And consider this, by the mere design of cars today they are designed to be
"disposable". Like Marin and Bryan said, most people seem to fall for the
manufacture's ploy that newer is better. So when that 36 month car loan is
up, go in and start over. And who the heck is going to restore a 1999
Subaru Outback? In 40 years it will likely have been in a scrap heap for a
decade. The newer autos just aren't that durable, by design none the less.
On the other hand, a '36 Cadillac, '57 Chevy, '67 Rover.........all are
worthy of redos, but a Geo Metro - uh, not a chance.
I don't know if it was on this list or somewhere else but I heard something
not too long ago about a fee built into the purchase of a new car to cover
the "disposal" of the car. When we go to the county transfer station we
have to pay a fee based on the gross weight of what we dump, but often junk
cars just get abandoned due to the cost of legitimate disposal.
Rich
'60 SII 109sw
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Hoult <bhoult@peoplepc.com>
To: <lro@works.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)
> On Mon, 02 July 2001, "C. Marin Faure" wrote:
>
> >I suspect if I added up all the
> >money I've spent on the SIII in 28 >years, adjusted it for inflation (or
> >maybe not even that) it would total >more than what we've spent on the
> >expensive, but few repairs to the >Range Rover.
>
> While agree in principal that the more complex systems and improved design
of the newer vehicles represent a gain in reliability when the amount of
time maintaining them is factored in, I don't believe you can discount the
overall longevity built into the older designs by "overuse" of material. It
goes for everything; cars, boats, airplanes, houses, toys, furniture.....
>
> The key difference in comparison is where the additional, or higher
quality, material used lends to improvement in the intrinsic functionality
of the item. As far as cars go (I think Marin pointed this out yesterday),
most people seem to fall for the manufacture's ploy that newer is better.
What, with all the extra time we have now since we're not trying to synch
dual carbs, we can have long conversations on our cell phones while we
drive. Obviously, my personal preference is to take time to smell the 90
wt.
>
> Bryan
> 62 88
> 70 109 "Genie"
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 03 2001 - 11:58:48 EDT