Run a car to end of its life

[Pan Pan Pan]

Joey Deacon said:

Trouble is, it's not as if cars are completely reliable until one day they suffer catastrophic failure and get scrapped. Unless the car has serious rust, anything is fixable if you are prepared to spend the money.

In my experience more and more things go wrong until you get sick of spending any more money on it and buy something newer. I would say most cars get scrapped after they fail the MOT for lots of small things, or when something major like the clutch or cambelt goes.

Years ago people would have thought nothing of changing a clutch or even rebuilding an engine but people don't really bother now. Most people when told that a clutch on their 15 year old Mondeo costs a grand would just go and trade it in against something else.

I would love to know the amount of people who buy a car new and drive it until it pokes a conrod out of the block.

Some people do that the day they bought it!

[Lincsls1]

Pan Pan Pan said:

My Sister and BiL seem to have this throw away mindset, with their cars, and with their home furnishings, and their kids gear etc. and seem to want to chuck things away, for little other reason than that they have had it for a couple of years. The times I have seen expensive gear including furniture, with nothing wrong with it, that was bought (sometimes only a few months before) dumped in a skip in their drive way. This is made worse by the fact that they scrounge cash from parents, other relatives, my brothers and myself. presumably to help pay for it all. Possibly a case of easy come easy go, for them?

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 1st March 19:16

Its a double edged sword.
On the one hand, if we all kept our stuff longer and weren't so frivolous with it all, the planet and environment maybe in a better state, on the other hand our jobs and economies would suffer.
Its a balance, but I'm one for keeping things longer than most and perhaps I should do. Hell this very laptop is on its last legs! Its 12 years old, slow, freezes a lot and doesn't hold charge.
But it still just about capable of doing what I need it to do.
My sofa is collapsing, but its still looks nice and is comfy enough and my music system is 22 years old, kept relevant with a Bluetooth to phono adaptor. And it took me years to swap out the overdue bathroom and kitchen.

Edited by Lincsls1 on Monday 1st March 20:00

[Pan Pan Pan]

Lincsls1 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

My Sister and BiL seem to have this throw away mindset, with their cars, and with their home furnishings, and their kids gear etc. and seem to want to chuck things away, for little other reason than that they have had it for a couple of years. The times I have seen expensive gear including furniture, with nothing wrong with it, that was bought (sometimes only a few months before) dumped in a skip in their drive way. This is made worse by the fact that they scrounge cash from parents, other relatives, my brothers and myself. presumably to help pay for it all. Possibly a case of easy come easy go, for them?

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 1st March 19:16

Its a double edged sword.
On the one hand, if we all kept our stuff longer and weren't so frivolous with it all, the planet and environment maybe in a better state, on the other hand our jobs and economies would suffer.
Its a balance, but I'm one for keeping things longer than most and perhaps I should do. Hell this very laptop is on its last legs! Its 12 years old, slow, freezes a lot and doesn't hold charge.
But it still just about capable of doing what I need it to do.
My sofa is collapsing, but its still looks nice and is comfy enough and my music system is 22 years old, kept relevant with a Bluetooth to phono adaptor. And it took me years to swap out the overdue bathroom and kitchen.

Edited by Lincsls1 on Monday 1st March 20:00

Agreed , But what is less appealing, is that they also indulge in the `We must save the planet for our children' kick. Anyone who does this surely cannot have much regard for the planet, even if they `say' they do?

[Lincsls1]

If we're really honest with ourselves, having children and saving the planet don't go hand in hand.
A radio program I caught the back end of sometime last year had some professor dude on, and he said that the single biggest thing a person can do to minimise their carbon footprint is to not have any children. Way off topic though!

[Pan Pan Pan]

Lincsls1 said:

If we're really honest with ourselves, having children and saving the planet don't go hand in hand.
A radio program I caught the back end of sometime last year had some professor dude on, and he said that the single biggest thing a person can do to minimise their carbon footprint is to not have any children. Way off topic though!

