Black W900
Senior Member
There is a serious disconnect in the discussion here. A good example, I think, of what is meant by the "life" of a vehicle was demonstrated many years ago by the car rental business. They would not keep a car past three years or 50,000 miles. The reason was that the life of the vehicle was just that: 3 years or 50,000 miles. Before you get riled up, consider that the car rental business was not interested in how long the vehicle might last and neither was it interested in how far it could be driven (under any circumstance). They determined that the 50,000 mile mark was the upper limit before parts needed to be replaced. Any parts, you see. They made money when the car was rented and on the road. It's an interesting drill to take what you paid for a new vehicle and add what you paid for anything whatsoever in the first year, then the second year, and the third. Divide by the number of months you have had the vehicle. The cost of ownership includes everything and it screws up your cost-per-month in a major way. Frequency of repair/maintenance/anything that takes it out of service increases, too. That is what is refered to as "reliability." It isn't "once I get it fixed, it'll do this or that." The issue seems to boil down to two different definitions of "life." One is geared toward the life of all the original parts, a correct definition, but a technical one. The other is how long and far you can drive a vehicle until it gets to a point that you don't want to play any more. The discussion is not addressing those radically different viewpoints of ownership of a vehicle.
The car rental business keeps cars for about 20,000 miles these days.
Is that because they're not reliable after that or is it because they will sell for a lot more if they have super low miles on them?
Times have changed.