
| Google Maps isn't indicative of some new car graveyard, its
| just showcasing the ignorance of how car imports work. What,
| did they think a car manufacturing plant in Germany just
| suddenly teleports cars into dealer lots in the US? Did they
| think they were delivered by plane?
| timw4mail wrote:
| I'm pretty sure every Mitsubishi car sold in the US is
| imported, and there are quite a few Mirages and Outlanders on
| the road.
| constantcrying wrote:
| >Every day in the United States, a large number of cars are
| being produced. Most of these cars never get sold to customers
| because people just can't afford them. The car manufacturing
| industry can't stop producing new automobiles because they
| would have to close their factories and lay off thousands of
| their workers.
|
| That is an obvious lie. It is _obviously_ more expensive to
| produce and scrap a car than to not produce one at all. What
| you do if demand is low is _you produce less_. It is
| economically more viable to pay workers for standing around
| than to pay them to build and scrap a car. So the excuse about
| jobs is another lie.
|
| >Want to see for yourself? Do a quick search on Google Maps of
| Baltimore, Maryland, looking south of Broening Hwy in Dundalk,
| there you will see a massive expanse of space where many unsold
| cars are currently parked.
|
| Which is evidence of what exactly? That cars exist that aren't
| sold? Surely that is no surprise.
| dsalfdslfdsa wrote:
| Obviously we need technological development, to keep everyone in
| a job. What when we cannot maintain or afford those systems? This
| includes systems of production, as well as the products
| themselves.
| jseliger wrote:
| I live in Phoenix and now take Waymo regularly, and it seems like
| we're close to a world in which most people take self-driving
| cars most of the time, crash rates plummet, and these kinds of
| articles come to resemble articles from 1910 about horse-related
| problems.
|
| Humans suck at driving: https://jakeseliger.com/2019/12/16/maybe-
| cars-are-just-reall...
| neogodless wrote:
| Define "close."
|
| (Anecdotally, I'm outside Harrisburg, and there are no self-
| driving cars in... this state? People drive their cars just
| like cave people did, with their hands on the wheel!)
|
| Of note, the article mentions your sentiment near the
| conclusion:
|
| > Perhaps one day we'll all whizz around in self-driving cars
| and accidents will be rare. But that's still a ways off.
| kube-system wrote:
| > I'm outside Harrisburg
|
| Hell, out there you've still got people using horse and
| carriage.
| kiba wrote:
| I welcome self driving technology when they become available,
| but from a system perspective, cars and car related
| infrastructure imposed tremendous cost on our environment and
| urban fabric.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Phoenix doesn't really have the related weather concerns of the
| midwest which allow Waymo to flourish in your state.
| nytesky wrote:
| It's also a grid roadway as a post-automobile city.
|
| Granted they got SF working too, which is pretty varied
| terrain but it took a lot of training. I guess we can roll it
| out city by city but will they ever recoup the cost?
| bluGill wrote:
| I've long thought that the bus market would be ideal - the
| city bus doesn't take most of the roads in your city so you
| don't need to program them in (or than a dead in). Just
| make sure the roads department works with the transit
| department to program in just the detours needed before
| starting work.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| We've been "close" for 10+ years now. We are not close.
| currymj wrote:
| 5 years ago you couldn't hop in a commercial self-driving
| taxi in a major US city. Now you can. The progress has been
| slower than everyone's predictions but it is still
| substantial.
| kube-system wrote:
| In 1897, you could hop in a commercial electric taxi in
| London. Alas, Londoners still have many gasoline cars on
| the road.
|
| Availability and mass adoption are two _very entirely_
| different things.
|
| The time in which people take most commutes by _any kind of
| car_ is: today... 51% of people commute by car currently.
| That took 136 years.
|
| 'most of the time' for 'most people' is quite a high bar.
| That's a lot of travel, for about 4 billion people. A few
| people in Phoenix taking one after a night at the bar
| doesn't even to begin to scratch that surface.
|
| We're very much still at the 'Carl Benz demoing his
| horseless carriage' stage of self-driving cars.
| bluGill wrote:
| IF, and this is a big if - self driving cars prove safer
| than human drivers in all conditions - governments will
| mandate it in all new cars and in 12 more years they will
| be the majority, and a few more years and governments
| will ban everything else (if not directly insurance via
| high rates).
|
| However right now they are not ready for that. They don't
| work in all conditions and we don't have unbiased safety
| studies.
| kube-system wrote:
| For varying definitions of "governments" and "will".
| You're looking at this from a very western perspective.
|
| For example, airbags have proven to drastically increase
| safety, yet almost a half-century later they're still not
| required by many countries across 2 and a half
| continents. Governments only require safety equipment as
| far as their population can afford it.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most governments don't need to as they can leach off of
| it not being worth making a model without airbags.
| lucianbr wrote:
| 65 years ago we had never traveled outside Earth's
| atmosphere. 50 years ago we had traveled to the Moon.
| Surely by now we are visiting the nearest star, no?
|
| It's incredible to me how many people honestly believe they
| can predict the future, when the future is so clearly
| unpredictable. Even while you acknowledge that everyone's
| predictions were too optimistic, in the very same sentence
| you insist on an optimistic prediction.
