To me this makes it less interesting. I would be amazed if the original parts (outside of what gets replaced for maintenance) lasted that long. But it’s hard to judge how durable the car is when everything has been replaced
With EVs, we might get some battery packs and drive trains actually lasting this long. Maybe not with nmc batteries. But some lfp batteries seem to have enough charge cycles on paper that they really could last that long. 5000 charge cycles at 300 miles per charge adds up to about 1.5M miles. Of course lots of other things might fail. But at least electrical motors are known to be pretty durable. That's not a common failure point on EVs as far as I know. But there's plenty of other stuff in EVs (electronics, cooling systems, suspension, etc.) that can break.
Of course, it will be a while before we'll see EVs that have driven that far as those type of batteries have only been on the market for a few years and even with 100K miles driven per year (which is a lot), it would take 12 years to get to 1.2M. This Toyota took quite a few decades to get there.
According to the article, this car actually wasn't particularly durable (the words 'rust buckets' were used). But if you just keep patching it up, of course it will run fine. And greasing up all the bits that would normally rust seems smart as well.
I doubt it. The components in modern cars are not made to last as long. Neither is the software. Ever tried a 15 year old Iphone? A Tesla won't feel much different.
Everything is meant to be consumed nowadays, and eventually, sooner rather than later, replaced.
Unfortunately, battery tech despite all the lab "super improvements" are not seeing any major gains in the field. And a lot of money has been going into that.
All things equal I'd even expect this to be worse with an ICE because of higher complexity, though the tech is more mature and stable at this point and the ICE manufacturing more traditionalist than the EV space.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/meet-the-man-with-the-250000-m...
Battery is still over 90%. And given that he’s having to do a full charge every day for the amount he drives, that’s pretty impressive. Still on the original brake pads too.
Sounds like all he’s really had to do is put on new tires a couple of times.
Battery has just now dipped below 90% it's new range. Age is surprisingly a pretty big factor in how long the batteries will last. More so than a lot of other factors (including mileage).
Lets also not forget that battery packs are full of electronics, BMS, and other items that may be less forgiving on a rebuild where batteries may be off in voltage or have a different charge cycle.
The future is going to be "interesting", especially for car collectors.
Getting a old antique car running is often not that hard (as long as it has not been standing where water can enter the engine. New hoses, oil changes, clean filters, and you can often get engines that have stood outside for 15, 20 years going again. Sure, its going to smoke, may need new piston rings, ... and Water being the prime killer.
But a battery pack in those conditions?
> 5000 charge cycles at 300 miles per charge adds up to about 1.5M miles.
Under ideal driving / charge situations...
* Hot areas like Spain. For instance, its know that batteries from EVs in hot area's tend to be much more degraded, then from cooler areas (make sense).
* Did they fast charge those batteries = your going to cycle down a LOT more. Remember, those 6000 cycle for stuff like LiPo batteries are based upon slow charging. General tip for people with solar: Overspec your battery sizes, your going to thank me.
* Did they always charge to 100%? What is the actual hidden reserve on a battery pack? Is it 5%, 10%?
* How many times did they drive below the 20% range.
There is a lot of elements that interact with your battery life. I mean, how many of use have thrown out perfectly good smartphone because the battery life became a disaster after only a few years. And the cost to replace the battery was not in proportion.
Recently people driving to holiday here in Europe had fun times... 15 a 25min wait times at charge stations, and when they hit 80% they got kicked off the fast chargers (because after 80% it becomes very slow to charge up those last 20%). Slow charging was not allowed. So people needed to stop around every 60 a 70% of their battery range on their holiday trip. Wait 15 a 25 min for a charger, then wait another 45 min for their charge. While the guy with his ICE engine, stops, tanks in 5 minutes, goes for another 50% more distance.
My last two holidays in Europe I drove an EV about 1000 km to a holiday destination, and back again. So far I have never had to queue to charge.
