I understand your sentiment but cars today are safer, quicker, dont rust as much, and get better gas mileage.
The cost to maintain an older car won’t be cheap and it is shit for the environment.
We just need to place government regulations on subscriptions. With recent wins pertaining to right to repair, hopefully they pick up speed and people start voting to make good changes.
If you purchase a product, you should own it. If it has a feature that is disabled by the company, they should have to lease that space on your product, thereby paying you for the storage. That would incentivize not making products like this.
I flatly concede that new cars are safer. Granted that, it’s not really that bad to maintain an old car if you take a known good platform purchased in cash and maintain it in a low rust area (which I am). I present two examples:
I have a 1991 Chevy S10 I bought in 2011. Other than fluid changes, I have put in brakes (twice), battery, starter, and a water pump in it since that time. Total cost, maybe $300? I bought the truck for $2500 and it gets around 25mpg.
I have a 2005 Scion xB. Purchased 2019, I have put only brakes into it (cost $150ish). Cost was $2800, and it gets over 30mpg almost always.
Separate to these, I have an e-scooter I use for commuting and small errands on nice days. I think the trio makes a great combo of practical stuff mover, people mover, and “just me” mover. I find it hard to believe this trio would be anything close to the carbon output of making two new equivalent cars and burning the same amount of fuel with them.
How is that s10 getting 25mpg, that’s wonderful as new it only got 22 mpg. The 1992 Jeep Cherokee outisde my place last I tested got 10.8 mpg. 6 cylinder mostly metal no airbags. Now the snapper push lawn mower I have that was bought in the early 80s is a better example of what you want. I mowed a half acre with it today and it started up on the first pull. Spark plug, sharp blade, and a motor and it gets beat by my neighbors $3000 rider but Ill save that dollar anyday. Exercise isnt hurting my fat ass. That thing runs better than the Honda motors i thought outran their time.
No one cares, but it started up first pull this year after sitting all winter uncovered in a backyard with small amounts of snow
You’re probably right about the mpg. The odometer has been broken for ages and I was estimating milage by adding up my commutes. I am at high altitude which does help a bit due to the lower wind resistance however.
6cyl anything from that era is almost always rough on gas haha. My dad also had an XJ – it’s actually what I learned to drive in. But yeah, terrible on gas.
I have a older mower too (not as old as you). But it’s creeping up on 10 years old. It’s a Troy-Bilt with the Briggs motor. Same though, first start of the season it’s sometimes two pulls, and then almost always just a single pull after that.
I understand your intentions, but blindly believing modern cars are safer just because they’re modern isn’t exactly a good mentality either.
For instance: the Volkswagen Up!! Being safer than the Renault kwid which is still better than the equally modern fiat panda, which got the lowest possible grade.
Remember: the auto industry will not make safer automobiles without pressure, I know this because the volkswagen T2 was built all the way to 2014 only getting performance or interior updates because of the lack of pressure on them to make a safer vehicle for that class.
Edit: also do note that the kwid built on Brazil is significantly different from the Indian kwid, meaning that one got 3 stars and the other only one.
As a side note: the Volkswagen Up! performed well when it was tested in 2014 by latinncap
So the car I drove to work today is from 1992/93. Doesn’t even have airbags. No AA brakes… and I can almost guarantee that it doesn’t fold like a car from the 2020’s
You know, the article I’ve sent mentions the differences between the Brazilian kwid and Indian.
One of the points mentioned in it is the differences between reinforcements in both vehicles, being the Indian having weaker structures and less safety gear.
(No airbags and such)
Thus it got a lower score.
Notice how this 1989 toyota celica does this is a good car from the day, notice how the driver’s face bangs against the steering wheel? That’s what airbags are for, older cars offer minimal head protection.
And the “older cars don’t crumble” thing is proven to be bogusover and over again, if you look closely the older cars folded more frequently than their modern counterparts. In the case of the corolla, it didn’t fare better than it’s new and improved interation
Consider this quote: “It’s not the fall that kills you; it’s the sudden stop at the end.” -Douglas Adams
Of course, automobiles are unlikely to fall, but it means that a sudden stop can cause a lot more harm than what people think, crumple zones are meant to absorb the shock.
Thus an automobile without any crumple zones whatsoever means that the car will be fine, but the sudden shock will cause lots of damage to your soft and mushy human body.
Modern automobiles have proven to be, on average, safer than their older counterparts. However as I have said: there are safe cars, not so safe cars and death traps. Which goes back to what I’ve said: measuring an automobile’s safety solely by date of manufacturing is overly simplistic.
To be frank I kind of feel a sour grapes vibe :P but don’t fret, I can’t afford a new car either. Not every one can and that’s where older cars shine.
Though I’d take a dacia sandero over a fiat panda anytime.
Hopefully as my life goes on I will continue to make more money as I go.
I intend to use that money to own and maintain old ass cars until it’s literally illegal.