| currymj wrote:
| I didn't make any prediction at all.
| sparrc wrote:
| Phoenix has extremely wide and straight roads, with very few
| pedestrians, and very little rain or snow.
|
| Compared to the entire world this is VERY anomalous, so I think
| we're still pretty far from "most people" using self-driving
| cars.
| userabchn wrote:
| I wonder what we are going to do with all of the car parking
| that will become as obsolete as horse stables.
| nixonpjoshua wrote:
| This is actually the thing I am most excited about with the
| prospect of self-driving, the biggest way car-centric
| infrastructure ruins cities is by parking requirements.
|
| Unfortunately most cities in the USA have parking minimums so
| even if a market change occurs and they are all empty the
| lots will stick around for a while until they are no longer
| legally required.
| bluGill wrote:
| I think it is silly to think self driving cars gets rid of
| parking. If you don't use a car much it is cheaper to use a
| taxi service. However people who use a car often will be
| money ahead owning their own. Plus if you own the car you can
| keep your "junk" in it while doing something else. Most cars
| are needed during rush hour, so there isn't much need for
| cars the rest of the day.
|
| All of which means we need nearly as much parking in the
| future. Sure we save a little because the car will leave your
| immediate area (read CO2 and other emissions) for free
| parking out of sight, but they are still parked. You will
| want it parked somewhat close to you because you never know
| when you will have a family emergency and have to leave
| early.
| lucianbr wrote:
| On a tangent, I wonder how many car manufacturers would
| actually sell a self-driving car if they were able to build
| one. Creating a taxi fleet and charging for usage seems
| much more profitable.
|
| Or at the very least, the price would go up a lot. Who
| cares about the cost, when the value of the sold good is so
| high? Why sell it cheap? I note that Waymo has no intention
| of selling the things.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Most of them. Car manufacturers aren't too greatly in
| vertical integration. One could argue that having a car
| rental agency for manufacturer would be great idea. Get
| cars at cost, rent them short to medium term, keep
| maintenance inhouse sell them after some period for most
| of the price.
|
| But I don't think there is any manufacturers that rent
| vehicles for short term and neither there are any rental
| firms that manufacture their cars...
|
| In the end making things and renting them is different
| businesses.
| bluGill wrote:
| The economics don't work. Some people are willing to pay
| extra for a car in perfect condition. Some people will
| happily save money by using a beat up car. By selling a
| car they get their money now from a high priced car. If
| they try to be the taxi they need to figure out who will
| demand (and pay for) the perfect car, vs who will demand
| the cheapest car. This is one more way that cars are not
| interchangeable.
| zolbrek wrote:
| https://archive.is/N4uIU
| csours wrote:
| Reminds me of this:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40266464
|
| https://eugeneyan.com/writing/simplicity/
|
| "Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to
| achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters
| worse: complexity sells better." -- Edsger Dijkstra
|
| Especially:
|
| Complexity signals more features.
| notjoemama wrote:
| GM requiring Google integration and eliminating Apple Car Play
| and Android Auto makes me think a brand new model is immediately
| disposable.
|
| If I have choice removed from me, in particular a choice I very
| much care about, then I'm going to care about owning that car
| less. The more that happens the more people may view vehicles as
| pure utility and much easier to walk away from for any reason,
| especially repair cost. Who cares whether you replace a Chevrolet
| with a Ford when they are untouchable boxes?
|
| Insurance companies would love this BYW. If they can find a
| cheaper alternative that's another brand, you'll be reimbursed
| for that, not what you originally bought.
|
| It certainly looks like many small choices are being made towards
| automobiles being truly disposable.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > If I have choice removed from me
|
| I think this points to a _slightly_ deeper issue sitting just
| below "consumer choice", which is "tight coupling."
|
| It sounds like GM has made a tighter-coupling between their
| vehicle and one particular brand of smartphone, and that's
| suggestive that _other_ tight-couplings might exist elsewhere
| the design. The more tightly-coupled parts (to particular
| brands, form-factors, and proprietary connectors) the harder
| /more-expensive it will be to keep the overall car-system
| working over a decade or two as some of its hard-dependencies
| stop getting built.
|
| So a lack of smartphone choice isn't just annoying, it also
| suggests something about the designers not planning for long-
| term maintenance.
| bluGill wrote:
| I think it is also a trust issue - GM doesn't trust Apple
| will approve updates to their iphone app and so won't risk
| it. Also Apple charges a lot of $$$ to car company to connect
| to carplay and I think GM called their bluff. I'm not sure
| what the costs to android auto are or why GM wouldn't still
| connect to that.
|
| Note that as a consumer I don't trust anyone above. Sure GM's
| app will work great now, but in 3-6 years I expect they will
| decide drop support for my currently working car in their
| app. Apple and Google will also change their OS and so the
| app that does work with my car won't work anymore on new
| phones. I also expect updates to CarPlay/Android Auto that
| won't work with my old car in a few years. Nobody in this
| business wants to provide support for the average car which
| is currently 12 years old - unless you pay which someone
| driving a 12+ year old car won't want to do. (GM provides
| parts for those older cars, but people pay for those parts)
| salad-tycoon wrote:
| I just want a cheap, safe dependable car. Anti lock brakes, a
| couple of air bags, crumple zones, maybe Bluetooth, real dials,
| two base versions: AWD and non AWD. That's it. No telephony, no
| on star, no breathalyzers. I don't need to play Witcher in it.
| Just need it to turn on and then off after running around.
|
| I'm holding onto my ancient POS because it's impossible
| apparently to find the above. Everything is new and full of drive
| by wire, telephony, spyware crap. Oh and the prices... come on!
|
| I never was a car buff, I wish I had been as it definitely
| appears we have ended an era and I mourn isolated from the gear
| heads.
| hoelle wrote:
| Honda and Toyota are still cheap, safe, and dependable.
|
| Our CR-V is such a great value I don't actually understand how
| they turn a profit.
