What if you couldn't buy another new car?

[texasranger]

I admit that my outlook on the American consumer culture is a little extreme, but since the day of the General Motors/UAW strike, I've been pondering this thought. Nobody NEEDS a new car, and of course, we on these automotive websites are generally the DIY types that enjoy keeping older stuff running. Aside from the obvious economic consequences of a major automaker going under, what would be the result of not having new cars available for awhile? I know that the UAW workers want to uphold their standard of living, and I don't mean to say that they shouldn't all keep working and getting what they feel they deserve. I'm thinking about the fact that there are already enough cars to last a long time, and we could all benefit from less consumer debt in the form of high interest payments and such. Well, this is getting long winded...so thanks for reading it and I'll just wait and see what kind of discussion it sparks.
John

 

[RobbieD]

What a thought provoking question. Funny, but two things popped into my head in reading the post. First, all of the 1950s classic American cars still in Cuba, still running, (some on charcoal, even); and second, the movie Mad Max- as in, "Wow; the last Hemi!".

Granted, no longer being able to buy a new car is an impossible or extremely unlikely scenario, but needless to say used vehicles would become much more valuable, and more importantly the sevices of people (like many on this this site) who can keep something running no matter what goes wrong with it, would become highly valuable. Fabricators would be the kings!

Funny, but I think it would be kind of cool, as in a kind of mechanical Darwinism.

 

[ZMan]

No airbags, no coilpack, & the most thing I like to see It has the TTB which is my favorite suspension on the ranger.

So I take it your searching for a 3.0l then?

I agree though, I will probably never own something brand new, unless I win the lottery. The newest I would go is probably 2-3 years old, by then they've lost enough value to be worth buying, and *most* of them are still new enough to not have a laundry list of problems.

 

[RobbieD]

I will stay with the older Ford's from the 90's. I prefer the look of a real car, not some unibody crap or any other shit like that. The newer cars are so difficult to work on these days to many electrical parts. I still love the OBD1, I love the room I have in my engine compartment to work.

No airbags, no coilpack, & the most thing I like to see It has the TTB which is my favorite suspension on the ranger.

A new vehicle is a choice that alot of people want, some don't want the hassle of a used car.

Right on! I made the very deliberate decision to stop buying new when I got the '94- no airbags, no OBDII, no BS. Now I'm very much into the 1983-94 RBVs, and couldn't be happier for it as the best transportation solution for me.

A lot of people are simply stuck in the buy new or newer cycle, as they're not self-sufficient when it comes to working on vehicles (or even taking care of them in the first place, for that matter).

 

[MAKG]

I kinda like some of the newer control systems, especially the CANs (got car electronics into the late 1960s around 2000....). A *LOT* fewer wires to deal with. Active suspensions are also quite interesting.

But they cost far more than they are worth to me.

Now, the UAW will not shut down all new car production. They can't. And automotive companies have gone out of business or into other lines of business before. Say, Studebaker? Delorean? International Harvester? AMC? The sky will not fall if Chrysler dies for the third time. There will be plenty of new cars available.

 

[RobbieD]

I kinda like some of the newer control systems, especially the CANs (got car electronics into the late 1960s around 2000....). A *LOT* fewer wires to deal with. Active suspensions are also quite interesting.

But they cost far more than they are worth to me.QUOTE]


Good point, and not that I don't like the new technologies. There's some cool stuff these days for sure. It's just quite simply I fix what I drive myself, and in my honest opinion vehicles peaked in the mid-90's as to the best subsystems that are within the reach, and are easy, for an average competent do-it-yourselfer. I don't like too many control units, or different computers, within the vehicle; it can get a lot more expensive to repair. Up through '94 you're only dealing with a single engine computer for the whole ball of wax, and the EEC-IV is pretty decent operating system.

 

[86ford]

my moto is "if it isent needed to keep the vehicle moving i dont need it". i happily remove abs junk, AC, lights and anything else that breaks because frankly who needs it? last time i checked our parents all lived without AC, ABS, power steering, clutch and brake interlock switchs etc.

86

 

[Simple_serf]

As I have said before, I like older technology when something MUST work. I do kinda like not having to mess with the choke on my truck when I leave work at 4 am.

I like being able to make the standby generators that I am responsible for run no matter what.

Eh...it wouldn't matter too much for me... as MAKG said...look at all of the other major companies that crashed and burned. Biggest problem here is rust and emissions. you get about 15 years out of most modern/semi modern cars around here before major parts start to rot out.

 

[martin]

I prefer the older stuff also. I'm sure you'll soon be able to go into a new car show room and stamped on the hood of the cars it will say "NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE"

 

[texasranger]

Good points all, and I'm pleased with the direction of this discussion. I was actually thinking more in terms of the consumer debt problem than of the cars themselves. Of course there are many automakers ready to take over where the big three and the UAW leave off, and we won't see any lack of cars. But, here in the Killeen, TX area, for example, the highways and byways are lined with new car dealers who are quite successfully separating the local population and it's money. I just look at them as I drive by and think...what a scam. Nobody needs them, but they sell em by the hundreds everyday, and the people have perpetual car payments.

