making a vehicle last 40 years/million miles??

[Bladecutter]

Or you need to move to a state that has a lower rate of vehicle rust.
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Southern California, etc.

Then, buy 2 versions of the same vehicle.
Pick something that will meet your needs for the next 40 years, and has a history of reasonable reliability. No point buying a pair of Miata's if you wind up getting married, and having 5 kids. It also doesn't hurt if you choose a vehicle that you like the looks of, and enjoys how it drives. If you're going to keep it that long, you better well like the dang thing.

Drive one, non stop, and leave the other in a garage for when you need replacement parts.
Change the fluids regularly, and service the wear items when they need to be replaced.

That's pretty much your best way to own a car for that long, and for that many miles.

BC.

 

[NYSteve]

I think you're chasing a ghost on this one. If you are talking abou titanium exhaust, powdercoating frames, cryo-ing hard parts, you will spend more on trying to make it to 40 years/1MM miles than it would cost for a replacement vehicle at 10-20 years.

However, I will provide you with this article. Basically, confirms what most people recommend or know about what are the most dependable used vehicles.

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/...-181842236.html

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: NYSteve
I think you're chasing a ghost on this one. If you are talking abou titanium exhaust, powdercoating frames, cryo-ing hard parts, you will spend more on trying to make it to 40 years/1MM miles than it would cost for a replacement vehicle at 10-20 years.

However, I will provide you with this article. Basically, confirms what most people recommend or know about what are the most dependable used vehicles.

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/...-181842236.html


Very interesting. Too bad they didn't correlate the non-trade-in population with the trade-in population. Take Caveliers, so many of them were made (to bolster GM's CAFE they were subsidized by GM for the buyer), there are many survivors that made it to trade-in, but probably not so many survivors per capita. The real history of that vehicle lies in the junkyard. No stats on them.

 

[CourierDriver]

If the tractor manufacturing folks ever start building cars, then maybe our cars would last 40 years....lol

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: NYSteve


https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/...-181842236.html


Interesting. It hits only one data point though, the people that ignore a mechancial problem long enough to trade it in (or use it as an excuse) vs those who'll pay to have something fixed then trade it because of boredom.

This is really a study of financial habits, emotions, and how they integrate with car ownership.

If the "good cars" sell for more money at auction for a given age/mileage, the dealers buying them know that they either sell for more or take less reconditioning, on average.

 

[asand1]

Aftermarker 7 quart oil pan.

 

[hattaresguy]

Pretty much any old Mercedes will go a million miles if you keep up on it, drive enough, and keep the rust away. They are like aircraft, designed to be fixed forever.

They won't sell today because who would want to pay $60k+ for a low option car? People these days equate luxury with gadgets which is [censored]. Its not.

I blame leasing, which came in in the mid 90's. Before than you typically spent a small fortune on a Mercedes and expected it to last at least a decade if not several.

Mercedes still offers a very nice grill badge and presentation case for mileage awards. No other company does this.

They also offer the best parts support in the business outside of old tractors maybe. So you can always get parts to keep the old ones going.

 

[CourierDriver]

Really a nice touch, to bad old mass production USA has no such recognition, but we do well at popcorn auto production..

 

[artificialist]

You may get an excellent diesel engine and manual transmission go 1 Million miles over 40 years.

Just get ready to fix numerous electrical glitches, windows that do go up and down when they should, climate control repairs, repalcing every suspension part multiple times, and the entire brake system.

Many cars I deal with go to the junkyard because the car is worth $2000 when alive, too bad it needs that much or even more money to keep it on the road.

 

[jimbrewer]

Originally Posted By: undertow
Rust will be your biggest problem. Even in warmer drier climates it's not really realistic to plan for a vehicle to last 40 years IMO, although it would be possible to do with a simple vehicle with good parts availability. Not worth getting into stuff like cryo treating etc. No matter how well maintained there is always the possibility of an accident, a tree falling on it, theft, arson, flooding, etc etc.

Parts availabity of electronics will become an issue on newer stuff, especially with modules that need to be programed using dealer tools.

Making two vehicles last 20 years each would be a much easier goal, just buy a new toyota evey 20 years and maintain it according to the severe service scedule. Also, who knows how much fuel will cost in 2054? Will electrics take over?



I agree completely. I'm thinking of the kinds of cars sold 40 years ago--let's see, that would be a 1974-- what? Not too many cars of that vintage that I would still want to drive, much less maintain. They do make improvements over time.

Also, there is the law of diminishing returns: Once you onw and drive a car where depreciation has virtually stopped, after ten years, or so, there is not much additional benefit for going years and years past that.

Finally, we don't live forever. Unless you are Jack Benny there is not much fun in driving a 1928 Maxwell.