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| I wish there was an actual community of people building open
| source cars. It exists for fucking airplanes but there's
| __nothing__ on the vehicle market. Pool some money, crash test
| a couple, get some shop in asia to make frames. Make it fairly
| modular, something like an EV version of the 1995 ford ranger,
| something where people can throw whatever they want on the back
| and turn it into anything. Super bare minimum, no egregious
| plastics all over the inside, just use off the shelf parts and
| people can customize as they see fit.
| bluGill wrote:
| People make their own airplanes. What nobody tells you is
| that most people who complete the airplane would be time and
| money ahead getting a job at McDonald's and buying a
| completed airplane once they saved up enough money. However
| there are not enough people who want an airplane to pay for
| the costs/liability of setting up a factory to build one and
| so you have no choice if you want a new one.
|
| People also build their own cars from scratch. It isn't as
| well known, but it is done. Again not a good use of time or
| money but if you want something specific that isn't on the
| market you have no choice.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| You're conflating the airplane market with the market for
| experimental aircraft.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most people making their own plane are following plans
| and thus not experimenting. They are making an
| experimental plane because regulations make that their
| best option, but if it was possible to get a new plane
| for a mass produced cost they wouldn't. The end goal is
| the plane not making a plane themself. (most don't finish
| the plane but that is a different story)
| sokoloff wrote:
| There are kit car sellers and you can build yourself a car
| (kit or plans), but it's a ridiculous amount of time to hand-
| build a car from plans and still a very large amount of time
| to build and paint a kit car.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Kit cars have been around for decades, though I have no idea
| if any are available under an open source license.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I got a new Corolla and felt that it fit the bill.
|
| It still has newer features like lane centering and radar
| cruise control. However, it's a good, simple, reliable car at a
| much more reasonable price point.
|
| As for feature creep - this is inevitable because all 99.99% of
| consumers care about are features and price. It's like people
| asking for a "non-smart TV". It's not going to happen, ever.
| Consumers who care about that aren't a percent of a percent of
| the market.
| philwelch wrote:
| I also got a new Corolla recently, but I did have to opt out
| of the features that phone home to Toyota.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| There are tons of models that match this list if you drop the
| no-DBW requirement. My 6-speed Wrangler is throttle by wire and
| I have no issues on-road or off-road. You can also usually
| adjust the throttle if you don't like the feel. Maybe take a
| look at Subarus if you want no-frills AWD.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I bought a Ford Maverick last week and it's pretty close to
| this. In addition to bluetooth, the head unit supports
| carplay/android auto. But it has no built-in nav system or
| subscription bullshit.
|
| It has knobs and buttons for everything you want to use while
| driving, including volume, transport controls (on both the
| steering wheel and below the screen), radio tuner, and climate
| control.
|
| The closest alternative I looked at was the Hyundai Santa Cruz,
| which was more expensive. _All_ of its buttons except those on
| the steering wheel and column stalks are capacitive nightmares
| with no tactile feedback. That alone was enough to help make my
| decision.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| I'm conflicted. I know modern vehicles are so complex and if
| something breaks it actually is cheaper to just go bet a new
| car.....but I don't really like that.
|
| On the other hand, most of my close family that I know has a
| vehicle that is fixable. I know how to do basic stuff like change
| oil, change a tire or break pads, but I also know how much
| vehicles are digital and I really don't enjoy that.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| Every vehicle is fixable. When you replace your modern vehicle,
| someone buys it and fixes it and sells it for a profit.
|
| I've had friends trade in $30k vehicles with problems for $15k
| and then be surprised when it's on the dealer website in 7 days
| for $30k fixed.
| rconti wrote:
| > modern vehicles are so complex and if something breaks it
| actually is cheaper to just go bet a new car
|
| it's not.
| nimbius wrote:
| The rich have been flogging this idea since cash for clunkers.
| That, because _they_ run through cars like shit through a goose,
| you will too.
|
| Speaking as a master diesel mechanic, this is a deleterious line
| of thinking for anyone with less than a few million dollars.
| Every car has 20 years of parts, and most Japanese cars have
| closer into 50 years of parts. Any engine built after 2010 will
| likely last half a million miles or more as a feature of quality
| control and automation alone.
|
| Maintaining a well running vehicle long term with a local
| mechanic is always cheaper than buying a new car every 5 years,
| and just because insurance says its "totaled" doesn't mean it
| isnt fixable and safe to drive.
