Imagine having a vehicle that just lasts a long time, you can always get parts for it so it doesn't end up in the scrapyard, and even upgrade if it's out of date.
For example, a company makes 1 sedan model; no other sedan model. They'll keep making this same sedan for the next 20+ years, same body, same shape, etc. But they make it extremely friendly to service and upgrade with standardized tools; everything is easy to access and replace.
Sure, it won't be the most space efficient or have the slickest new look etc. But it'll be easy to work on and repair. They would save huge amounts on R&D; not having to develop something new every few years. They could make money selling upgrade parts. Want a more powerful engine? Swap it out. This'll probably work better with electric cars due to there being less parts compared to a combustion engine. New battery technology to drive further? Swap out with a new battery pack.
Inspired by the whole right-to-repair movement and stuff like the frame.work laptop and the fairphone. Being able to repair and upgrade; make things last and not add to the landfill.
Imagine having a vehicle that just lasts a long time
But then how will the corporations be able to do this?? -
by collecting bailouts
What a shame and such a wasteful way to go. You'd figure people with even half a brain and some common sense would realize you only have 1 planet, better make the best of it for you and your future generation. But no, me me me me selfishness.
This has nothing to do with "the planet" or "future generations".
It's been done.
Studebaker used the same basic chassis, engines, suspension, and running gear from 1953 to the end in 1966, changing only the outer body panels and that as little as possible. (Remember the ads for the Studebaker "Common Sense Car" that wouldn't change from year to year?) Likewise AMC produced the same basic car from 1970 through 1987 (all based on the Hornet platform). Saab and Volvo both sold 1960s designs into the 1990s. Then of course there's the VW bug.
These days though aside from all the reasons mentioned by others, quickly-changing emissions, gas mileage, and safety regulations make it impossible to sell the same car for many years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZHLSlGXXto
I'm surprised none of you guys caught my mistake! Studebaker actually used GM engines, not their own, their last two years (1965 and 1966) when South Bend was shuttered and production consolidated in their small Canadian plant. Other than that though, the last models were pure 1953 under the skin.
I didn't think you made mistakes!
The car industry is very competitive. In order to produce a successful car and not lose your shirt, it has to be commercially successful. These days, it needs to look good, preferably an SUV, be very fuel efficient, have lots of high tech gadgets and gizmos, be different from the previous year's model, and be cheap, because that's what people want. None of those are compatible with the things you mentioned.
make it extremely friendly to service
This costs money. Most car buyers have no interest in servicing their vehicles.
not having to develop something new every few years.
They actually avoid developing as much as possible because it's expensive. They would much rather just make cosmetic changes every year. There are a few things that drive development: government regulation, decreasing manufacturing cost, and anything that their focus groups tell them might increase their appeal.
Inspired by the whole right-to-repair movement
I predict the R2R movement will never go anywhere, because people don't actually care.
And to some degree, I don't care either. I would rather have a car or phone that just works reliably so that I don't have to tinker with it in the 1st place.
Why don’t OEMs just make a vehicle that's easy to repair
If you want auto companies to make the cars YOU want, then you'll have to change the population's behaviour to think like you. Good luck with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyKCtASCeao
downvote all you like, but that's the reality
Yeah, it's a shame that's where the general market is going, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to all the marketing indoctrination. Advertisers have gotten so good at manipulating what people feel and want; it doesn't help that the majority lack self-control and average intelligence is dropping.
That isn't the point of right-to-repair; the point isn't so you can tinker with it. The point is that you aren't forced to go to manufacturer only, when things fail or accidents happen; things will fail, especially just outside the warranty, and accidents will happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI
Right now, you have the right to repair with cars. You can either go to the dealership / manufacturer, or go to any other mechanic you want and they can get parts and fix it for you. But that's going to start changing to the point where you can only go to the dealership / manufacturer to get any work done, if right-to-repair doesn't succeed and these lobbyists get their way with legislatures.
The downvote is for misleading statements about right to repair. It's a shame people don't actually look into something before spouting off what they think it's about is the truth.
Pardon me, but I was explaining , not "spouting". I don't appreciate your rudeness.
And it isn't misleading. It's 100% true. You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.
Also feel free to back up your claim that "average intelligence is dropping."
People can buy whatever vehicle they like. Forcing regulation and governments telling businesses how and what kind of products to make is very anti-American not what freedom and democracy is about.
I like the concept. And if they produced a model and style that I really liked, I'd be content to drive it 20+ years. My current automobile is 18 years old and hope to drive it until either it or I don't run anymore.😋
I agree with In Thrust We Trust regarding the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ the automakers would lose (although I realize the you considered that already with your statement, "They could save huge amounts on R&D, not having to develop something new every few years." And, "They could make money selling upgrade parts.") I have no way of knowing if that would balance their books.
But realistically, I think that our culture is so addicted to the newest fad, the latest fashion trend, the coolest new technology that we have been so conditioned to think that we have to have something new every few years to be satisfied, or to measure up to the "standard". Keeping up with the Jones'.
Imagine a world, if you will, in which you would have to tell your wife or girlfriend that the clothing industry has just decided to design one style of dress, one style of shoe, one style of slacks, etc. that she would have to wear for the next 20+ years. Imagine getting hit upside your head with an iron skillet. Just imagine....
Seriously though, apart from the financial aspect, and the folks like you, me and probably a small minority of drivers who would be content to drive the same car model forever, most would just not be able to enter that world of which you speak.
These manufacturers could design a vehicle to be modular, allowing you to change up the style and sell these parts too. Cars are getting lighter, meaning they're using more plastic and lightweight parts, rather than welding steel together.
