I was reading the Jan. '62 issue of Motor Trend; bought for the road test of the '62 Daytona[]
There was another interesting article titled "Can Detroit Build a Life Time Car?" by Roger Huntington, about building cars that require less maintenance. This passage in particular caught my attention- still very applicable today- just adjust all numbers upward:
Various attempts at owner education campaigns by Detroit have not been very successful. The family car is just too common and utilitarian a commodity in the U.S. Families buy them with with little more consideration than they would use in buying a $300 refrigerator. They resent the fact that the car wants more attention and maintenance than the refrigerator. They tend to cut corners where possible, with an eye to trading off the car after a few years. Maintenance cannot flourish in this atmosphere.
So Detroit has long since given up on trying to educate car owners to maintain their cars properly. The new thinking is to specifically design the car so it doesn't require as much attention. It's a problem to know where to draw the line. But it's a cinch money spent here is more effective than money spent on campaigns to get John Q. Public to change his ways. And, of course, reducing maintenance on new cars is bound to raise the quality of used cars... and the used-car market is a very important factor in Detroit's profit picture.
Which brings up the question of maintenance vs. long life. Detroit is NOT concerned with building cars that will last 200K miles. The average annual car mileage in the U.S. is still around 10K (has been for nearly 20 years). Few people are interested in driving 20- or even 10-year-old cars. Stats show that the average new car buyer keeps the car between 2 and 3 years before trading on another one. In other words, a "maintenance life" of 30K miles will pretty much cover the original owner.
On several occasions I have heard the policy statement made that the companies hesitate to bring out special features that make the original owner pay for benefits that would accrue to the second and third owners- and that wouldn't particularly increase the car's value as a used car. In other words, they would be reluctant to add to the price of the car in order to include, say, a set of tires that would go 60K miles instead of 30K. The tires probably wouldn't add much to used car value, so the first owner would be paying for tires for the second owner.
Today's cars do require much less maintenance, and last much longer. But people still don't want to change coolant, trans. fluid, or even do tune-ups unless the car starts running poorly. Try to tell people about closer tolerances and why preventive maintenance is more critical than ever, and their eyes glaze over[|)] Then the water pump seal starts dripping, and people can't be bothered to check fluid levels, or even look at their temp. gauge occasionally. So instead of a $150 water pump job, they end up with a $2500 engine replacement
The above article gives a pretty good explanation of "Planned Obsolescence"... which is why I made the effort to share it with you all. However, since 1962 car have made great strides in long-term durability, but at the cost of higher repair and diagnostic costs when they do need work. Still, the usable life-span of modern cars has increased exponentially; which is why when I buy a vehicle for myself I won't even consider one under 100K; not worth the extra cost!
Food for thought......
Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131
There was another interesting article titled "Can Detroit Build a Life Time Car?" by Roger Huntington, about building cars that require less maintenance. This passage in particular caught my attention- still very applicable today- just adjust all numbers upward:
Various attempts at owner education campaigns by Detroit have not been very successful. The family car is just too common and utilitarian a commodity in the U.S. Families buy them with with little more consideration than they would use in buying a $300 refrigerator. They resent the fact that the car wants more attention and maintenance than the refrigerator. They tend to cut corners where possible, with an eye to trading off the car after a few years. Maintenance cannot flourish in this atmosphere.
So Detroit has long since given up on trying to educate car owners to maintain their cars properly. The new thinking is to specifically design the car so it doesn't require as much attention. It's a problem to know where to draw the line. But it's a cinch money spent here is more effective than money spent on campaigns to get John Q. Public to change his ways. And, of course, reducing maintenance on new cars is bound to raise the quality of used cars... and the used-car market is a very important factor in Detroit's profit picture.
Which brings up the question of maintenance vs. long life. Detroit is NOT concerned with building cars that will last 200K miles. The average annual car mileage in the U.S. is still around 10K (has been for nearly 20 years). Few people are interested in driving 20- or even 10-year-old cars. Stats show that the average new car buyer keeps the car between 2 and 3 years before trading on another one. In other words, a "maintenance life" of 30K miles will pretty much cover the original owner.
On several occasions I have heard the policy statement made that the companies hesitate to bring out special features that make the original owner pay for benefits that would accrue to the second and third owners- and that wouldn't particularly increase the car's value as a used car. In other words, they would be reluctant to add to the price of the car in order to include, say, a set of tires that would go 60K miles instead of 30K. The tires probably wouldn't add much to used car value, so the first owner would be paying for tires for the second owner.
Today's cars do require much less maintenance, and last much longer. But people still don't want to change coolant, trans. fluid, or even do tune-ups unless the car starts running poorly. Try to tell people about closer tolerances and why preventive maintenance is more critical than ever, and their eyes glaze over[|)] Then the water pump seal starts dripping, and people can't be bothered to check fluid levels, or even look at their temp. gauge occasionally. So instead of a $150 water pump job, they end up with a $2500 engine replacement
The above article gives a pretty good explanation of "Planned Obsolescence"... which is why I made the effort to share it with you all. However, since 1962 car have made great strides in long-term durability, but at the cost of higher repair and diagnostic costs when they do need work. Still, the usable life-span of modern cars has increased exponentially; which is why when I buy a vehicle for myself I won't even consider one under 100K; not worth the extra cost!
Food for thought......
Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131
Comment