Average engine life of vehicles over the years

[mormit]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
I don't know where it is, but there IS somewhere on here a post on an news article that was done a few years ago about average life of vehicles over the decades. It did set out that the aaverage in the 1970's was something like 80k miles, in the 1980's it was 120-130k miles, and in the 1990's it was 150k miles....don't quote me on those.

Maybe if you did a google search on 'average vehicle life' you'd find it, I don't know. As others have/will say, a LOT has to do with how the vehicle was maintained. My dad got about 150k miles out of a 1967 Mustang in the 1970's before rust got it, but he was pretty finiky about taking care of it....


Keep in mind the difference in driving habits over the decades.

In the 50's thru 70's, people lived within 15 driving minutes from work. Probably all city streets back in the 50's.

70's...80's...90's.....

More highway mileage.

What is the average commute now? My grandfather could walk to work and my father drove five miles.....

mormit

 

[occupant]

I think the better question is, if an older vehicle were rebuilt to new specifications and given proper maintenance with modern fluids, plugs, and other bits, how long will it last?

Depending on how far gone my $355 eBay purchase of a 1976 Ford Torino is, we might be able to find out very soon!

 

[Lazy JW]

I have an old cardboard box full of tattered Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines from the 1940's-50's. One of them from the 50's has a DIY article about swapping a remanufactured longblock flathead six I forget what make) purchased from Sears & Roebuck. The article stated that most car engines of the day were getting tired by 60,000 miles or thereabouts. I too remember when a car that went 100K was noteworthy.
Joe

 

[kelpie]

I had a 1970 Camaro that made it easily to 140K with original engine, transmission and rearend (307, turbo hydro automatic, 10 bolt rear). Body rust was another issue, though, but it was 17 years old when I got rid of it.

 

[Chris142]

My dad told me about his 55 Dodge with a Hemi that needed bearings @ 50K. He had a guy turn the crank in the car and put bearings in it which only lasted a couple years.

63 Dodge got water in the oil before 1968. I don't know what milage but it would have been pretty low. This was a Poly 318.

His 70 and 74 V W Beetles both made 100K w/o any internal engine work. He wrecked the 74 with 145K on it, still ran fine and didn't use any oil.

His 68 Valiant with a 225 that replaced the 63 Dodge became an oil burning monster around 135K. He parked it because it was fowling plugs in 100 miles.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Plenty of engines would have gone for ages if the timing belt didn't break. That, and the price of replacement of belts is why I hate them so much.

The other problem is that while getting 200K out of certain engines is not hard, it is extremely difficult to get interiors, air conditioners, MacPherson struts, plastic junk in the cooling system, and electronics to last that long. Even if the engine is still turning strong, odds are several gaskets and oil seals are leaking.


Timing belts are not as bad it seems. I have a friend who used to design timing chains for a Tier 1 supplier to various companies globally including Honda, Renault,etc.

I was pretty much on the same page as you, but he said that the tradeoff with belts vs. chains is that chains are more durable, but they will eventually lose their tolerance and have to be changed. They are also more expensive to the automaker, and not trivially so, and cost a lot more to replace when needed.

Belts, he said, generally last to the maintenance interval no problem, regardless of driving style, but obviously, cost a bit to change more frequently.

He generally favored chains, but said there are some engines where the belts are easy to get at, that make more sense.

Six or half dozen of the other.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: lovcom
The "tin cans" of today provide MASSIVELY higher chances of the occupants living after a collision, then the "tanks" of yesterday. Sure the tanks sustained less damage, but guess what? The kids inside the tank are battered from taking the full absorbtion of the released enery.

In a crash, I'll take a "tin can" anytime, thank you.

I remember seeing the aftermath of a a crash involving a full sized 1960's Pontiac station wagon. Yea, the car had sustained much less damage then one would expect. But all the occupants were dead from being bounced around and against rock solid infrastructure.
You are mixing up improved tecnology with quality I am not debating the improvements because of safty standards and emission standards. And wearing seatbelts.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Plenty of engines would have gone for ages if the timing belt didn't break. That, and the price of replacement of belts is why I hate them so much.

The other problem is that while getting 200K out of certain engines is not hard, it is extremely difficult to get interiors, air conditioners, MacPherson struts, plastic junk in the cooling system, and electronics to last that long. Even if the engine is still turning strong, odds are several gaskets and oil seals are leaking.


Timing belts are not as bad it seems. I have a friend who used to design timing chains for a Tier 1 supplier to various companies globally including Honda, Renault,etc.

I was pretty much on the same page as you, but he said that the tradeoff with belts vs. chains is that chains are more durable, but they will eventually lose their tolerance and have to be changed. They are also more expensive to the automaker, and not trivially so, and cost a lot more to replace when needed.

Belts, he said, generally last to the maintenance interval no problem, regardless of driving style, but obviously, cost a bit to change more frequently.

He generally favored chains, but said there are some engines where the belts are easy to get at, that make more sense.

Six or half dozen of the other.

It may be true that timing belts are light years ahead of the ones from the past, but I have been scarred by the death of mom's 1985 Nissan Maxima. I loved that car (Even though it was a pain) and hated to see it go.

Emotion took over logic for me.

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
My grandfather told me that they would tear down some of the earlier engines and the first v8's at around 40k miles to do bearings and rings. These would have been in the 30's and 40's I'm guessing.


In the late 1940s and early 1950s I was prepubescent young but interested in cars. Needing to do head and/or oil pan off engine work by 50k miles wasn't unusual. Getting past 100k miles without major engine work was unusual.

It was not unusual to do bearings, rings and a valve job with the engine still in the car.


My father was born in 1913 and worked on vehicles from his later teens until he retired in the 1970's. He mentioned the same thing about engines needing frequent repairs.

 

[Maritime Storm]

Nowadays, as someone mentioned, we live in a throwaway society. I work as a partsman for a repair shop, we see it everyday. Depressingly enough the technicians are starting to exhibit the same attitude by talking people out of repairing a ten year old car with 170K kms on it. Nothing bugs me more than to hear a car owner refusing to do maintennace because "it's just a cheap car". Less expensive cars suffer more abuse from owners being cheap than they do from any design or manufacturing flaw. A BMW owner wouldn't dare go over on OCIs, but someone driving a less than $20k car, especilly a lease vehicle however think nothing of it, then complain when the engine burns oil early.