Originally Posted by AMIRZA786

The other thing I would like to add is, you should at least try and experience something for yourself before forming an opinion on it. I thought BMW's were absolutely over rated...until I drove one and experienced it for myself. Also relying on what a friend tells you is a starting point, but they may have different experiences than you. They may love a car they own, and you may drive it and hate it or you may love it like they do. So it's best to drive them and evaluate them yourself.

Now if you absolutely are not interested in a certain type of vehicle, that's your right, and you don't have to justify it, and you can even criticize it all you want. Just don't be surprised if people question you on it, especially someone who actually owns or has driven the vehicle.

I just want to state this again, there is nothing wrong with owning or buying older vehicles, you won't hear any criticisms from me

Originally Posted by FrankReynoldsCPA

Manufacturing processes have allowed for engines to be designed and built in a way where they don't wear out as fast as they did 30-40 years ago. It used to be an accomplishment for an engine to reach 100k.

Now it would be an utter embarrassment for it NOT to reach 250k or 300k.

Originally Posted by AJT123

Originally Posted by Stroock639

i will say this though about older cars "lasting longer"... i think that impression comes from how older cars can run in a totally crappy state for a long time, whereas a modern car is more likely to work fine or just not work at all... it's also harder to DIY stuff on a modern car for someone who isn't mechanically inclined, or even for someone who is lol

Originally Posted by Striker223

Or owner induced stupidity, even a Kia engine will last if the owner checks oil and keeps feeding it. All of the ones I've had to replace are because the owner failed to check it

Originally Posted by FrankReynoldsCPA

Manufacturing processes have allowed for engines to be designed and built in a way where they don't wear out as fast as they did 30-40 years ago. It used to be an accomplishment for an engine to reach 100k.

Now it would be an utter embarrassment for it NOT to reach 250k or 300k.

Originally Posted by Motorola

I think it's more just the age-old idea that more tech = more stuff that can break. Obviously this adage doesn't hold up otherwise we would still be driving cars with carburetors, but it's hard to overcome the human distrust of technology.

Another factor is the tactility aspect - old cars have a more mechanical feel to them in how they operate from the door handles to switchgear (usually made of metal) that gives people the impression that they're in a quality product. MM will go on and on about how the "door-closing thud" on modern cars are not as good as the ones from 20-30 years ago. But this doesn't translate to the longevity of a vehicle.

Originally Posted by mmarshall

150K, or even 200K in some circumstances, OK, but, for most vehicles, 250-300K is really pushing it, even by today's standards.

Of course, there are some exceptions. Toyota's 4Runner and Land Cruiser, for example, are both known for routinely going to 200-300K.....but one cannot usually expect that from most vehicles, even with regular oil changes and maintenance.

Originally Posted by Striker223

If I could get a PHEV add on for my W12 engines I would take it as long as it didn't weigh anything more so I could move them all around the garage or storage unit or do a small trip to the store and back. Plus I would hope it could contribute like 15 or hp maybe....if I could maintain overall weight I would even go so far as to say I would pay for CCB brakes to help offset the added weight of a light system.

I would still want a normal starter though and have no reliance on the add in system for normal operation.

Originally Posted by Striker223

I would still want a normal starter though

Originally Posted by Motorola

I can definitely understand why people who hear and feel this sort of solidity would think it's a longer-lasting vehicle than a modern E-Class with its creaky trim and interior. But I would never bet against an old E-Class outlasting a new one.

Originally Posted by mmarshall

BMW also used to have that kind of Teutonic-Tank-solidity, but their products also went noticeably downhill in the solidity department when Chris Bangle came along. He not only introduced the complex/annoying I-Drive and what was (IMO) goofy-looking body styling, but also thinner/lighter construction that was apparently done to cut costs, although the lighter weight might have also helped with CAFE averages,.

Originally Posted by Motorola

On the subject of tactility again, just listen to this video from 2:54 onward:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwn_kETLkIc

I can definitely understand why people who hear and feel this sort of solidity would think it's a longer-lasting vehicle than a modern E-Class with its creaky trim and interior. But I would never bet against an old E-Class outlasting a new one.