 

[CJREX]

Speaking of perpetual car payments, some people are perfectly content with never owning a vehicle. I used to be one of them. Traded every 2-3 years and got a new car for "only a few dollars a month more".

Used to be that you bought a brand new car with the expectation that it would be extremely reliable for several years.

Now that same expectation can be had with a used car, since there are few really "bad" cars on the american market (I recently was on a flight back from CA. I was wearing my Mercedes hat. The gentleman seated next to me was a Land Rover master technician coming back from a school. He spent a good portion of the flight telling me how Land Rovers sucked )

With an abundance of good, slightly used cars available, the thought of buying a brand new car doesn't even enter my mind. Let someone else eat the depreciation.

The rumor continually pops up of the car with a hood that can only be opened by the dealer, thus eliminating the customer from doing anything but driving.

There are quite a few customers that would be perfectly happy with that scenario.

The Porsche Boxster/Cayman is almost to that point.

 

[Shotokan1509]

Less consumer debt, but also less overall revenue movement within the US.

I also must add, you are from texas, come up north and see how long a daily driver lasts. You can keep it running by continually doing drivetrain work but bodies and frames simply rust out. I have not seen a rust free Gen 1 in years that has not had body work done to it. Simply put, I have seen a LOT of loved vehicles sent to the scrapper because the rust repair needed was double or triple the worth of the vehicle that was falling in on itself.

Overall there is supposed to be a balance, the turn-over people have on cars is a little out of hand. People that pay more for their car monthly than their housing is out of hand as well (obv those that have payed off their mortgage are an exception).

The majority just need a smack in the head and some advice "Live within your means, not what the lender or credit card company says you can have"

 

[LearjetMinako]

One thing I like about the older cars is less intergration of moduals. Example would be my 96 Ranger. I mean theres a ABS, Air Bag, Chime, PCM, EATC, Cruise, etc; moduals. So its easier to fix a problem if something does go wrong.

Also the problem with "new" cars, is that they are not truely "new". Once the design is built, some designer/engineer is coming up with another one. Also cost. I can't afford a $30k price tag. Thou there is a 07' Ranger priced under $10k, very basic XL. The only thing I can see why I would get new, is one, warranty. or Two, I'm getting too old and can't find a good old car.

 

[pacodiablo]

my moto is "if it isent needed to keep the vehicle moving i dont need it". i happily remove abs junk, AC, lights and anything else that breaks because frankly who needs it? last time i checked our parents all lived without AC, ABS, power steering, clutch and brake interlock switchs etc.

86

My parents may not have had those things when they started driving, but they sure like to have them now.

I probably will not own a new vehicle for a long time if ever out of preference. I simply do not like a lot of the recent styling trends. It isn't even an issue of the mechanical parts of the vehicle, I just think the designers are slacking these days. You see a lot of snout-like grilles, Bangle butts, seriously oversized headlights, bumpers that are practically nonexistant, and awkward proportions and shapes. I like my Ranger and Explorer because though they might not win any design awards these days, they are proportional and each part flows nicely to the next. Even with the mangled front bumper and trashed rear quarter panel, I like the look of my 1995 Explorer over a 2007 Explorer. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the economic impact of there being no new cars, I was just adding my $0.02 on why I don't have anything new.

I do think I could keep either my Explorer or Ranger for a very long time. Cars from the 1990s and 2000s have the potential to last a very long time. The Explorer is 12 years old, spent about 10 of those years up in PA, and has 150,000 on the odometer, and it is still doing great. It does not have any real leaks (never enough to drip), it runs great, it shifts great, and ALL of the power features work fine. It gets decent gas mileage too. I'd expect at least another decade out of it assuming the rust it has does not spread all over. The Ranger has at least another 20 years under its belt I'm sure...no rust, no problems, the check engine light has never even come on before.

 

[PaleBlue90]

i work in a body shop, i agree, new cars have waaaay to much crap to fix, sensors,comps,plastic!! , idk...i prefer something that wont have payments,is easy to work on, and once you get the quriks down there simple. for example i put together a mariner today, i had to get the wheel dismounted and it has a damn "tire pressure censor", are ppl just to stupid to kno a tire is low or flat? the car drives diffrent when that happens and u can clearly see, things like that are pointless to me. its too much money to spend,and frankly to much b.s. to deal with. thats what cracks me up when i have guys in hummers laugh at my rusty blazer. its like WTF are u laughing at, u got car payments and ur 50K over sized car gets the same mileage as my blazer with the 350 in it.