I did notice that it is not unusual for a rest stop with only 2 to 4 fast chargers to be fully occupied. But if you use an app like ABRP to plan ahead, then it will tend to guide you to larger charging sites (e.g. 20 to 30 fast chargers of a few different brands). These charge planning apps also have live data about how many chargers are currently in use, so they will not send you to a fully occupied site if there are alternatives.
YMMV and the situation will change every year of course, as more EVs are added. Norway is the most advanced in Europe when it comes to car electrification, so if there are issues I guess they will show up over there first.
Charging station wait times comes down to growing pains. Not enough stations combined with battery tech not yet having reached maturity. It’ll fix itself as more stations are installed and the technology continues to advance. The only bad thing to do would be to stop.
As far as antique cars go, I’m not too worried because both energy density in batteries and efficiency in motors has been increasing substantially over time. By the time these cars are old enough to be antiques, people will want to do full retrofits with modern batteries and motors anyway because what they came with will look primitive and clunky in comparison. The ceiling for potential on EV tech is much higher than it is for ICE based systems.
As for the factors affecting battery life, it's looking like age above everything else is the primary killer of batteries. Temp is a solved problem, all modern EVs have a cooling/heating system.
Cell phone batteries are also different from EV batteries. You won't find a cell phone with an LFP. that's because cell phones target energy density above all else.
As for travel charging, 15 to 25 waits are typical and charging past 80% is slow. A battery at 10% can accept 350kW of power. Batteries are 80% typically can't accept more than 80kW or less. The 80% to 100% time can take twice as long as the 0 to 80 time.
Waiting for a charger to be available is an infrastructure problem. I've had to wait on gas pumps to be available during busy times. Conversely, the most I've waited to charge has been 10 minutes (and I've traveled every thanksgiving for 7 years of EV ownership).
The 20 minute break is welcome after driving 2->3 hours.
My metaquestion is: is it even rational to keep a car for 20 or 30 years? To me, the subject of the article seems penny wise but pound foolish. Certainly at some point since 1985, an upgrade would have been positive expected value for better safety, mileage, and comfort.
A new car has so much depreciation in the first couple of years that it's a terrible idea for most people. Buying used cars and either maintaining them or just driving them into the ground and then buying another used car is almost always cheaper.
Inverters have IGBTs and capacitors, both of which are wear items. I don't have an EV, but just got solar, and my installer told me that I can expect the inverter will need replacing in 15 years.
And solar inverters push far less wattage at far more benign circumstances than cars' do, which push 100s of kWs peak in hot and cold, mud and rain.
The most important factors that destroy solid state devices like IGBTs are voltage and heat. IGBTs in wind turbines fail every ten years or so. Expect to see many EV inverters fail in the next decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irv_Gordon had a Volvo with over 3.25 million miles (5.2Tm), although it's also had 3 engine rebuilds.
And the conversion is actually fairly simple. 1M km is 600k miles, so you were in the ballpark.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/28/574044232...
Metric is really far simpler, while Freedom Units are like going back to counting change in Roman-inspired £sd.
For the common, everyday use case it isn't meaningfully simpler, which is why the US hasn't switched. The conversions are certainly harder to memorize, but by the time you're an adult you have memorized all the common ones (12 inches to a foot, and so on) so that downside only applies to people who have to learn this stuff (largely children, who don't get a vote). The math is also harder than just moving decimal points, but when you carry a computer in your pocket that isn't actually making life harder for anyone.
So, the two big downsides of the imperial system (conversions are harder to learn and the math is harder) aren't actually a problem for the vast majority of adults in the US. But switching to metric would cause a ton of friction as you have to relearn how to estimate measurements for everything all over again. And those two factors combined are why the US doesn't switch. Most people will not gain any upside, while they have to pay significant downsides. It's perfectly rational to not switch when that is the case! You could argue that it's selfish (because future generations of kids have to learn the conversions, so they would benefit from metric and they don't incur the downside either), but it's not stupid. As much as people like to go "haha people in the US are so stupid for not switching to metric", that simply is not the case.