| jandrese wrote:
| It's usually not the engine that fails. The transmission is far
| more likely to be the weak point, and after that it is rust
| destroying the body or frame.
|
| The average age of a car is like 13 years old. Most people are
| definitely not buying new ones every 5 years.
| nimbius wrote:
| I agree, a transmission is really only good for around 200k
| miles. However, you can buy a used transmission in most cases
| for under 3 grand, and again labor for this thanks to
| automation is likely less than $500.
|
| The real blocker I dont mention is time. Your shop will need
| that car for a few days and shipping will take time too. At
| some point the wait isnt worth it anymore. The upside is, 2
| used Toyotas are still cheaper than a new one new Toyota
| jandrese wrote:
| That and you're not getting another 200k miles out of that
| used transmission.
|
| The other thing that people don't talk about as much is the
| parts market got seriously messed up during COVID and still
| hasn't fully recovered. It's more common now for repair
| parts to either be unavailable or enormously marked up.
| Like a particular repair might only take a few hours and
| what should be a few hundred bucks in parts, but the car
| gets totaled because one of the parts is unavailable or
| inexplicably costs thousands and the shop doesn't want the
| liability of hacking together an alternative solution.
| Especially if the missing part is an ECM or sensor or
| something else that might make the car fail an inspection.
| doubled112 wrote:
| Dealers are charging about $200/hr labour in my area.
| Independent shops are $150/hr and up.
|
| I don't think anybody is replacing my transmission for
| $500.
|
| Did you mean the whole job for less than $5000?
| talldatethrow wrote:
| The entire comment seems off. They said thanks to
| automation labor will be $500. What automation is there
| in replacing a used transmission in a garage on an oily
| rusty 200k mile car on a lift.
| doubled112 wrote:
| I caught that too, but decided to ignore it.
|
| There isn't an automation in the world that will take
| enough of the car apart for you. Or at least my mechanic
| friends haven't found it.
|
| Will keep waiting for AI to grow itself some arms.
| blakes wrote:
| There is probably no transmission in a US road car that can
| be replaced for $500 in labor at an auto shop. Your buddy
| or some rando may do it, but no shop will for that price.
| Typical shop rate is $120-$220/hour. Most shops are going
| to charge a minimum of 4 hours, but probably closer to 8
| hours. Have you ever been under a car? The amount of
| "automation" required to replace a transmission is still in
| the arena of science fiction.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think you have those switched... a used transmission is
| probably about $300, and 3 grand to install it.
|
| On most cars the transmission is probably the biggest
| failure liability- I pretty much only drive manuals for
| that reason, doing a clutch is a lot cheaper than replacing
| an automatic, and the better you are at driving it the less
| you need to do it.
| toast0 wrote:
| At least in my area, the problem is labor costs. If you can do
| things yourself, it's great. If you need a mechanic to do it,
| you're looking at a big expense, because mechanic labor is
| expensive and there's a lot more covers and harder to get to
| parts these days. 'Maintenance free' transmissions are very
| common in newer cars, and they do tend to need less
| maintenance, but when they do, there's often not a great way to
| access them. Etc.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Modern cars aren't designed to be easy to work on which
| really inflates the labor hours required for even trivial
| issues.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| The my front left indicator light went on my BMW i3. Tried
| looking up the specs for the bulb to buy a new one. Of
| course it wasn't that simple. Oh boy was I naive.
|
| No, it required a whole new headlight assembly, $800 plus
| labor.
|
| Funnily enough, the car got totalled shortly after, before
| I had decided to go ahead with the repair. Someone hit my
| SO as she was in a roundabout, and the impact moved the car
| several meters. Cracked the carbon fiber chassis. Estimated
| repair cost was 1.5x price of a new car.
|
| So, never got the pleasure of finding out how much labor
| would have been for replacing the headlight unit. I'm
| assuming it would have been a lot more than for replacing a
| light bulb...
| pram wrote:
| Similar thing happened to me on my GTI, the Xenon bulb
| replacements weren't too expensive but replacing it
| literally required disassembling a large portion of the
| front end of the car. I couldn't believe it.
| celim307 wrote:
| I have been quoted 500$ to fix a stuck gascap cover,
| because apparently the spring is inside and attached to
| the rear body panel, and would require a major part
| replacement.
|
| Although im starting to suspect my mechanic is taking me
| for a ride
| consp wrote:
| On my ford it's three bolts and two cables and you can
| take the headlight unit out, 5 minutes work tops. And
| that's with LED lights which should never be replaced (by
| the owner as they always need calibration). On my
| previous one it was even easier to let them stay in and
| move your hand in an awkward position to get the job
| done.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Nice. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, had the unit itself
| been reasonably priced.
| specialist wrote:
| My neighbor has BMW z3. He has same story about its
| lights, which fail more than you'd expect.
|
| Also: It's a hard top convertible. The mechanicism
| stopped fully opening or closing. Bummer. Two repair
| shops gave ridiculous quotes to troubleshoot and repair.
|
| Using a scanner (generic OBD II scanner with BMW's
| specific codes), we narrowed the search. The ultimate fix
| was just two $15 switches. Being noobs, it took us some
| effort to detach and reattach the hard top.
