Why less older cars.

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Tue 21 Feb 2017 19:54
Why less older cars. - ChrisGT
Just driving to work this morning and I overtook a Y reg 1983? Ford Escort that seemed completely fine. Just started to make me wonder why we see less older cars on the roads today bearing in mind that cars rust less, engines can do 100k plus miles and break down less frequently. I am suprised. nowadays to see anything over 15 years old...
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 21 Feb 2017 20:11
Why less older cars. - RobJP

1983 was a hell of a long time ago - to put it into perspective, it's like seeing cars from WW2 knocking around when it was new.

I regularly, daily, see vehicles that are on the old numberplate system - ie before the '51' plates came in in 2001. It's not a surprise at all.

There are, however, fewer cars from the 90s around than there would normally be because of the 2009/2010 scrappage scheme. It was only valid for cars over 10 years old, so a fair number of perfectly good, but 10-15 year old cars that had low market value, got taken off the roads.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 21 Feb 2017 20:23
Why less older cars. - gordonbennet

Many people view their cars by how much its technically worth, hence when a low value car is in its banger years they don't spend any money on it, care for it even less because can't be bothered and/or lack of knowledge, it soon falls apart.

Image, fashion, fitting in, peer pressure, perceived lack of safety, or handling or performance, how many due to man maths spend £7000 to get 10mpg more is good economics.

Rust is still the killer but now underneath where no one looks, in some ways just as bad as it always was because owners do not care for something they have no intention of keeping, poor general maintenance, same reason.

Edited by gordonbennet on 21/02/2017 at 20:26

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 21 Feb 2017 20:18
Why less older cars. - kiss (keep it simple)

I can think of several reasons.

1. People have more disposable income so they can afford to replace them.

2. Scrappage scheme.

3. Newer cars are more complex making repair less economically viable.

4. New cars are generally safer.

I think it's a crying shame that so many perfectly serviceable cars get scrapped when there's potentially several more years of motoring left in them. Of course the manufacturers have a vested interest in making sure that we keep on buying their products. They're not charities.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 21 Feb 2017 20:20
Why less older cars. - SLO76
When I was a young salesman in the late 90's cars that were 10yrs old were usually complete rot buckets. Escorts and Fiestas frequently had holes in the floor or rotten inner wings at 7-8yrs old, pre Tipo Fiats were a disaster zone by ten years and Mazda's were dissolving like they were made from Creamola foam. Montego's and Maestro's looked like old cars by their 4th birthday. We rarely had cars in beyond ten years old that were retailable, most were firmly in the bargain bucket yard.

Fast forward to today and i often see 15- 20yr old cars in good condition on our roads. Even main dealers will stock ten and twelve year old cars for retail. Truth is good modern petrol engined motors are lasting longer than ever but because they don't rot like cars did in the 70's and 80's they don't look like old cars in the same way.

The biggest killer of modern motors are overcomplexity and overpriced parts. A DPF for example is a relatively simple device yet costs thousands on some mainstream cars to replace making economic repairs impossible when it otherwise has plenty of life left. This is in my opinion highly damaging to the environment as the emissions generated in building a new car to replace it are vastly higher than those generated by the less efficient motor staying on the road for many years longer.

I like the idea Sweden recently introduced which involved tax cuts on repairs to reduce emissions from manufacturing unnecessary new goods to replace perfectly functional machinery that could last for years with realistic repair costs. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2...i
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 21 Feb 2017 20:37
Why less older cars. - Steveieb
Managed to find a truly lovely MK 1 Yaris for a reletive . It's auto and I'm truly amazed what a great car it is at 16 years old.
My daughter has a 1993 BMW 520 I tourer which has just over 30000 on the clock The condition is amazing with its cellulose paint finish and seats which look in great shape. Performance is as you would expect from this epic 6 cylinder area. It would make a great buy for someone looking for a cheap prestige car for under £1000
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Feb 2017 01:51
Why less older cars. - masiv

I've had 2 mk1 Yaris and they were brilliant. Loads of them still about. I currently have a 1997 Honda CRV which is still going strong.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Feb 2017 06:05
Why less older cars. - madf

I've had 2 mk1 Yaris and they were brilliant. Loads of them still about. I currently have a 1997 Honda CRV which is still going strong.

Our Mark 1 Yaris d4d is now 13 years old. It blotted its copybook yesterday with a broken rear spring. New ebay one £36 and an easy 30miute fit job for the weekend.(£100s at garage).

NO rust - galavnised body. 30 mile Italian tuneup and BP expensive diesel means easily passes MOT emissions/smoke tests..

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Feb 2017 10:27
Why less older cars. - Stumblebum

Insurance companies are quick to write off older cars as unecomic repairs.

My X reg 120K Honda Civic gained a large dent in the rear hatch door which meant my insureres deemed it a Cat C. I continued driving it until the MOT ran out.

It was replaced by a top spec Honda Accord estate, 2004 vintage. When it got taken out by a 4 by 4 driven with more enthusiasm than skill my insurer wrote it off on the basis it had a paint scratch all along one side. Unfortunately as the engine bulk head was buckled, the driver's door no longer functioned and the front driver side wheel was wrecked I couldn't carry on driving this one.

I think the car repair body shops carry part of the blame, as I suspect that they bump up the prices for insurance repairs.This makes even minor repairs on older cars unecomic.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Feb 2017 10:40
Why less older cars. - John F

Insurance companies are quick to write off older cars as unecomic repairs.

Too right. The only reason our well cared for Xreg Focus is still on the road is that I insisted it was repaired rather than 'written off' by someone else's insurance company (NFU) two years ago. Absurdly, the cost of the hire car approximated the ludicrously high four figure cost of repair while this was argued out.

The amount of money made by the various participants of this sort of all too common scenario must be astronomical - all paid for by us via insurance premiums, who have no control or influence over it.

Edited by John F on 22/02/2017 at 10:41

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Feb 2017 20:47
Why less older cars. - Sofa Spud

It's not at all surprising that there aren't many cars over 30+ years old in regular use on our roads. That's always been the case. In 1980 you didn't see many cars from the early '50's, in 1990 you didn't see many from the early '60's.

Preserved classic cars tend not to be used all that much, and that's probably true of old 'everyday' cars that might get used once or twice a week to trundle a few miles to the nearest town.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Feb 2017 23:24
Why less older cars. - Andrew-T

I think the car repair body shops carry part of the blame, as I suspect that they bump up the prices for insurance repairs. This makes even minor repairs on older cars unecomic.

The manufacturers carry more blame, because of the ludicrous prices asked for new body parts. My 2008 Pug 207 SW suffered a fairly minor collision which was costed at £2600 by my local repair shop, so the third-party insurers wrote the car off for £3500 dismantled, or £2275 if I kept the car, which I chose to do. The repairer saved a bit here and there so I was about £250 out of pocket overall. Car now looks and drives just as before, so I'm happy with the result. It saved me the trouble of finding something else - without a DPF of course.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link