The facts are that zero maintenance works most of the time. The original owner usually gets his trouble free service and and there are zero warranty claims for the manufacturer. Sure, it's playing the odds a bit but, for the most part, the component will deliver it's designed lifetime. The second or third owner... who cares. Better to recycle the car and sell another new one.
Zero maintenance is also a selling tool and an attractive feature to many car owners, let's face it. Most people just want to drive their car. Many people feel, and deservedly so, that the auto repair/maintenance industry is out to hose them. Better to minimize that exposure with a car that doesn't need any more than the bare minimum.
Another truth that was pointed out to me in casual conversation with OE engineers (which gives me some perspective from their side of the question) is that good number of problems are CAUSED by maintenance... ignorant hacks, shops or quick-lube places that install the wrong oil, wrong filters, etc. , not to mention shoddy workmanship. If a problem results, and the car is still under warranty, or even close, it's often going to land in the lap of the OEM to deal with one way or another. Better, from their POV, to seal it. Especially after they validated it with testing that give them a very high percentage of success. They don't really car what happens after.
Now that doesn't mean it's the right thing in every case for a conscientious owner but, with the knowledge I currently have, if I had a car with a zero maintenance component, I'd look at how long I planned to own it, what sort of an operational life it was going to have and judge that against the cost of delivering a whiz bang vehicle to some other guy a few years down the road.
Zero maintenance doesn't work for me personally because I tend to keep things 10 plus years but for someone who trades in at 3-5 years and does 100K miles... why obsess?
Zero maintenance is also a selling tool and an attractive feature to many car owners, let's face it. Most people just want to drive their car. Many people feel, and deservedly so, that the auto repair/maintenance industry is out to hose them. Better to minimize that exposure with a car that doesn't need any more than the bare minimum.
Another truth that was pointed out to me in casual conversation with OE engineers (which gives me some perspective from their side of the question) is that good number of problems are CAUSED by maintenance... ignorant hacks, shops or quick-lube places that install the wrong oil, wrong filters, etc. , not to mention shoddy workmanship. If a problem results, and the car is still under warranty, or even close, it's often going to land in the lap of the OEM to deal with one way or another. Better, from their POV, to seal it. Especially after they validated it with testing that give them a very high percentage of success. They don't really car what happens after.
Now that doesn't mean it's the right thing in every case for a conscientious owner but, with the knowledge I currently have, if I had a car with a zero maintenance component, I'd look at how long I planned to own it, what sort of an operational life it was going to have and judge that against the cost of delivering a whiz bang vehicle to some other guy a few years down the road.
Zero maintenance doesn't work for me personally because I tend to keep things 10 plus years but for someone who trades in at 3-5 years and does 100K miles... why obsess?