Agreed, but making `some' understand that is almost impossible.

[Dracoro]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Lincsls1 said:

If we're really honest with ourselves, having children and saving the planet don't go hand in hand.
A radio program I caught the back end of sometime last year had some professor dude on, and he said that the single biggest thing a person can do to minimise their carbon footprint is to not have any children. Way off topic though!

Agreed, but making `some' understand that is almost impossible.

but then there's the question, "saving the planet" - for WHOM? If we don't have children, there's no-one to save the planet for.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dracoro said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Lincsls1 said:

If we're really honest with ourselves, having children and saving the planet don't go hand in hand.
A radio program I caught the back end of sometime last year had some professor dude on, and he said that the single biggest thing a person can do to minimise their carbon footprint is to not have any children. Way off topic though!

Agreed, but making `some' understand that is almost impossible.

but then there's the question, "saving the planet" - for WHOM? If we don't have children, there's no-one to save the planet for.

It may surprise you to know that there are more than just humans on the planet, and that humans are just Johnny come lately`s in relation to many of them.
Still some cannot let go of the human centric view of the planet. where we are are encroaching onto, and destroying large areas of natural habitat, and losing the the unique species in them, for the dubious `benefit' of putting up to another 342 thousand net new humans on the planet every day.
We don't really need another 342 thousand net new humans per day. Well, at least not if like `some' are saying, `we must save the planet!'

[Dracoro]

Well, we could ban, worldwide, all new children.

The human race would be gone within 100 years.

And the planet saved, the left over animals and plants all get to live in peace.

Actually, you'd also need to kill off a load of animals too as many off them are net consumers of planet resources too.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dracoro said:

Well, we could ban, worldwide, all new children.

The human race would be gone within 100 years.

And the planet saved, the left over animals and plants all get to live in peace.

Actually, you'd also need to kill off a load of animals too as many off them are net consumers of planet resources too.

Who said ban world wide all new children? It was not me.
Next you will be saying that all people over a certain age, should kill themselves.
There is however a difference between having a birth rate that the planet can sustain, in line with keeping a balance with the natural world, or doing what we are doing now.
Or perhaps you do not believe we are destroying natural habitats, like rain forests, or coral reefs, and ocean floor, at unprecedented rates, or losing unique species in those habitats, at unprecedented rates. All to satisfy the colossal, and growing demands for the space, and products required by the global human population? Perhaps Soylent Green might be the answer (for a while at least?)

[Harrison Bergeron]

On topic I don’t see much point replacing my car.......unless they put the skyactiv-x engine into it.

[Dracoro]

Pan Pan Pan said:

There is however a difference between having a birth rate that the planet can sustain, in line with keeping a balance with the natural world, or doing what we are doing now.

So, how will you define what exactly is "sustainable"? using more or less that what we are using now? Climate (putting aside what is or isn't man made) is ever changing (and has been for the entire history of this planet), so the planet itself doesn't sustain everything. There's plenty of things that lived and died off before humans came along.

There isn't a "status-quo" when everything is changing all the time anyway (regardless of human actions).

Pan Pan Pan said:

Or perhaps you do not believe we are destroying natural habitats, like rain forests, or coral reefs, and ocean floor, at unprecedented rates, or losing unique species in those habitats, at unprecedented rates. All to satisfy the colossal, and growing demands for the space, and products required by the global human population? Perhaps Soylent Green might be the answer (for a while at least?)

There's political issues too. We (the western world) have cut down nearly all our trees (the UK was once covered by trees, most fields you see are "man made" - essentially for farming, for humans to grow/eat food) over the past thousands of years to facilitate humans and our development, yet we want to tell those in (for example) Brazil that they can't do the same. Put simply, it's the rich telling the poor, no YOU can't develop as it's not good for the planet, but WE're OK as we've already done it. Ecologically, a solution is required, but so it a political question else humans will rebel (self-preservation)

Some things are destroyed yes, and some things are made better.

