Durable Car Ownership?

[Luckythirteen]

That's the plan with the Unremarkable Clio. It's been family owned since nearly new, so it's been looked after.

Thinking about it recently, the ones that are in the scrappy have been crashed or trashed, most of the ones I see out and about aren't too bad. Especially the facelift ones. Win for me though: plenty about to break for bits, and the major mechanicals are common enough to other models.

I'm also wondering about the viability of diy repairing shot ecu's and such. Repairing actual boards, maybe not. The smt components would need soldering nanobots to tackle. But making a goid one out of two differently broken ones might be okay, they're not all keyed together.

[loserone]

I was a little intrigued by the idea of there being a book, so I spent many hours* researching it.

 

http://www.morrisminor.org.uk/index.php/durable-car-ownership.html

 

The book is linked to as a PDF from there.

 

 

_{* I googled it and clicked the top hit.}

[John F]

2.0 8v Cavalier Mk 3... post 1993 models are fairly rust-resistant, and the mechanicals are bomb-proof. And they still look quite modern.

[mercrocker]

I found Charles Ware to be an extremely astute man (he had at one time been a property magnate).  His "Durable Car" programme was, in reality, a marketing tool.   The idea, of course, being that you buy a car from him with a "guaranteed" chassis.  That did not necessarily mean guaranteed to be rust free or not needing work for 3 or 5 years of the term.  It meant that the car was sufficiently expensive to cover any work that did become necessary and also that the company could expect you to remain a customer whilst following "the plan".   As pointed out above there is nothing inherently durable about a 1950s British unitary constructed entry-level saloon car.   My 190E at 25 years old has never met a welder nor needed one - by that stage in its life my Minor had more stitches than the Bayeux tapestry.   Both cars have survived well and I don't intend to replace either one but they have had to be run with two totally different outlooks and economic theories....

[dollywobbler]

2.0 8v Cavalier Mk 3... post 1993 models are fairly rust-resistant, and the mechanicals are bomb-proof. And they still look quite modern.

 

I can very much see myself in a Cav Mk3 when I fancy my next 'boring' car. At the moment, I'm once more trying to prove that a boring car can also be exciting. This will no doubt go horribly wrong at some point.

[John F]

dollywobbler, on 14 Dec 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:dollywobbler, on 14 Dec 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

I can very much see myself in a Cav Mk3 when I fancy my next 'boring' car. At the moment, I'm once more trying to prove that a boring car can also be exciting. This will no doubt go horribly wrong at some point.

 

Ian, if your budget will stretch to a late Cavalier SRi 2.0 16v with the close-ratio f18 cr gearbox and Recaro sports seats you'll find it anything but boring

 

I drove my old '94 Cav SRi laden to the gills from the French Alps to Calais on deserted autoroutes (in the early hours of the morning) at indicated speeds between 110 mph and 138 mph, then from Dover up to Yorkshire, and felt fresh as a daisy when I arrived. The pick-up between 70 and 90 on the motorway was epic. A truly astonishing car, incredibly practical too..

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

I think you can probably run virtually anything for the long term, if the will is there. I have owned my Jaguar XJ40 for a long time now and (rust aside) found it a very durable car.

 

When they were first sold back in the mid-1980s, plenty of people said that not one of them would survive long-term  because they were so complicated and High tech. They believed no one would know how to fix them and that a single faulty module would kill them once they reached a certain age. I remember one mechanic saying with complete conviction that it didn't matter a fig whether they had solved the Jag rust problem or not (they didn't!!) - it wasn't rust that would kill them.

 

It hasn't turned out to be true. Not even close. Newer XJ40s don't really go wrong much electrically, but the earlier cars certainly do and there is a small cottage industry repairing the modules now. They're regarded as virtually Stone age to modern eyes in their simplicity and easy to fix. There is plenty of forum support too, such as this: http://www.xj40.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=6421#p94661

 

Few XJ40s die from unsolvable faults in their electrics, they die from owners who can't be arsed to fix them.

 

Mine has needed a fair bit of bodywork doing, but everything else is very durable. I plan to run it forever.