|
| I don't mind the labor effort (costs). It is a BMW after
| all. But it's ridiculous that these cars can't report
| their failing electronic bits.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| right, the $42K Rivian fender bender was a particularly
| egregious example. https://www.theautopian.com/heres-why-
| that-rivian-r1t-repair...
| karma_pharmer wrote:
| oh my god.
|
| what exactly were the rivian engineers thinking?
| jmrm wrote:
| > 'Maintenance free' transmissions are very common in newer
| cars
|
| I take advantage to your comment to write this PSA (that
| probably you already know):
|
| All transmissions require maintenance, and even manual ones.
| Those automatic tagged as 'maintenance free' from the brand
| aren't, and if you call the manufacturer of that
| transmission, Getrag, ZF, or whatever it is, they should say
| which ATF and filters it needs and in what interval.
|
| If you do maintenance with an independent technician (not a
| dealership or a "Jiffy Lube") with some good reputation, they
| probably help with that
| ssl-3 wrote:
| How does find a phone number for General Motors that lets
| someone talk to the person who knows these details and is
| both willing and able to relay them?
|
| [insert rant here about BMW's "lifetime" fluid in the 4L30E
| that they used in E36s]
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| If you look at light vehicle sales in the US they've been stuck
| at 17 million units a year for the last 25. I think that's why
| manufacturers keep retching up the size and cost of cars.
|
| I keep seeing manufacturers spam in my engineering newsletters
| that point towards batteries that last 500,000 to maybe a
| million miles. And I know that electric motors can go that far.
| Potentially talking about cars that last 40-50 years.
|
| You can imagine that makes the investor class unhappy, cause
| maybe the number of cars sold will drop.
| bluGill wrote:
| ICE engines today can got 500k miles - most cars don't last
| that long though because other things go first. My wife's car
| runs great at 220k miles, but we want to replace it because
| of all the little things that are broken - things that are
| completely unrelated to the engine and would fail just as
| likely on a EV.
| bluedino wrote:
| > Any engine built after 2010 will likely last half a million
| miles or more as a feature of quality control and automation
| alone.
|
| The engine block and rotating assembly might. But all the crap
| that is bolted on won't.
|
| Several engines are known for having the turbocharger fail.
| Which is now integrated in the exhaust manifold.
|
| Timing components are junkier and junkier these days. And
| somewhere in the 2000's, some of the manufacturers decided to
| make complicated systems where cylinders deactivate to allow
| for fuel savings, and those are all an unreliable mess.
| alliao wrote:
| can't get anything for free these days.. an emphasis on
| efficiency seems to drive up efficiency to the point where
| they're disposable after 5yrs
| lttlrck wrote:
| Save the environment with one hand and punch it in the face
| with the other.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Au contrare, the toyota hybrids are some of the most
| reliable vehicles on the road. Don't blame fuel efficiency
| for a lazy design from an automaker.
| balderdash wrote:
| I think you're right but I think (at least in my own
| experience) that what gets people to buy a new(er) car is that
| that people don't like driving cars that have broken things
| (windows, switches, lights etc.) that make no sense to fix (say
| $1500, to fix something non-essential on a car that's only
| worth $10k)
| neuralRiot wrote:
| Then they go and pay $1500 a month for 6 years.
| bluGill wrote:
| No, they are paying $500/month for 6 years. The people who
| buy new cars (or often lease) are getting rid of them after
| 3 years - long before those small things are breaking.
| Those cars go to used car buyers who drive them for 6-10
| years, and they eventually decide $500/month is worth
| getting something newer that doesn't have all those small
| annoyances, while the car goes on to someone poor who will
| live with anything that gets them around cheap.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| That's definitely a case where being a little handy pays off-
| most of the little things that break on an older car can be
| fixed for free in a few minutes if you follow a youtube video
| or forum instructions, but a shop has to charge a lot.
| Usually it is a common problem, and there will be a known
| "trick" that fixes it simply. A shop is not going to re-
| solder a cracked relay or get a used plastic trim for $1 at a
| junkyard, they're going to replace the entire system with new
| parts from the manufacturer, at massive expense.
|
| It's really important to have some "pride of ownership" in an
| older car, and fix anything that isn't perfect immediately-
| so they don't build up over time and make you feel like the
| whole vehicle isn't nice to use or own anymore.
| AdamN wrote:
| Cars more than about 10-15 years old just aren't as safe as
| newer ones. That's the fundamental issue. With that said there
| are ways to mitigate the risk (drive more cautiously/slower,
| etc...).
| ghaff wrote:
| I doubt most people care much. Things like reliablity and
| comfort are in the equation. The point comes up in these
| discussions here but I'm pretty sure most people don't factor
| more safety into trading in an otherwise functioning car.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Cars more than about 10-15 years old just aren't as safe as
| newer ones.
|
| Can you give some examples? The only safety innovation I can
| think of recently the side airbags. The backup camera, which
| is a huge improvement to backing up accidents was probably
| over 15 years ago.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Side cameras, automatic braking, person avoidance, lane
| keeping?
