• AlDente@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hard disagree. Rust is a consequence of the material, not of the vehicle’s vintage. Furthermore, older cars are not only simpler and easier to work on, but also, parts are cheaper. If any 1990s Honda isn’t making it to at least 200k miles, its an anomaly.

      • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        There’s a guy in my neighborhood who occasionally brings out a neon purple Geo Storm and it makes me smile Everytime I see it.

      • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Older cars for sure did rust faster because the manufacturers didn’t adopt galvanizing until the late 80’s. Then in the 90’s various other spray coatings and sealers became common. Aluminum is also now prevalent to save weight.

        Old cars in the south and southwest didn’t have road salt accelerating the oxidation. But if they were brought up north they caught up quickly. Cars in the north prior to galvanizing would be rotted out in 100k miles easily.

        • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Neat, i’m glad we agree. Early 90’s is still very early in perspective to this audience. I’m driving a '92 and that’s 32 years old now. The cars from that decade last much longer than the 100k quoted above. Also, this is beyond 2.5X the average quoted in the OP article. Clearly, these are “old” cars. In sum, the 100k-till-rust-apart claim isn’t anchored in reality.