 

 

 

My old jag reflecting its spares!

[Uncle Jimmy]

The most durable cars seem to be the ones that attract scene tax, where it's worth people's time and money keeping them on the road.  Which isn't really the Autoshite way.  Which leaves Ovlov 740s, and non-rusty Toyotas and Hondas.

Quite the opposite, which is another reason why the VW scene is especially daft. The things weren't built to last. Mk1/2 Escorts too, very rust prone. If scenes revolved around durable cars old Volvos, Fintail Benzes and Rover P4s would be hip.

[PiperCub]

Was thinking one of Planet Ovlov's finest too & MB W123's, although I wasn't aware they'd increased in price so much until reading this thread.

 

Plus Pug 205? (mine's 23 & rust-free)

 

And one for many to disagree with: Mk1 (or 2) MX5. Granted - not exactly practical though tough, cheap and easy to fix.

[brickwall]

I read an article that said the cars most likely to make 250, 000 miles or more were a bundle of 4x4s, Volvos and Hondas. Skoda did got a big mention for the Octavia, but you're most likely to have engine probs with VAG cars.

[alf892]

I was reading on the EU website that new cars should only have manufacture support now for 10 years. After that it really is down to the after-market people. One supposes  this is to keep VAG's order books healthy.

[DaveAspley]

Anything Ford. If an engine fits in a Mk1 escort then there is a ton of induction/injection/exhaust/mechanical spares.

 

Otherwise, because they sold millions* of everything then a spuffload of spares is available cheap.

 

Or... As we agreed when I worked at Vauxhall, buy an early Mk4 astra 1.6, only thing that ever went wrong was the ecu. Part number R1560007 exchange, and brake light bulbs weirdly. Cockroach of a car. Easily lasting 15 years and in 4 years the oldest will be 20+. Avoid anything vw with the 1.4 16v engine. The wiring rots like fruit in the desert.

[brickwall]

The cars that will last forever have already been built. So, this means we are the last generation that could probably be able to tease a few more furlongs out of them. I see no future in moderns.

[Luckythirteen]

Maybe so. Although...

 

I was thinking. Dangerous, I know, but there we are. All the emissions nonsense can be got round, such that it'll pass an MOT. ECUs for the major bits are rebuildable and silly mechanical stuff like DMFs can be changed too.

But there's still too much 'cosmetic' electronics beyond that.

Could there come a time, when it's okay to rip all that shit out, trim down the programming and electronics, and just have it be a car again? Dangerously old school I know, but: if it's off the manufacturers horizon at ten, then they've handed responsibility fully to the owner.

I think there's potentially a high tech/low tech mongrel solution here.

[PiperCub]

Good point, the main engine electronics etc can usually be fixed but it's the pointless chassis control crap that's going to be a future problem. Just why exactly do you need to 'Code' items into a car? Aside from the obvious that is! Sadly you can't always get round these issues, sometimes you can disconnect - say central locking, or revert to manual windows (did that to my last Mk2 Golf - manual ones £15/pr ebay, electric £100+/pr ebay) or something but it's rare nowadays.

[Asimo]

Maybe so. Although...

 

I was thinking. Dangerous, I know, but there we are. All the emissions nonsense can be got round, such that it'll pass an MOT. ECUs for the major bits are rebuildable and silly mechanical stuff like DMFs can be changed too.

But there's still too much 'cosmetic' electronics beyond that.

Could there come a time, when it's okay to rip all that shit out, trim down the programming and electronics, and just have it be a car again? Dangerously old school I know, but: if it's off the manufacturers horizon at ten, then they've handed responsibility fully to the owner.

I think there's potentially a high tech/low tech mongrel solution here.

 

What we have to look out for is this "no modifications" nonsense that some governments are sneaking in. I don't mean the ballache we get in the UK from insurance companies about mods, that can be overcome by using the more flexible brokers; anything goes if it is agreed and in the insurance contract, (and can be got through the mot)

 

No, what I mean is the "no changes at all from the way it was made, not even different tyre sizes to those homologated" that is enforced in some places.