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| That's really only true if you consider within the same class
| or model of car, where the technology has advanced... but old
| cars are so affordable you can get a much higher end and much
| safer car. Do you think a 2024 Chevy Trax is safer than a
| 2012 Audi Q5? Both are compact SUVs but you can buy 3-4 nice
| condition low mileage Q5s for the price of the Chevy.
|
| Regardless of tech like changes in crumple zone design, you
| also can't negate the safety benefits of substantially better
| brakes, handling, driver comfort, and road visibility from a
| better designed car made with higher end parts and materials.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Whatever you save on the upfront cost of a used Q5 you'll
| pay on the backend the first time it needs service.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Maintenance on an older Audi is expensive compared to,
| say, a Japanese economy car, but you're talking maybe
| $1k/year to maintain on average, vs $500/mo payments for
| the cheapest new car.
| rconti wrote:
| For the occupants, at least. They might be safer for
| pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, etc.
| lasereyes136 wrote:
| > just because insurance says its "totaled" doesn't mean it
| isnt fixable and safe to drive.
|
| "Totaled" to an insurance company means they think the cost of
| repair at their contracted rates is more than the cost of
| paying out the "value" of the car. It is a business assessment,
| not an assessment of the vehicle.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I've totalled two vehicles twice each.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| "Totaled" means whatever the laws in the insured's state say
| it means.
| WindyCityBrew wrote:
| (USA specific) Depending on the state, "totaled" might still
| mean YOU can't fix and drive your car again.
|
| In Illinois, you can only retain a totaled vehicle if it was
| hail damage or it's a "vintage (9+ yr old) car.
| cinntaile wrote:
| They're pushing similar laws through in the EU as well.
| karma_pharmer wrote:
| Totaled means the insurance company buys the car from you.
|
| It's not your car anymore, so obviously you don't get to
| drive it.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Older cars are massively undervalued in the USA because of
| social norms, which is a massive opportunity to anyone willing
| to exploit it to get reliable transportation for nearly free.
| People are afraid that older cars are dangerous, unreliable, or
| (worst of all) will make you look poor, but all 3 are just
| misinformation.
|
| Boats and airplanes are just as reliable when old as new
| because they're maintained well- and cars are the same. If you
| maintain an old car well, it doesn't really ever wear out, and
| stays as reliable as a new car.
|
| It's also massively cheaper to maintain an old car well then to
| buy new ones even if you pay someone else to do it. People
| complain when they get a $1000 repair bill every few years for
| an older car so they will say "it's getting unreliable" and
| then consider paying up to $1000 a month for a new one. There
| is a middle ground where you pay maybe $1000-2000 every year to
| stay on top of stuff, and it stays reliable indefinitely.
|
| Moreover, an older high end car is just so much nicer than a
| new car in the same price range. You can buy a well maintained
| low mileage older but high end Porsche, Audi, etc. for well
| under $10k on Craigslist these days and you'd have to be a car
| nerd to know it's not a new model. Is it cheap to maintain
| well? Not exactly, but it will be 1/10th the cost of a car
| payment on a new low end economy car, and you're driving a high
| end car. Plus, when you buy a 20 year old high end car and
| maintain it well, it will appreciate rather than depreciate in
| value. My daily driver is an older Porsche, and in 3 years of
| driving it, it has probably appreciated in value enough to make
| all of the maintenance, insurance, etc. free- basically a free
| car if you don't count the space in my garage it uses to keep
| it nice.
| alliao wrote:
| I think it's a lot to do with how it's designed too.. I kept
| an old hatchback bmw made in 2000 and that thing already have
| bit of plastic parts in the engine bay (coolant pipes no
| less) which are just time bombs. parts and labour costs are
| usually why people decided to go newer cars. good job on the
| old porsche though, just don't get the one with starter motor
| in the transmission case.. some of them are maintenance
| nightmares
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I'm not familiar with BMWs of that era, but other German
| cars from that era, the plastic cooling system pipes will
| likely last forever- they don't corrode or crack like metal
| pipes would over time.
|
| For really critical things like through hulls below the
| waterline on boats, plastic pipes like glass filled nylon
| (Marelon) are considered safer and more reliable than
| metal, because they never corrode, and are much physically
| stronger than a comparable weight metal part.
|
| I grew up with 1970s European cars where every plastic or
| rubber part would fail eventually, but by the 90s the
| materials got much better.
| rozap wrote:
| > will make you look poor
|
| I have an oldish (1997) exotic car as a toy. It cost less
| upfront than a new Toyota Camry. At a car meet, I overheard
| someone say to their friend "Man, if I had infinite money,
| this is what I'd get". I definitely do not own a money
| printing machine.
|
| Maintenance is something else but I do the work myself so
| it's not bad. And the fun thing about old low volume exotics
| is that they are mostly parts bin cars. Tons of shared
| components are easily available.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Same, I'm the "rich guy" picking up my son at school in an
| old Porsche I got cheap on Craigslist and maintain myself,
| despite the fact that its a school my kid was transferred
| to in a wealthy neighborhood we can't afford to live in. It
| cost me way way less than a newer economy car would.
|
| It's funny the general reactions I get- young men try to
| race me at stoplights, and strangers on the street will
| often give me a defiant fist or middle finger, as if I
| represent the wealthy exploitative class, in what is likely
| the cheapest car that has driven by in half an hour.
|
| I enjoy working on cars, so that helps make it cheap.
| rozap wrote:
| The street race invitations are funny. I get that a lot
| in my Esprit and, apart from it being incredibly stupid
| and dangerous, new cars are so absurdly fast in a
| straight line that everyone knows who would win.
|
| It was uncomfortable at first having people oogle over
| the car and make assumptions, but the number of
| conversations it has started with people genuinely
| interested in it definitely outweighs the awkwardness.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I've always loved the Lotus Esprit- sounds like a really
| fun car!
