@rd3 opened up a can of worms--mostly good, with his comment.
Regarding cars, in terms of durability, the line between durable and junk was broad and blurry until the 1990s. That is because the major automakers had not acquired the requisite experience and skill to design and manufacture components and subsystems that were "just good enou…
@rd3 opened up a can of worms--mostly good, with his comment.
Regarding cars, in terms of durability, the line between durable and junk was broad and blurry until the 1990s. That is because the major automakers had not acquired the requisite experience and skill to design and manufacture components and subsystems that were "just good enough" to last 120k to 160k miles (200k to 250k km). Therefore, believe it or not, they were generally "over-engineered" for their era, in the sense that, with regular maintenance, they could last indefinitely (provided they did not rust out).
Starting in the 1960s/70s, as cars improved, automakers dialed back the routine service and maintenance requirements.
The "peak auto" era was, loosely speaking, mid 1980s to mid 2010s. Cars did become more complex, and harder to service (though they needed less service, when they needed a repair, it was more expensive).
Starting in the 1990s and 2000s, the automakers started selling cars that were meant to last 120k to 200k miles (the actual targets are closely guarded secrets) with minimal service. When a system fails at that point, the economics of keeping the car on the road are not attractive, and often the car is sent to a salvage yard, to provide parts.
Improved technology and manufacturing have led to widespread adoption of features that are inherently inferior, but can now be manufactured to be "good enough". (There are reasons why the straight six was so popular until the 1960s, why V6s use did not become widespread till the 80s, and why there were NO 3-cylinder US cars until the 2020s. Your first guess is your best guess...). The CVT automatic (Continuously Variable Transmission) comes to mind. Or technologies that are more expensive and have drawbacks, but can give better mpg, and can be "short-cutted" to some extent to meet cost targets: turbochargers, 8,9,10 speed automatics, direct fuel injection.
The takeaway is this: the typical 1990-2010 Toyota will go farther with fewer problems than the typical 2025 Toyota. And that applies to pretty much all cars (I pick Toyota because they were, and are, generally considered to be the best-built vehicles).
But it's not as simple as running out and finding a used Toyota, because they are used and OLD.
We are beset by many problems. However, if I was dictator, one easy call would be to roll back US auto regulations to 2000 levels, eliminate CAFE, and raise motor fuel taxes $0.25 a quarter for the next two years, in the hope that this would make building cars like 1990-2010 4-cylinder Camrys, Civics, and Cruzes economically attractive to automakers. Less content, lower operating costs, longer life, less fuel consumption, fewer exhaust emissions, in a society where car is absolutely essential for 95% of the adult public.
@rd3 opened up a can of worms--mostly good, with his comment.
Regarding cars, in terms of durability, the line between durable and junk was broad and blurry until the 1990s. That is because the major automakers had not acquired the requisite experience and skill to design and manufacture components and subsystems that were "just good enough" to last 120k to 160k miles (200k to 250k km). Therefore, believe it or not, they were generally "over-engineered" for their era, in the sense that, with regular maintenance, they could last indefinitely (provided they did not rust out).
Starting in the 1960s/70s, as cars improved, automakers dialed back the routine service and maintenance requirements.
The "peak auto" era was, loosely speaking, mid 1980s to mid 2010s. Cars did become more complex, and harder to service (though they needed less service, when they needed a repair, it was more expensive).
Starting in the 1990s and 2000s, the automakers started selling cars that were meant to last 120k to 200k miles (the actual targets are closely guarded secrets) with minimal service. When a system fails at that point, the economics of keeping the car on the road are not attractive, and often the car is sent to a salvage yard, to provide parts.
Improved technology and manufacturing have led to widespread adoption of features that are inherently inferior, but can now be manufactured to be "good enough". (There are reasons why the straight six was so popular until the 1960s, why V6s use did not become widespread till the 80s, and why there were NO 3-cylinder US cars until the 2020s. Your first guess is your best guess...). The CVT automatic (Continuously Variable Transmission) comes to mind. Or technologies that are more expensive and have drawbacks, but can give better mpg, and can be "short-cutted" to some extent to meet cost targets: turbochargers, 8,9,10 speed automatics, direct fuel injection.
The takeaway is this: the typical 1990-2010 Toyota will go farther with fewer problems than the typical 2025 Toyota. And that applies to pretty much all cars (I pick Toyota because they were, and are, generally considered to be the best-built vehicles).
But it's not as simple as running out and finding a used Toyota, because they are used and OLD.
We are beset by many problems. However, if I was dictator, one easy call would be to roll back US auto regulations to 2000 levels, eliminate CAFE, and raise motor fuel taxes $0.25 a quarter for the next two years, in the hope that this would make building cars like 1990-2010 4-cylinder Camrys, Civics, and Cruzes economically attractive to automakers. Less content, lower operating costs, longer life, less fuel consumption, fewer exhaust emissions, in a society where car is absolutely essential for 95% of the adult public.