 

 

[Jim Bell]

I admire people who can stand by one car for a long period of time. Thats like a really mature adult commitment.

I've never had a car that I didn't like, but I still get through them like a hot knife through wob.

 

The twelfth of the year arrives today.

No more car buying until 2015.

[Lord Sterling]

As has already been alluded to, all cars in thoery can kept going for life if they are regularly serviced and maintained correctly. Of course there is always the risk that the car will develop an expensive fault that may render it scrap fodder as many car owners start worrying about how much money they've "put in" and what they won't "get back".

 

Most faults can be put down to poor maintenance/cheap bodging or incorrect work/part fitment. Some can be tracked down to poor manufacturer/component design or poor durability of part.

 

Even if you do manage to get the balance right, there is always the risk of becoming 'bored' particularly as prices for more modern counterparts keep tumbling down. Or, as Vulgalour has already pointed out, it can be very hard at times keeping on top of maintanance particularly when life/finances make it difficult to do so. When your car needs this and that and it's likely cost you a huge chunk out of your monthly wages, it's just easier to just offload.

 

Cars are built of replacable components, everything from body panels to drivetrain to electricals and interiors can be tracked down and replaced. People have done "nut and bolt" restorations of cars. Many components can be very easy to replace but others can be very difficult which can easily see half the car in bits. Things like this can see cars simply offloaded due to the sheer amount of work involved to solve often a small problem. Stuff like this will see cars offloaded/weighed in, even for the seasoned shiter.

 

I have always viewed my cars as long term, but because other things have always got in my way, I have had to store them off road. Yes, it deteriorates them faster than if they were in daily use but at least it buys me time to be able to concentrate on them when I get the balance of this thing called life just so.

[Luckythirteen]

 

What we have to look out for is this "no modifications" nonsense that some governments are sneaking in. I don't mean the ballache we get in the UK from insurance companies about mods, that can be overcome by using the more flexible brokers; anything goes if it is agreed and in the insurance contract, (and can be got through the mot)

 

No, what I mean is the "no changes at all from the way it was made, not even different tyre sizes to those homologated" that is enforced in some places.

 

Quite. Any law thus enacted is only to protect manufacturers interests. Although, people modding stuff dangerously give them all the excuse they need to pass it.

I was actually thinking about electric chairs. Well, electrically adjustable ones at any rate. What if only one person ever drives the car, the motors seize up, and that causes a fault code? If the MOT includes 'no warning lights at all' at some point, how is that fair, that a car can fail because the seat won't adjust?

Not the best example, granted, given that the motors can be freed off. But where's the latitude to leave it where it is? Or bin it and get a manual one from a scrappy, and fool the electronics into thinking the seat's just fine?

Same for electric windows. I've done the driver's one in mine twice this year, and it's just a frame with a motor, rack and cable. Nothing to it. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

[Dave_Q]

The problem when it comes to moderns is, durability doesn't sell.

 

In my opinion, vehicle quality peaked around 1990. Before about 1980 people kept cars until they were no longer usable, rotted away etc, which was probably less than 10 years.

 

In the 80s and 90s, cars were well built and the likes of BMW and Mercedes rightly charged a premium for a vehicle that could easily last a person for life.

 

However, people keeping cars forever is not good for car companies, governments, or a financial system based on endless "growth" and debt.

 

I currently work at a supplier of automotive components, although not in passenger cars. Everything is engineered to a specific reliability target, such as a B2 life of 500,000km, which would mean that 2% of components would fail within 500,000km. The statistical analysis and material engineering used in the design of components is sufficiently mature that these targets can easily be met most of the time. Note that over-engineering a component so less than the target fail is as much of a bad thing as too many failures, as it means you have spent too much money.

 

In the passenger car industry, I presume the same methods are applied but with considerably lower targets. The vehicle needs to last for the warranty period and no more.

 

Anyway, the modern car is a consumer good to be renewed bi-annually along with your phone contract, so who cares how long it lasts?

