An argument for buying a good one - well speced Yeti - and keep it for a long time 8+ years.

Yeah that's the rational attitude .......... the 'sealed for life' tech makes them economically problematic if something fails out of warranty.

The cars are designed for recycling - emission systems have a ten year design life the same as the spare parts supply requirement ......there's the message.

Are new cars bought today likely to be a lot more problematic at 10+ years old than cars bought 10 years ago? My 04 plate Fabia VRS is doing fine and it doesn't seem likely that anything is going to fail in an unrepairable way.

Are new cars bought today likely to be a lot more problematic at 10+ years old than cars bought 10 years ago? My 04 plate Fabia VRS is doing fine and it doesn't seem likely that anything is going to fail in an unrepairable way.

 Cars are getting more complicated and sophisticated to comply with environmental and safety directives so repairs are more expensive. It is generally accepted now that the life of a car is 7-8 years, anything after that is a bonus.  After 7 years any significant repair will probably exceed the depreciated value of the vehicle so economically it is scrap.

Of course 20+ year old cars without sophisticated technology can be kept going much longer at modest cost - a Morris Minor, Ford Anglia etc can be maintained by anyone with a modicum of knowledge and a simple tool kit. The really interesting trade off is that a 30 year old Morris Minor will have much less of an environmental impact than its replacement by 4 modern cars each kept for 7 years! But that's the price the environment pays for the short termism of "environmentalists"; and don't get me started on wind turbines which are unlikely to produce enough energy in their entire operating life to replace the energy expended in making them, installing them and running them.

 Cars are getting more complicated and sophisticated to comply with environmental and safety directives so repairs are more expensive. It is generally accepted now that the life of a car is 7-8 years, anything after that is a bonus.  After 7 years any significant repair will probably exceed the depreciated value of the vehicle so economically it is scrap.

Of course 20+ year old cars without sophisticated technology can be kept going much longer at modest cost - a Morris Minor, Ford Anglia etc can be maintained by anyone with a modicum of knowledge and a simple tool kit. The really interesting trade off is that a 30 year old Morris Minor will have much less of an environmental impact than its replacement by 4 modern cars each kept for 7 years! But that's the price the environment pays for the short termism of "environmentalists"; and don't get me started on wind turbines which are unlikely to produce enough energy in their entire operating life to replace the energy expended in making them, installing them and running them.

 

This surprises me! I have a hard time accepting "It is generally accepted now that the life of a car is 7-8 years, anything after that is a bonus." Have you got any evidence for this? Generally accepted by whom? 7-8 years is less than 100k miles, in my opinion any car bought today should sail through 10 years/100k miles with sensible maintenance. I certainly wouldn't accept a uneconomically reparable fault at 7-8 years, how many people here would?

 

As for "wind turbines which are unlikely to produce enough energy in their entire operating life to replace the energy expended in making them, installing them and running them." That's just bonkers. Lots of lifecycle analysis have wind turbine payback with a year of its 25 year lifetime. See: Kubiszewski, I., Clevelan, C.J., Endres, P.K. (2010). Meta-analysis of net energy return for wind power systems. Renewable Energy, 35, pp.218-225. It looks at data from 119 wind turbines, from 50 different analyses going back some 30 years and considers the energy return on investment, which is simply the ratio of energy delivered by the turbine to energy required in running it over its lifetime. The paper shows an average EROI across all studies of 25.2. In other words, it shows that the average wind farm is expected to generate some some  25 times more energy over its lifetime than was required in building and running it.

Are new cars bought today likely to be a lot more problematic at 10+ years old than cars bought 10 years ago? My 04 plate Fabia VRS is doing fine and it doesn't seem likely that anything is going to fail in an unrepairable way.

It depends on the tech associated with each car to a certain extent.

My 4x4 103kw TDI Yeti has the Haldex and DSG DPF ERG and innumerable sensors scattered all over it and having bought it new 15 months ago at a discounted price, due to poor sales volume, and < 20K on it, by the time it's out of warranty, (a significant time in its life) as a trade in I'll expect about a third of its purchase price and any significant failure makes it economically questionable as a keep.

Don't get me wrong I love it but cars are getting better and cheaper, in real terms, due to massive competition from Asia combined with the younger gen wanting the v latest toys and styling.

Dealerships make their money more from servicing and spares than the actual sale.

It's the rapid turn-over that's keeping unit costs down in spite of increasing tech.

If your car is fine, run it into the ground as it's practically worthless on the second hand market.

This surprises me! I have a hard time accepting "It is generally accepted now that the life of a car is 7-8 years, anything after that is a bonus." Have you got any evidence for this? Generally accepted by whom? 7-8 years is less than 100k miles, in my opinion any car bought today should sail through 10 years/100k miles with sensible maintenance. I certainly wouldn't accept a uneconomically reparable fault at 7-8 years, how many people here would?

