Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhino369 | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone have solid figures regarding automobile lifespan and what variables affect it. I've always been told that mileage--not time--is the main variable.

I wonder if driver-less automobiles will really reduce the need for cars. Sure, you can have a car run 3 different commutes a day instead of 1 typically done now. But that will produce 3X the wear and tear on the car.

In New York, taxis are used for 3-5 years.

Plus, with driveless cars we may end up driving much more and further. Instead of a bus, I may just have a car drive me to work. In fact, Uber already lets me commute by car instead of public transit 4/5 days a week.

Uber has already caused me to drive more, not less. I wonder what the end result is.

But they are right to be worried. Any major change in technology brings in winners and losers.

View on HN

A lot of cars to destroyed in car accidents every year. If you assume ~50,000 fewer totaled cars per year that's a lot of extra miles.

Also, several cars have made 1+Million miles as I the odometers roles over. Considering many people drive less than 8k miles per year that's a lot of driving.

PS: The real issue is both age and driving reduce value. But, age is automatic as soon as you know the cars model year so people care about high vs low mileage because they are already buying an old car.

> I've always been told that mileage--not time--is the main variable.

And my experience is exactly the opposite. I have never had a car die from mileage. I've had several die from time.

In my experience cars last about 10 year, 15 if you are careful. How many miles you drive during that time is mostly irrelevant.

Personally I think cars should track hours when turned on, not miles.

>In my experience cars last about 10 year, 15 if you are careful.

Huh? How can 'time' kill a car?

My car celebrated her 30th birthday. Under 200K miles. Time does not kill cars, and neither does mileage.

It just gets to a point where it is cheaper to replace then to repair.

There are huge regional variations: someone who lives in an area where the roads are salted in the winter or near an ocean coast with salty air will have a very different experience with this than someone who lives in a desert. There's a reason why classic cars are so much more common in the Southwest than New England, Florida, etc..

That is absolutely correct. I did not account for rust. Rust can eat away a car in 10-15 years, at least at latitudes that use salt on the roads. My car is galvanized, which I think was unusual for the 1980s. So I have not had rust problems.

I remember seeing a lot more rusted-out cars on the roads back in 80s and 90s. But not so much anymore. I think most manufacturers started using galvanized steel by the 90s.

Ok, this is from the "Steel Market Development Institute":

"In the 1970s, automotive sheet steel was simply cold rolled, primed, painted, and put on the road. Corrosion resistance wasn’t very good. By the early 1980s, however, carmakers decided it was time to eliminate rust failures in their vehicles. Ten years later, steelmakers had installed continuous electro and hot-dip galvanizing lines, and carmakers switched to two-sided galvanized steel for cars and light trucks. These steps improved the corrosion resistance of steel bodies so much that companies began offering corrosion-perforation warranties."

Well, various materials corrode or perish given time, so it's not inconceivable that time would render a vehicle not worthy of repair.

When you say die from time, do you mean time turned on or just age?

I meant age, but time turned on is a better measure than miles, so in a way both.

Miles is definitely not a very valuable measure, at least not in my experience. An old (age) car, with few miles, means lots of city miles - those are the hardest for the car.

On the other hand lots of miles, and young age means highway, which is basically nothing for a car. But there are lots of miles.

It's basically a wash, so miles is not a good way to evaluate a car.

My car tracks engine hours and rpm over the lifetime of the car. It is in the console with a couple of clicks.

It entirely depends on what kind of mileage and what kind of time. 100tkm in city traffic only could easily be more devastating than 500tkm on highway. (Or some similar-ish proportion.) Conversely, time spent in controlled storage, with appropriate precautions taken before and after, doesn't necessarily count much. Yet time spent in active use even with low mileage (say, a single one-stretch 100 km trip per week) will wear out parts and components. Changes in temperature and humidity have an effect there. I've also observed common replacement cycles mostly regardless to mileage for some parts: a ten-year car is likely to need similar parts replaced regardless of whether it has 100tkm or 250tkm on it. Some parts are more worn by miles, some parts more by time in active use.

I don't have the data, but that's intuitively correct. Time does matter some when it comes to the corrosion of the underframe (in states that salt roads), dried gaskets, weather damage to paint. But miles matter for everything else including body damage from accidents.

If the car is going to be used a lot, then it becomes economical to use more durable parts. For example components could be used that last four times longer while only costing twice as much. This is pretty much economies of scale, and it will be far easier for a company like Uber to get them, than individuals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com