[Ronnie L]

To get right back to the original post, Charles Ware, founder of the Morris Minor Centre, actually wrote a book entitled 'Durable Car Ownership - A New Approach to Low Cost Motoring' back about 1982. Inspired by its message, I bought a Morris Minor for restoration the following year - 1983. I've still got that car, although it's off the road just now awaiting another round of repair and restoration. 

He was right enough - you can keep these cars going forever due to the comprehensive and almost unlimited supply of new and used parts, panels, trim etc. However I can't foresee the same kind of spares back-up for the average modern family banger in 20 or 30 years time. Anyway, would you really want to keep some of these Euro / Eastern things going forever?. I've been driving for 43 years and in that time I've had a LOT of vehicles. Variety is the spice of life when it comes to motoring, so maybe it's best to avoid a durable car and instead go for lots of different motoring experiences.

[320touring]

I operate on a "Fixed and floating" system:

 

The 320i is the fixed asset- 10 years on 14th Feb 2015. It gets laid up if big stuff needs done, has its configuration altered if needed (longer diff/shorter

diff/different springs/damper setups etc). The good lady is aware that if it came down to "sell the car to raise money to keep the house", we'd be homeless and sleeping in the touring.

 

The floating is A N other car purchased to keep me entertained/frustrated these range from:

 

The good- the e32 735i

The bad- GM Saab 9-3

to

the ugly- current polo 1.9d.

 

these are something to faff about with/act as backup to the 320i when required.

 

seems to work for me:)

[Junkman]

Any law thus enacted is only to protect manufacturers interests.

 

Whenever I write something like this, I'm lampooned for being a conspiracy theorist and in severe cases a Russel Brand II.

Consider the same done to you by me now.

 

Phew.

Now I feel better...

 

BTT:

 

If you want shite that lasts forever, buy a Pug 405 and stick with it.

Note: Beware of 20p coins, etc etc.

[Luckythirteen]

You can be Russell Brand, I'll be Naomi Wolf.

It's why I've stopped using the word 'conspiracy' in anything. 'Collusion' is much easier to prove, and doesn't carry barking mad baggage.

 

In the end, it's all the nonsense about 'eco' cars. Mostly, they aren't. When the parts to build a Prius have been shipped twice round the globe, the end product doesn't look so clever.

Arguing that a relatively simple, lightweight car is the better option, sometimes leads to such accusations.

But they who're doing the accusing often believe that recycling the whole thing, rather than breaking it for bits, is automatically right.

 

Buy they're part of the conspiracy, man...

[Junkman]

You should see the opencast mining in Canada, where they get the nickel for the Prius' batteries from.

Environment protection® at work, lemme tellyas.

[Luckythirteen]

And the W African mining for metals for the motors (and anything involving W African mining is a whole ethical can of worms in itself), and...

The list goes on.

 

But again, it's issues which the manufacturers would rather were swept under the carpet.

As long as they can sell the 'newer=better' line, without serious questioning, they're happy. And they can spend a lot more on lobbyists and marketing than we can, so the myth perpetuates.

[brickwall]

You should see the opencast mining in Canada, where they get the nickel for the Prius' batteries from.

Environment protection® at work, lemme tellyas.

 

 

You should see the ones in China!!!!!!!

[twosmoke300]

Let's not forget the refining plants and shipping the stuff all round the world

[garethj]

An old Land Rover must score well on being a durable vehicle, like a 2CV it's perfectly possible to change a chassis, all other spares are available or can be easily fabricated.  That's probably why so many are still on the road, and unfortunately it's why so many are stolen for spares.

 

Kit cars are probably an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet; the chassis will be simple, the bodyshell won't rust, the electrics are straightforward and the mechanicals can be replaced as new (old) alternatives become available.  Something with a Pinto engine can be upgraded to a Zetec now there are Mondeos rather than Cortinas in the scrapyard, and in 10 years time you can probably put in one of those 3 cylinder Fiesta engines while they're available.

[twosmoke300]

The 3 cyl engine will be the reason the car is in the scrap yard I reckon