That said, I would choose a car that I liked to drive--you are practically marrying it after all-- that I could afford to maintain over the long haul. I would strive to "keep ahead of the curve" on maintenance, paying special attention to electrical issues and rust--those are the things that strand you and cause problems that cannot easily be fixed. Then I would concentrate on maintaining the appearance of the car, so that it was a car I wouldn't mind driving for as long as possible. The kind of people who carefully keep up the drive train tend to ignore the appearance of the car. Its a mistake.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
The kind of people who carefully keep up the drive train tend to ignore the appearance of the car. Its a mistake.


That's me, but it was a matter of circumstance. I wrecked the truck with liability only on it (was cosmetically near perfect before). Yes, I was a cheap idiot for having liability only. Anyway, at that point waxing and generally caring for the paint no longer mattered. The truck has not been waxed in over 4 years. I repaired the body enough for it to pass a state inspection in NC, but did not do a full repair. Under the skin though, it's still the same good, reliable vehicle, so I keep it up mechanically. I like driving the truck still, it still suits my needs, and frankly I don't care what it is worth whenever I am done with it, so I will continue to keep the mechanicals up and let the body go. Repairing the body now or later makes no difference...there's a 17 year production run of body parts for me to use should I decide to actually fix it, and if I go that far, it will be a total repaint anyway.

In an area where rust is an issue, the scenario would be different as body damage could significantly accelerate corrosion. Not a problem for me though.

My mistake was wrecking it in the first place, and only having liability.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Kestas

Th keep a car 40 years you have to retire it from daily duty and relegate it to collector status, or be willing and able to perform all necessary repairs and put up with these interruptions to your driving schedule.


This is why a lot of vehicles in up in barns, sheds, lots, etc. and just rot.

My boss has a 1972 C-10. He bought the truck in the early 1990s in pretty rough shape and restored it. New paint, new aluminum head 350 crate motor, new interior, everything. After restoring it, he drove it daily for 10 years. In the early 2000s he went through a DUI/seatbelt checkpoint in the truck. It only had lap belts. The cops told him there's no grandfather clause on it anymore, and to put 3 point belts in the truck. He had other vehicles to drive and just never got around to it. The truck has been sitting in a lot at work for almost 10 years now. It will start, run, and drive but would need a fair amount of catch up maintenance to be a DD again. It has also started to rust again, plus the seat belts still haven't been done. It may get a refresh again soon, but who knows. It was driven for roughly 30 of its 42 years though, so that's a pretty good run overall. Nowhere near that many years on most of the mechanicals though. The truck has had at least two engines, probably three or more really since swapping engines was more common in past decades.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Many cars I deal with go to the junkyard because the car is worth $2000 when alive, too bad it needs that much or even more money to keep it on the road.

Cars, yes, Trucks, not so much. See below...

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
My boss has a 1972 C-10. He bought the truck in the early 1990s in pretty rough shape and restored it. New paint, new aluminum head 350 crate motor, new interior, everything. After restoring it, he drove it daily for 10 years. In the early 2000s he went through a DUI/seatbelt checkpoint in the truck. It only had lap belts. The cops told him there's no grandfather clause on it anymore, and to put 3 point belts in the truck. He had other vehicles to drive and just never got around to it. The truck has been sitting in a lot at work for almost 10 years now. It will start, run, and drive but would need a fair amount of catch up maintenance to be a DD again. It has also started to rust again, plus the seat belts still haven't been done. It may get a refresh again soon, but who knows. It was driven for roughly 30 of its 42 years though, so that's a pretty good run overall. Nowhere near that many years on most of the mechanicals though. The truck has had at least two engines, probably three or more really since swapping engines was more common in past decades.

As you pointed out, it will probably live again. The owner could sell it to some kid, who would happily fix the seatbelts et al.

The thing about trucks is that they have higher intrinsic value. They provide transportation just like cars, but they can also be used to heat houses (firewood hauling), make a living (junk hauling, firewood, landscaping), to improve the value of the owner's property (landscaping again), fix other transportation (haul motorcycles, engines and transmissions), provide recreation (tow campers), etc., etc.

It is possible to find a truck valued at $2,000, but chances are it is not running, because once running, it's suddenly worth at least $3,500. I was kind of shocked my 14 year old Dakota was valued over $8K, I know that for a fact, the insurance company fixed it instead of totalling it, and they would certainly take the cheaper option.

So, my choice for a 40 yr/million mile vehicle would be a pickup truck from a major vendor, one with minimal fancy options, like a fleet vehicle. Roll-up windows, rubber mats on the floor, non-turbo 6 cylinder, that sort of thing (if you can still find it!)

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
In the early 2000s he went through a DUI/seatbelt checkpoint in the truck. It only had lap belts. The cops told him there's no grandfather clause on it anymore, and to put 3 point belts in the truck.


I don't think that's legal... Or do they expect drivers of pre-'65 vintage cars (or thereabouts) must now go out and buy seatbelts? Even though the vehicles never had them, and may not have appropriate attachment points?

I have no use for vehicles with lap-only belts, but something seems fishy here.

 

[Smcatub]

Originally Posted By: supton
I don't think that's legal... Or do they expect drivers of pre-'65 vintage cars (or thereabouts) must now go out and buy seatbelts? Even though the vehicles never had them, and may not have appropriate attachment points?