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I got a lovely note left on my car for parking in a
| handicap spot (with a tag!). The person assumed I was a
| rich guy flaunting the rules. My little miata was so
| proud of being called a "rich man's" car it practically
| _pranced_ out of the parking lot.
|
| People just assume that anything sporty looking is
| ruinously expensive.
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| I love older cars, but they are significantly more dangerous.
| My 93 pickup had no airbags and was notorious for the engine
| intruding into the passenger compartment in collisions. My 91
| sports car only has an air bag for the driver as a premium
| option, and they are known to not deploy due to the ancient
| explosives and electrical contacts. The A pillars on both
| cars are tiny and will fold in any kind of hit or rollover,
| plus both cars were designed for 55 mph max speeds, not the
| 85+ that is common today. An accident on the freeway in
| either would be a coin toss of survival.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| It depends on how old and what you are comparing. In
| another thread on here I suggested comparing a brand new
| Chevy Trax to a 2012 Audi Q5- I think it's pretty safe to
| say the Audi will be a much safer car for 1/4 the price.
|
| If safety is important, someone with cheap new economy car
| money can instead get into a high end vehicle well known
| for its safety and quality, still for a lot less money.
|
| Sure, if you are going to compare something over 30+ years
| old, and from a manufacturer not known for safety or
| quality in the first place, it will be a lot more
| dangerous.
|
| Still, even with old stuff it varies. Late 80s Mercedes and
| Volvos, even base models, for example had most of the
| modern safety tech that other cars didn't see for a very
| long time.
|
| Weight is also a huge factor- a big old truck with no
| regard for safety in its design is still a lot safer than a
| light economy car in a collision. Probably the safest cars
| on the market are still the over-engineered 20 year old
| full sized luxury SUVs that weigh as much as a 3/4 ton
| truck and have tons of heavy offroad gadgets they don't put
| on SUVs anymore.
| bityard wrote:
| There is no such thing as owning an "older car" here in the
| midwest rust belt states. The frames corrode to orange dust
| on _every_ car when they get to be between 10-12 years old.
| You _do_ see cars older than that on the road, but that's
| only because we don't have mandatory inspections in my state.
| The only exceptions here are the "toys" that people buy for
| summer use only. (Sports cars, vintage cars, etc.)
|
| Once in a while I see repair videos on cars from mechanics in
| Florida, Texas, Arizona, or Southern California. The car will
| be 15 years old and everything underneath will look entirely
| brand-new (minus some dust and scratches) compared to a
| brand-new car here that has seen only a winter or two.
| bityard wrote:
| I live in the rust belt, where the average life expectancy of a
| car is about 10 years. 12-15 if you _really_ baby it. Except
| for one car that was totaled (got rear-ended by a texter), all
| of the cars I no longer own succumbed to a rotted out frame.
| Engines were fine, bodies were fine, interiors were fine.
|
| But a frame. Can't really replace a frame. You can _sometimes_
| repair it. You can buy some time by paying for an oil-based
| undercoating every year, but finding someone who will do it
| affordably _and_ do a good job is hard. (It's a messy, annoying
| job.)
|
| I sort of want congress to mandate stainless steel or aluminum
| frames in all cars sold in the US, and I don't even care if it
| makes the cars cost more. It won't happen via state laws
| because the auto manufacturers are big campaign donors around
| here.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| The increase in total loss designations by insurance companies is
| due to the extremely high costs charged by the shops contracted
| by them to do repairs.
|
| The designation of a car as "totaled" is often an illusion and
| there is a thriving parallel market of auction houses, repair
| shops, salvage titling companies, and resellers who take the
| "ruined" cars, fix them, and sell them on the used market.
|
| Insurance companies could deal directly with the lower cost shops
| but just like the Concur Travel cancer that is spreading across
| corporate America there are extremely perverse incentives between
| executives and boards to keep the system the way it is with all
| of the major players dealing only with each other.
|
| There is probably an auctioneer within 30 minutes of where you
| are right now who will sell you a "total loss" car that you can
| repair, or have repaired, for a minuscule fraction of what an
| insurance contractor will charge-- often for less than the
| insurance payout (to both you and the adjuster).
|
| Like all things fucked in our economy, the trend of exorbitant
| repair costs took off when private equity started buying up the
| regional insurance repair contractor near-monopolies like Service
| King (Carlyle Group) and Caliber Collision (Leonard Green).
| neuralRiot wrote:
| The catch is that most banks won't finance "rebuilt-titled"
| cars, you don't have a dealer warranty (and most plainly refuse
| to work on rebuilt cars) and the vehicle has a 50-60% (or less)
| resale value than a "clean-title".
| karma_pharmer wrote:
| That's a feature not a bug.
|
| It's selective definancialization, and I love it. Same reason
| why buying tax foreclosures is such a great bargain: you
| don't have to compete with bank-financed buyers!