I don't agree that we just destroy whatever we want with no care whatsoever. We do have to define what does/doesn't get "saved", why, how, for what end goal, what is the repercussions.

Ultimately, the planet will be here long after humans have gone. So the question remains, who (or what) is the planet being saved for? What's the end goal?

[NDA]

colin86 said:

Was thinking today does anyone buy a new/nearly new car and run it till the end of its life ?

I guess it depends how you buy them... company car, a lease. Changes in company car tax has probably meant less people having a car this way and therefore keeping them longer.

[fiatpower]

I've got a 57 plate Focus that I bought 7 years ago at 23,200 miles at around £6k. It's coming up to 100,000 miles now and is going strong. I've had to change the brake servo when I hit a dip in the road quite hard, think I did the suspension in that same incident as I had to change that too. Other than that it's just consumables that it's used. Pointless selling it as I would get very little for it so I intend to run it into the ground. I may change if my parents sell their car cheaply but that's the only reason.

[Highway Star]

I bought my current daily driver, an Octavia VRS diesel estate when it was 6 months old and had done 6k. It's now 6 years old and on 80k - I'm currently planning on keeping it until it incurs costs in excess of its value, which is probably a good few years off yet, I hope to get another 10 years out it - it does what I need it to do on a daily basis and I don't see the point in getting something newer to fill that niche - I'd rather spend money I save on chopping/changing on something extra for a weekend car.

I kind of did the same with my previous car, though that was 5 years old when I bought it and I put almost 100k on it - it became clear that it needed about £2k of work on it and was offered £750 as a part ex on the VRS. Someone clearly did invest in it, as it's still going now, which makes me think maybe I should've stuck with it.

I have the same attitude to other stuff that 'works' for me - we bought our sofa when we lived in the States almost 15 years ago, we really like it so when it looks a bit shabby we get it reupholstered rather than take it to the tip.

[Jag_NE]

I’m engaged in a couple of longer term ownership situations. I agree with the above in that the frequency of issues will likely be the thing that sees then scrapped. Unless I get really unlucky, repair bills can only get so high. If I’m regularly late for work because the car becomes frequently problematic, that will be the end of the road for me.

[Lincsls1]

^^^ Nothing wrong with that school of thought I think. That's a sensible and sustainable way to carry on motoring.
Sometimes though, you can have a car that might have 3 or 4 issues in one year, and it can just be bad luck.
I've had it with the current Astra, nothing that's left me stranded, but still inconvenient and has at least totalled the valve of the car ~ £800. Its all been sorted and the car soldiers on strongly, breezed the following MOTs too.
I'm glad I stuck with it, because its still saving me a fortune overall.

[AmyRichardson]

A childhood friend's parents owned a 760 Volvo that I can remember being driven to Devon in c.1993. If they hadn't bought it new then it was certainly nearly-new when they got it.

I saw on social media that their son took it to the breakers about two years ago.

(The family were a proper example of "non-consumerists by without trying" - generous, hard working, tidy but deeply unconcerned by 'fashion', saw cars as transport, knew everyone in the village, etc, etc)

[Threadbear]

[quote=Highway Star]I bought my current daily driver, an Octavia VRS diesel estate when it was 6 months old and had done 6k. It's now 6 years old and on 80k - I'm currently planning on keeping it until it incurs costs in excess of its value, which is probably a good few years off yet, I hope to get another 10 years out it - it does what I need it to do on a daily basis and I don't see the point in getting something newer to fill that niche - I'd rather spend money I save on chopping/changing on something extra for a weekend car.

I kind of did the same with my previous car, though that was 5 years old when I bought it and I put almost 100k on it - it became clear that it needed about £2k of work on it and was offered £750 as a part ex on the VRS. Someone clearly did invest in it, as it's still going now, which makes me think maybe I should've stuck with it.