My parents were in their 30’s when Australia switched. They instinctively think in feet/inches, pounds for body weight (especially babies), but oddly miles hasn’t lasted.
I was educated in metric, but learned imperial lengths doing woodwork with my dad. I don’t have any intuition in pounds or miles, but feet (up to maybe 10) and inches are ok.
My son is purely metric. He can do the arithmetic, but has no intuitive sense in any imperial units.
So .. my anecdata is that it takes two generations to really switch.
The fact that the owner can keep it going is a testament to the maintainability of combustion engines that don't have high tech computers in them.
New engines with modern ECUs are every bit as maintainable.
The ECU doesn’t make an engine less maintainable. Modern engines would have more moving pieces such as variable valve timing but otherwise they’re very similar in concept and maintenance.
If someone encounters issues with an ECU and it needs replacement at $1k-2k they might just consider the costs and that being a down payment on a new vehicle vs. repairing. Labor costs more than parts for complicated electrical/computer/engine problems. Electrical issues in modern vehicles don't appear to be easy to troubleshoot, sometimes require proprietary tools. A simpler mechanical engine could be DIY repaired and running, check out the "low-buck garage" youtube channel and the $2 Jeep series as an example.
I'm not advocating something like going back to computer-less, inefficient, stinky, loud cars, just pointing out that when we add computers to things, it makes them less maintainable to the average person.
I know of at least two cars with 800k km with original engines. Both GM small blocks (Gen 2, multiport fuel injection so computer-controlled). Neither engine has been opened since they rolled off the floor in the 90s. They’re not particularly efficient (only about 270HP out of 5.7L) but if taken care of, they probably will go forever.
Definitely an exception, though. Very little else on those cars is still original. But it can be done.
You should visit any third world country: plenty of old cars still running around.
First it's his new car, then it becomes his new car with new tires, and then his car with new windshield wipers, and finally his old car with all new parts and some old ones. None of them are the same car.
I think in cases where it' a major rebuild, like turning a WW2 Minesweeper first into a ferry, and finally into Cousteau's research ship Calypso this outlook is more obvious. Are these ships all the same despite getting almost a full refit at each stage? I would say none of them are the same ship, but completely separate "things" with some old and some new parts.
More relevantly, I don't think neurons are replaced. There must be some material churn in the atoms and molecules that make them up, but even then different for different molecules - e.g. I don't know how much of our DNA molecules get replaced over a lifespan from the repair or other mechanisms.
Tattoos however, IIUC, sort of "float" between cells, and as those cells are replaced one-by-one the ink is kept in place by the surrounding cells that are still there.
Answered by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGggU-Cxhv0
What if you disassemble all of the car except the wheels and reassemble it but with new wheels?
How about if you also exclude the seats too.
At what point does the answer change? That’s the whole point of the ship of theseus.
Pantercel Rhei
If someone says "the only original part is likely the body", then that makes it sound like they've replaced pretty much everything except the body itself, including everything about the engine and transmission.
Because if you get chain timing issues on a 2010 BMW diesel, you ain't repairing that, it's more expensive than a new car.
Sometimes we're more connected/sentimental about specific physical items, than the prices themselves. I kind of feel like you have to be a special sort of person to own a BMW, so wouldn't surprise me that same "special" person would pay more to repair their specific car than replacing it with an identical one but without that issue.
In the article the guy has 3 whole spare cars for donor parts and he does all the work himself. He’s not paying mechanic rates or even buying new parts (which are no longer available).
The amount of time and effort he’s put into this car is undoubtedly more expensive than buying a new car at this point, unless you count his time and free.
Which you generally should, because unless he was going to otherwise be paid for that time there is no actual opportunity cost. The "cost" of one's time is only a meaningful metric inasmuch as one is giving up something which would be more profitable.