I have no use for vehicles with lap-only belts, but something seems fishy here.

I was curious so I checked it out.

Alabama Code - Section 32-5B-4: REQUIREMENT OF FRONT SEAT OCCUPANTS OF PASSENGER CARS TO WEAR SAFETY BELTS; EXEMPTIONS OF CERTAIN PERSONS
(a) Each front seat occupant of a passenger car manufactured with safety belts in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 shall have a safety belt properly fastened about his body at all times when the vehicle is in motion.

The AL law specifically mentions vehicles built to comply with Standard 208 - from my reading of it it looks like there's no mention of any seatbelt requirement for trucks until 1972

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/32/5B/32-5B-4
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/#SN208

I'm not a lawyer but if it was my truck I'd drive it, get a ticket if I get a ticket, and see what the judge thinks of my reasoning. Worst that could happen is a fine, and it looks like the fine for no seatbelt in AL is pretty light

EDIT - Oops, I was thinking it was a 1970 truck when I typed that. Still though, it looks like lap belts only are Ok - 208 says 'Lap or lap and shoulder'.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
In the early 2000s he went through a DUI/seatbelt checkpoint in the truck. It only had lap belts. The cops told him there's no grandfather clause on it anymore, and to put 3 point belts in the truck.


I don't think that's legal... Or do they expect drivers of pre-'65 vintage cars (or thereabouts) must now go out and buy seatbelts? Even though the vehicles never had them, and may not have appropriate attachment points?

I have no use for vehicles with lap-only belts, but something seems fishy here.


Apparently that is the expectation. Maybe with classic plates on the vehicle they wouldn't care since it's not to be used for "general transportation purposes." This truck was a normal tag daily driver though.

There are 3 point belt kits available, but it surprised me too that it was required. I don't think my boss got cited with anything, but they told him if he wanted to keep driving the truck to put 3 point belts in it.

It does look like vehicles 1965 and older are exempt in this state...
http://www.ems.gov/pdf/HS810825.pdf
But it doesn't specify lap or 3 point. Maybe the cops were wrong on that, but it was enough for the truck to end up parked for now.

My cousin may buy the truck next year for his daughter, at which point it will get 3 point belts and a lot of maintenance done.

 

[andrewg]

MOVE.

 

[jimbrewer]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
The kind of people who carefully keep up the drive train tend to ignore the appearance of the car. Its a mistake.


That's me, but it was a matter of circumstance. I wrecked the truck with liability only on it (was cosmetically near perfect before). Yes, I was a cheap idiot for having liability only. Anyway, at that point waxing and generally caring for the paint no longer mattered. The truck has not been waxed in over 4 years. I repaired the body enough for it to pass a state inspection in NC, but did not do a full repair. Under the skin though, it's still the same good, reliable vehicle, so I keep it up mechanically. I like driving the truck still, it still suits my needs, and frankly I don't care what it is worth whenever I am done with it, so I will continue to keep the mechanicals up and let the body go. Repairing the body now or later makes no difference...there's a 17 year production run of body parts for me to use should I decide to actually fix it, and if I go that far, it will be a total repaint anyway.

In an area where rust is an issue, the scenario would be different as body damage could significantly accelerate corrosion. Not a problem for me though.

My mistake was wrecking it in the first place, and only having liability.


That was me, too. I very carefully changed the oil on my 1984 with M-1 every 6K miles. The engine never missed a beat. Probably overkill, even in those carbureted days. I didn't do much for the appearance. After a couple of hundred thousand miles, it kind of looked like the Halloween pumpkin I left out until Easter one year. Finally got totaled in an accident.

It was a truck, so it would have had utility up to the bitter end. Some cosmetic stuff is just unavoidable. OK, you've gone 180K miles. You don't have comprehensive on the car, you slide off the road into a snowbank and put a dent in the side. Nothing catastrophic, but a real dent. Do you fix it? Its nowhere near a collector's item and it wouldn't look all that great even with the dent fixed. The law of entropy is still at work, even if its moving slower: Everything falls apart.

 

[linksep]

To set arbitrary numbers like 40 years/1M miles for a DD in MN it's clear you haven't done the math. You'll spend more on car-washes than it would cost to replace the vehicle. That's before we factor in all the other tings you mention like cryo-treating and re-engineering...

 

[undertow]

My LS1 Holden is now 14 years old, still runs well and doesn't feel that old. I intend to drive it till about 20 years old, at which point things like power steering hoses, AC hoses, ALL the coolant hoses, etc, will be going bad. I'm sure the LS1 and T56 will still be fine, but the plastics, rubber, and electrics will start falling apart around the drivetrain.

Plus, I'm expecting fuel to keep getting more expensive. In 40 years I suspect today's cars will look about as practical as a 1960s gas guzzler with an asthmatic big block and a 2 speed powerglide. Battery technology will advance a long way by then.