White vans have been around for decades and all look nearly identical and are still widely used; although it's mostly by people who use their vehicle for work, like contractors.
Follow the money.
Why the down vote (@please-choose-a-different-nickname)? Do you down vote everyone who disagrees with you?
isn't that why we vote?
No, I only down vote somebody when I know the information they're putting out is wrong, not because I disagree with them. That's why I don't down vote you anymore @mmj because we may have of difference of opinion but you never have put out patently wrong information as some others have. That's just my standard (depending how frisky I'm feeling at the time.)
I think that can be a difficult distinction to make. If we both think consider the other to be wrong, then we disagree.
My interpretation isn't as strict. I think the general idea of the voting system is that answers (advice) end up ranked best to worst.
If I disagree with advice given (I think it's 'bad' or wrong) then I downvote it, but I usually give justification..
These non-technical discussions are a bit different though.
I'll drink to that! @mmj you always give justification for disagreeing that I can remember which is why your opinions have such a high value on this forum. Now if we could just get Scotty to stop using that talk to text thing, we's be golden!
In some ways, car makes do keep some things the same. They keep the base engine the same, but change the stuff around it. I don’t think they go for 20 years, but they go pretty long.
Here are a couple cars that changed very little for a very long time - and they were simple and pretty easy to work on:
- VW Beetle - 1938-2003
- Hindustan Ambassador - 1957-2014
Of course, by modern performance, pollution, and safety standards, they're not very good cars. But people are driving them today.
These manufacturers could design a vehicle to be modular
modern manufacturing is making it a lot easier/cheaper to re-tool and produce new parts. There is less and less incentive for them to reuse parts. Especially when you subcontract them out. Nobody cares about modularity.
White vans have been around for decades and all look nearly identical and are still widely used; although it's mostly by people who use their vehicle for work, like contractors.
Exactly. Work vehicle owners care less about looks, luxuries, and technology. Which is why these vehicles remain unchanged for long periods of time. The Express van is one of the longest-produced automotive designs in American automotive history (26 years of production). It hasn't changed much, except to keep up with safety and emissions regulations. So if that's what you like then buy commercial vehicles. But this isn't what most consumer families want.
these lobbyists get their way with legislatures.
Please explain exactly what legislation you are talking about.
Sounds to me like a 2012 Corolla, they last almost indefinitely, parts are never an issue on Corollas (even 30 year old ones), etc.
There are cars like that for 3rd word countries, you can still get a brand new Peugeot 405 (launched in 1987, 35 years ago) made in Egypt as a matter of fact they opened a new production line for it in Azerbaijan in 2019.
The reality is that as good and incredibly durable as a Peugeot 405 is, you wouldn’t want one.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/peugeot-is-selling-brand-new-405s-for-7800/
In Russia you can buy a Lada Granta, it’s not a bad car even, it’s an improved early 2000s Lada Kalina and it still uses a modernized version of the engine from the Lada 2108 - launched 38 years ago.
Apparently recently they ”upgraded” to no ABS, no airbag, because apparently “Lada drivers die like real men”
and there are plenty on their examples on cars being produced for 20-30 years or even more - but people who can afford better cars, usually don’t buy them.
Why don’t OEMs just make a vehicle that's easy to repair and not change it?
The same reason why new cars are purposely worse than what they could have been.
Why can’t you buy a Corolla with a conventional automatic? Why are Hyundai mostly selling GDI engines when they have perfectly reliable and efficient MPi engines? Etc.
why would a manufacturer want to sell you parts every couple of years, when they can sell you a new car instead?
More accurately, why would they make cars that last 20+ years when they know most owners get rid of them after 6 to 8 years on average.
The government should really intervene and force companies to just make quality products. There's a few way to go about it:
Australia for example has Consumer Laws where products must last for a reasonable amount of time. Ex: a $10 mouse, if it's last 1 year, OK. But if you buy a $100 mouse and they only warranty it for 1 year, the law can step in and force the retailer / company to warranty it for 5 or 10 years, since it's supposed to be a quality product. That could be the case for cars as well where any car must be warranted for 1 decade or 300k miles, for example.
Another option is a landfill tax. If a company sells more than X amount of cars every 10 years, they're charged a % tax where they end up losing money for selling more cars. It promotes selling quality, long last cars, rather than cheap pieces of crap designed to fail. And it must also be warranted for 10 years as well, minimum, and some reasonable equivalent in mileage. Because if you drive like 500k miles in 5 years, it's like OK, you got your money's worth I guess?
Won’t happen. Even in Australia. Because - corrupt politicians.
So, get into politics and fix it then! In Thrust We Trust right???
Without getting into politics:
That’s the same logic as in the USSR, or any dystopia “Our products? Best in world! Only metal! Solid and simple!”
-
If the gov would touch it the last good reliable car you’d own is the one you have now.
-
Tested 2 times, parents Lada and people’s memories of the locally built (local to me) 70s designed “horsie” (סוסיתא)
Needless to say, when it became possible to import a Subaru Leone (as crappy as that is) these disappeared.
-
I have a lot of stories to tell about government regulation and how hilarious things become when they get regulated.
(As someone who lives in a country per capita economic power within 10% difference of Finland and Sweden but can’t buy white bread because it’s price regulated so no one wants to make it.
The people who’s mindset would suggest that regulating tbr market hands on is a good idea haven't been in power for 45 years and yet the damage is still here, it’s really hard to walk back these things after the damage is already done.)
-
Truthfully? Things are only good when people are free to do what ever they want and the consumer is educated.
“The road to h*** is paved with good intentions”
amen