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Deep down inside I know that is by design.
| bityard wrote:
| Huh. Well I happen to be shopping for a used care right now
| and in my area at least, Craigslist and Facebook are
| completely swamped with rebuilt title cars. And the vast
| majority of them are priced the same as clear title cars.
| alliao wrote:
| PE will literally keep going till society start revolting
| labster wrote:
| Until they start rebelling, society is already revolting
| twojacobtwo wrote:
| I've seen this market in action. My dad had his car written off
| years ago and he bought it back the day after he got his
| payout. We just went to the yard where it was to be 'scrapped'
| and paid about 1/4 of the payout total to take it home. The
| only damage was to the side panels and bumper, so we replaced
| those ourselves and he still had a fair chunk of money left
| over.
|
| The guy at the yard said any car without damage to the frame or
| drive train is likely to be picked up by a used car shop or
| private resellers who do the repairs themselves and flip them.
| rconti wrote:
| Actually, insurance companies are already _very_ aggressively
| steering their customers into "lower-cost" shops, leading them
| to believe they should accept subpar repairs in order to keep
| costs down and profits up. In many cases they use non-OEM parts
| to keep repair costs down.
|
| I think the real reason they total a car at 60-70% is because
| the cost is just an estimate. They don't want to keep sending
| an estimator out to approve more $$ in repairs, costing
| everyone time and money, and ultimately spending more than it
| would cost to just buy out the customer -- who, in many cases,
| might just like a big check to buy what they want, rather than
| weeks fixing their 'old' car.
|
| Insurance companies also like to drag their heels to punish you
| for standing up for yourself and selecting a high-quality
| bodyshop. In the case of a minor front-end accident for a car
| in my household, they trickled the money out in bits and
| pieces. Every time the shop countered the insurance company's
| estimate, the insurance company would take 2 days to send an
| adjustor out, trickle out a few more dollars, wash, rinse,
| repeat. It's why I keep rental car coverage for our vehicles
| even when we don't need it -- to hold the insurance company's
| feet to the fire, so they feel the financial pain, too, when
| they hold your car hostage for a month.
| floxy wrote:
| >Concur Travel cancer
|
| Tell us more about this.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I was told that the original Mini (Mr. Bean's car) was designed
| to be fairly "disposable."
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Old timer here, back in the day (60s thru 80s) owners worked on
| their cars to save money, this kept garage repair prices in check
| because they knew we had another choice, ourselves. Today, I
| still service my vehicles because I purchased the electronic
| meters and testers that are required. (I realize not everyone
| thinks they have the ability to service their car, YouTube is a
| great source.
|
| Maybe you don't want to get your hands dirty. While changing out
| a turn signal light can be a pain, you can do it, thus saving a
| lot of money. Accomplishing a difficult job is a very good
| feeling. If you don't have the required tools, rent or borrow
| them.
|
| There are limitations, I tend to drive my vehicles to higher
| mileage. I won't change out half-shafts anymore or automatic
| window motors, as I have in the past many times. (I pay the
| garage to do it now.) But this is due to age, not how difficult
| the job is. Auto garages are opportunist, they'll charge whatever
| the market can stand, just like the new car sales. Until we make
| them change, they won't.
| Clubber wrote:
| YouTube is a great resource for instructional videos on how to
| do stuff like that and fix things around the house. Lots of
| things.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Car part prices are a scam... on most cheap cars, a small crash,
| broken bumper, lights and the radiator (+ all the sensors) means
| the car is totalled, because just the parts cost more than a new
| car. How the hell can a single headlight for a cheap car... so
| just some plastic, not even LEDs yet, cost 800euros?
|
| Sadly, until something (culture, new player on the market,
| regulation....) changes, that car will be totalled and scrapped.
| ianbicking wrote:
| It feels like risk mitigation to me. With all the interconnected
| aspects of a car the repair might be reasonably priced or might
| not. If the insurance company just "pays for the repair" then
| they've committed to either price, or even if they have a limit
| then they might reach the limit and still need to replace the car
| on top of it. Or the car might get repaired but have some issues,
| and there's no good way to just say "this car isn't as good as
| before the accident, but here's $1000 to make you whole".
|
| Instead they declare the car totaled and recoup what they can on
| the other end. If you want to actually _keep_ your totaled car
| you'll have to pay for it, because it _does_ have value. I had a
| car "totaled" when it was rear-ended, but it was still drivable
| and I would have liked to keep it, do some minimal repairs, and
| just accepted the wonky back end. But to keep it I would have
| received something $3,000 less on a $10,000 car and it didn't
| seem worth it.
|
| I don't know if the car was chopped up and helped make other cars
| whole, or vice versa. Some part of it ended up on a discount used
| car lot. And that's probably fine. Cars are kind of fungible and
| declaring a car "totaled" is just a way to take advantage of that
| and seems like a legitimate efficient-market approach.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| A lot of "totalled" cars end up in poorer countries, often sold
| to buyers who are not made aware of its damage/accident history.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-29 23:02 UTC)