I have the same attitude to other stuff that 'works' for me - we bought our sofa when we lived in the States almost 15 years ago, we really like it so when it looks a bit shabby we get it reupholstered rather than take it to the tip.

[/quote
I too have a Skoda Octavia, albeit a plain SE that I purchased 4 years ago and paid off last year. Cars done nearly 50k and with exception a fuel pressure sensor failure has cost me notjing exception servicing and 4 new Continentals. I keep looking at new cars, but why bother? My Octavia still feels like new, I look after it and can’t justify trading it in. Doesn’t owe me anything, and there is a decent amount of money being saved each month in my savings account.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dracoro said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

There is however a difference between having a birth rate that the planet can sustain, in line with keeping a balance with the natural world, or doing what we are doing now.

So, how will you define what exactly is "sustainable"? using more or less that what we are using now? Climate (putting aside what is or isn't man made) is ever changing (and has been for the entire history of this planet), so the planet itself doesn't sustain everything. There's plenty of things that lived and died off before humans came along.

There isn't a "status-quo" when everything is changing all the time anyway (regardless of human actions).

Pan Pan Pan said:

Or perhaps you do not believe we are destroying natural habitats, like rain forests, or coral reefs, and ocean floor, at unprecedented rates, or losing unique species in those habitats, at unprecedented rates. All to satisfy the colossal, and growing demands for the space, and products required by the global human population? Perhaps Soylent Green might be the answer (for a while at least?)

There's political issues too. We (the western world) have cut down nearly all our trees (the UK was once covered by trees, most fields you see are "man made" - essentially for farming, for humans to grow/eat food) over the past thousands of years to facilitate humans and our development, yet we want to tell those in (for example) Brazil that they can't do the same. Put simply, it's the rich telling the poor, no YOU can't develop as it's not good for the planet, but WE're OK as we've already done it. Ecologically, a solution is required, but so it a political question else humans will rebel (self-preservation)

Some things are destroyed yes, and some things are made better.

I don't agree that we just destroy whatever we want with no care whatsoever. We do have to define what does/doesn't get "saved", why, how, for what end goal, what is the repercussions.

Ultimately, the planet will be here long after humans have gone. So the question remains, who (or what) is the planet being saved for? What's the end goal?

If you don't believe we just destroy whatever we want with no care whatsoever, why are we bombarded with reports of reefs being destroyed, or square miles of rain forest being cut down every day, or fish being hoovered out of the sea, or of more, not less, mineral resources being extracted from the Earth, all to meet the growing demands, of the already colossal and still growing. global population.
All that is down to humans, and we are producing hundreds of thousands more of them each and every day.
The hypocrisy of those bleating that we must save the planet for our children, whilst consuming more', and introducing more, of the very things (Humans) that some maintain are destroying the planet , strikes me as being lemming like in its approach. and not sustainable.
It is also those countries not in the `West' who have the highest birth rates.
Its like saying we have found this dangerous fire that is consuming everything on the planet, What shall we do about it? I know! lets pour loads more petrol on it, and then wonder why the issue is getting worse, and not better.

[Lincsls1]

^^^ We're derailing the thread guys!
It is a very complicated and emotive issue, IMO to big an issue to deal with now which is why I suspect it rarely gets any discussion time where it matters!
I for one, am certainly not suggesting that nobody has children anymore, but at the same time if we all just rock on having 2 and 3 kids per person and more!, also factor in people are living longer than ever - then quite frankly, it just isn't sustainable. Its an exponential graph.
We can go as green as we like, EV's, wind farms yadda yadda yadda, but simple fact is more people continuing to breed more people means more homes, more food, more water, more power, more cars, and so on...
The planet has its limits to what it can support.
I think in truth, anyone with half a brain that sits down and gives it 10 minutes thought can see the problem.
But like I said, massive issue, swept under the carpet because its too controversial and contentious to deal with.
What's the answer, I don't know.

Edited by Lincsls1 on Tuesday 2nd March 17:22