I understand your sentiment but cars today are safer, quicker, dont rust as much, and get better gas mileage.
The cost to maintain an older car won’t be cheap and it is shit for the environment.
We just need to place government regulations on subscriptions. With recent wins pertaining to right to repair, hopefully they pick up speed and people start voting to make good changes.
If you purchase a product, you should own it. If it has a feature that is disabled by the company, they should have to lease that space on your product, thereby paying you for the storage. That would incentivize not making products like this.
Just because cars are getting newer, does not mean that they’re easier to repair on your own
I flatly concede that new cars are safer. Granted that, it’s not really that bad to maintain an old car if you take a known good platform purchased in cash and maintain it in a low rust area (which I am). I present two examples:
I have a 1991 Chevy S10 I bought in 2011. Other than fluid changes, I have put in brakes (twice), battery, starter, and a water pump in it since that time. Total cost, maybe $300? I bought the truck for $2500 and it gets around 25mpg.
I have a 2005 Scion xB. Purchased 2019, I have put only brakes into it (cost $150ish). Cost was $2800, and it gets over 30mpg almost always.
Separate to these, I have an e-scooter I use for commuting and small errands on nice days. I think the trio makes a great combo of practical stuff mover, people mover, and “just me” mover. I find it hard to believe this trio would be anything close to the carbon output of making two new equivalent cars and burning the same amount of fuel with them.
Thoughts?
How is that s10 getting 25mpg, that’s wonderful as new it only got 22 mpg. The 1992 Jeep Cherokee outisde my place last I tested got 10.8 mpg. 6 cylinder mostly metal no airbags. Now the snapper push lawn mower I have that was bought in the early 80s is a better example of what you want. I mowed a half acre with it today and it started up on the first pull. Spark plug, sharp blade, and a motor and it gets beat by my neighbors $3000 rider but Ill save that dollar anyday. Exercise isnt hurting my fat ass. That thing runs better than the Honda motors i thought outran their time.
No one cares, but it started up first pull this year after sitting all winter uncovered in a backyard with small amounts of snow
You’re probably right about the mpg. The odometer has been broken for ages and I was estimating milage by adding up my commutes. I am at high altitude which does help a bit due to the lower wind resistance however.
6cyl anything from that era is almost always rough on gas haha. My dad also had an XJ – it’s actually what I learned to drive in. But yeah, terrible on gas.
I have a older mower too (not as old as you). But it’s creeping up on 10 years old. It’s a Troy-Bilt with the Briggs motor. Same though, first start of the season it’s sometimes two pulls, and then almost always just a single pull after that.
I understand your intentions, but blindly believing modern cars are safer just because they’re modern isn’t exactly a good mentality either.
For instance: the Volkswagen Up!! Being safer than the Renault kwid which is still better than the equally modern fiat panda, which got the lowest possible grade.
Remember: the auto industry will not make safer automobiles without pressure, I know this because the volkswagen T2 was built all the way to 2014 only getting performance or interior updates because of the lack of pressure on them to make a safer vehicle for that class.
Edit: also do note that the kwid built on Brazil is significantly different from the Indian kwid, meaning that one got 3 stars and the other only one.
As a side note: the Volkswagen Up! performed well when it was tested in 2014 by latinncap
So the car I drove to work today is from 1992/93. Doesn’t even have airbags. No AA brakes… and I can almost guarantee that it doesn’t fold like a car from the 2020’s
You know, the article I’ve sent mentions the differences between the Brazilian kwid and Indian.
One of the points mentioned in it is the differences between reinforcements in both vehicles, being the Indian having weaker structures and less safety gear. (No airbags and such) Thus it got a lower score.
Notice how this 1989 toyota celica does this is a good car from the day, notice how the driver’s face bangs against the steering wheel? That’s what airbags are for, older cars offer minimal head protection.
And the “older cars don’t crumble” thing is proven to be bogus over and over again, if you look closely the older cars folded more frequently than their modern counterparts. In the case of the corolla, it didn’t fare better than it’s new and improved interation
Consider this quote: “It’s not the fall that kills you; it’s the sudden stop at the end.” -Douglas Adams
Of course, automobiles are unlikely to fall, but it means that a sudden stop can cause a lot more harm than what people think, crumple zones are meant to absorb the shock.
Thus an automobile without any crumple zones whatsoever means that the car will be fine, but the sudden shock will cause lots of damage to your soft and mushy human body.
Modern automobiles have proven to be, on average, safer than their older counterparts. However as I have said: there are safe cars, not so safe cars and death traps. Which goes back to what I’ve said: measuring an automobile’s safety solely by date of manufacturing is overly simplistic.
To be frank I kind of feel a sour grapes vibe :P but don’t fret, I can’t afford a new car either. Not every one can and that’s where older cars shine.
Though I’d take a dacia sandero over a fiat panda anytime.
Ah, so you’re THAT guy in the scifi movie!
I would love to be that guy in a sci-fi movie!