 

As for "wind turbines which are unlikely to produce enough energy in their entire operating life to replace the energy expended in making them, installing them and running them." That's just bonkers. Lots of lifecycle analysis have wind turbine payback with a year of its 25 year lifetime. See: Kubiszewski, I., Clevelan, C.J., Endres, P.K. (2010). Meta-analysis of net energy return for wind power systems. Renewable Energy, 35, pp.218-225. It looks at data from 119 wind turbines, from 50 different analyses going back some 30 years and considers the energy return on investment, which is simply the ratio of energy delivered by the turbine to energy required in running it over its lifetime. The paper shows an average EROI across all studies of 25.2. In other words, it shows that the average wind farm is expected to generate some some  25 times more energy over its lifetime than was required in building and running it.

But did you add in the cost of building and maintaining the equivalent alternative power generating resources for when the wind doesn't blow? The cost per Kw/Hr of onshore wind is approx double gas fired and offshore wind is at least 3 times as expensive as gas fired (Government Stats). We are sitting on an island of easily recoverable clean cheap gas, we are nuts not to use it.

The economic life of a modern car is not going to be determined by the basic parts but by the modern "must haves" - air bags, environmental control devices, sophisticated electronics etc. Those are generally prohibitively expensive to repair/replace but your car will not pass the annual MOT if they aren't all working. In many cases these items will be good after 10 years but you are on borrowed time because when something eventually fails the cost of repair/replacement is likely to match or exceed the second hand value of the car. 

I still wish I had my old Morris Minor some times - all 803cc.......oh, all right, with the Datsun 1000 conversion.

But did you add in the cost of building and maintaining the equivalent alternative power generating resources for when the wind doesn't blow? 

No, I addressed your bonkers point that wind turbines are "unlikely to produce enough energy in their entire operating life to replace the energy expended in making them, installing them and running them" when in fact they produce some 25 times as much energy.

And which is soooooo far off-topic to be unnecessary!

Those interested in the latest Octavia Scout - ~180bhp TDI engine -

there's a road test in the latest Fairfax 'Drive' section today (29th).

I am still a bit confused about the 2.0 D Business edition.

 

On the Skoda web site one page shows this -

• 2.0 TDI 110PS 4x4 SCR £19,850
•  
• 2.0 TDI 150PS 4x4 SCR £22,690
•  
• 2.0 TDI 150PS 4x4 DSG SCR £23,800

But the configurator shows the 2.0D 110PS as not 4x4.

 

2.0 TDI CR DPF

110 PS

5G Man

•Diesel

£19,850

 

2.0 TDI CR DPF

150 PS

4x4

•Diesel

£22,690

 

2.0 TDI CR DPF

150 PS

4x4 DSG

•Diesel

£23,800

Edited 31 May, 201511 yr by leaky5

That £19,850 price is for the 2WD version, not 4WD.

Don't think the 110PS 4x4 is available as SE Business.

I still wish I had my old Morris Minor some times - all 803cc.......oh, all right, with the Datsun 1000 conversion.

I stuck to Minors for near 30 yrs, great cars then but by mid/late 90s they were all rotten. I still have nightmares when I think of all those M4 trips at 65-70, abysmal brakes and that 'lance' of a steering column waiting to pierce your chest. "...they don't make 'em like they used to.." thankfully. I still mourn my beautiful 2000 Octy, what a car! - even over present Yeti.

I stuck to Minors for near 30 yrs, great cars then but by mid/late 90s they were all rotten. I still have nightmares when I think of all those M4 trips at 65-70, abysmal brakes and that 'lance' of a steering column waiting to pierce your chest. "...they don't make 'em like they used to.." thankfully. .......

.

Absolutely!

I'm just dreamin' of days long past......the 3 bearing crank made it quite obvious that 50mph was just too much......the larger Oxford front brakes bolted straight on.

You could standing straddling the engine if you wanted to, there was sooo much room and easy to maintain, but yr right...a death trap today.

Absolutely!

I'm just dreamin' of days long past......the 3 bearing crank made it quite obvious that 50mph was just too much......the larger Oxford front brakes bolted straight on.

You could standing straddling the engine if you wanted to, there was sooo much room and easy to maintain, but yr right...a death trap today.

And what about that collapsing torsion bar front suspension?  

But, in it's day a great car. Recently seen racing  at the Goodwood Revival leaning on it's door handles as it cornered!

Fred 

And what about that collapsing torsion bar front suspension?  

But, in it's day a great car. Recently seen racing  at the Goodwood Revival leaning on it's door handles as it cornered!

Fred

And what about those lever action dampers and the brake master cylinder buried in the chassis rail - but it did have brilliant balance.....only a bit OT )))))