250k on the F150

[Cheetah-kins]

I remember about a car company (Ford maybe?) around 10 years ago that was working with some type of specially lined cylinder wall motors that could easily last 500K miles. Clearly cars could be built to last 500K miles, or even a million I believe, but that'll never happen. Besides the obvious issue that manufacturers need the public to keep regularly buying cars to keep them in business, consumers have been convinced that vehicles are majorly improved every year for safety and features, as well as being updated style-wise and should be purchased as often as possible. Those two things will always negate manufacturers building ultra long lasting cars, imo.

 

[D60]

I remember about a car company (Ford maybe?) around 10 years ago that was working with some type of specially lined cylinder wall motors that could easily last 500K miles. Clearly cars could be built to last 500K miles, or even a million I believe, but that'll never happen. Besides the obvious issue that manufacturers need the public to keep regularly buying cars to keep them in business, consumers have been convinced that vehicles are majorly improved every year for safety and features, as well as being updated style-wise and should be purchased as often as possible. Those two things will always negate manufacturers building ultra long lasting cars, imo.

Economic drive/growth and consumerism is always interesting to me when put up against building products that last so long they rarely need to be replaced.

I've long argued rather than stupid programs like Cash for Clunkers let's try to employ people by building and remanufacturing car parts.

If we had a paradigm shift of trying to keep old junk on the road longer, an economy can still be built around THAT. People would need more parts more often and maybe we could start thinking of blue collar work like wrenching as a prestigious profession -- and train people accordingly.

Sadly, I'm making too much sense and it'll never happen (says the guy praising his own genius)

 

[hemioiler]

Economic drive/growth and consumerism is always interesting to me when put up against building products that last so long they rarely need to be replaced.

I've long argued rather than stupid programs like Cash for Clunkers let's try to employ people by building and remanufacturing car parts.

If we had a paradigm shift of trying to keep old junk on the road longer, an economy can still be built around THAT. People would need more parts more often and maybe we could start thinking of blue collar work like wrenching as a prestigious profession -- and train people accordingly.

Sadly, I'm making too much sense and it'll never happen (says the guy praising his own genius)

Winters are harsh on cars with all the salt, so until that is removed from the equation cars will have a very serious problem with rust and rotting out.

 

[doublebase]

I remember about a car company (Ford maybe?) around 10 years ago that was working with some type of specially lined cylinder wall motors that could easily last 500K miles. Clearly cars could be built to last 500K miles, or even a million I believe, but that'll never happen. Besides the obvious issue that manufacturers need the public to keep regularly buying cars to keep them in business, consumers have been convinced that vehicles are majorly improved every year for safety and features, as well as being updated style-wise and should be purchased as often as possible. Those two things will always negate manufacturers building ultra long lasting cars, imo.

I mean, there are cars that have lasted a million miles on original drivetrains, but they are rare and require the right commute, the right type of environment and the right maintenance regimen. Also the right brand.

It’s hard, I don’t think people realize just how hard it can be…it also takes some luck to really get to high high mileage. Everything in the front suspension will eventually wear and break, and replacing it is not cheap…it’s time consuming and expensive. It also will not wear all at once, which means there will be continuous repairs/$$/time allocated to the front. The back also will be an issue, but not as frequent because the weight of the vehicle is concentrated on the front - but the rear on passenger cars has the lower quality materials/components, and if you’re in the rust belt it finds those parts quicker…the brake rotors, the rear springs/struts, the rear sway bar links. Ouch, I’ve been bitten numerous times.

And after all that ^^^ at around 150,000-200,000 miles you could find yourself with an oil consuming engine, and/or a transmission that is starting to act up. That’s when you have a decision to make…do I bite the bullet and pay $2,000/$3,000 for a major ticket item repair? Or do I move on? Because sometimes you do that major repair and shortly after you’re staring at another major repair - to go along with a half dozen minor things that will nickel and dime you. And you find yourself driving around in an outdated, starting to rust, car that is becoming not so much fun any longer. Yet I would advocate for trying to reach high mileage on the right car, simply because in the long run you’ll save yourself a fortune, and it’s in some way a pride of ownership thing. It’s a feeling of accomplishment and believing that your maintenance routine allowed you to get to a place where many never will venture.

 

[Gasbuggy]

The 3.7 is a great engine. My friend's 2013 Explorer (his assigned police car) has over 100k cruising a 1 square mile borough, it has around 20,000 engine hours. Original engine, granted it pings alot and is down on some power. Still running with no check engine lights