from Hacker News

Used cars retain designs and features more coveted than their replacements

by uptown on 6/7/24, 10:46 PM with 100 comments

  • by Supermancho on 6/7/24, 11:17 PM

  • by Panzer04 on 6/7/24, 11:27 PM

    Are these really the problem? I feel like new cars are obscenely expensive right now. Even a basic car can easily run you 30-40k, the same thing a few years used will be <20k, and a few years more <10k (this is in Australia).

    The difference between a brand new car and a 10 year old car is almost nil in terms of featureset nowadays (if anything, you get more because you can buy a higher end older model for less), every car has all the basics. Cars just got so good over the last 20-25 years that any vehicle in that age range is a perfectly reasonable choice.

  • by Supermancho on 6/7/24, 11:20 PM

    If you had to buy a clothes washer recently, top load is better than side load, agitator is better than no agitator, analog buttons or dial is a plus, et al. Old is better than new. The rude design choices have compounded. Nobody needs an app to know what cycle their washer is at. Anyone using a washer, listens for it. When your display goes out, all the functionality is gone. It's just mind boggling.

    The 2024 Hyundai Tuscon with 10 year warranty (on top of the manufacturer's 2 year warranty) means this will probably be our last car. It has all the best features of 2019 and has very few rude problems - eg turning off the engine and opening the driver door locks the rear doors. That's not helpful.

  • by igor47 on 6/7/24, 11:16 PM

    I bought an EV, so I'm part of the problem. I hate that it's basically a rack of servers on wheels that I don't have root on, and which track my every move.

  • by Baeocystin on 6/7/24, 11:28 PM

    I love my '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee for everything but the gas mileage. I especially love that everything is under direct button and dial control, and yet somehow its interior doesn't look like that of a 747.

    If a 26-year-old car can do it, so can modern ones.

  • by Animats on 6/8/24, 12:40 AM

    About two years ago,, the CEO of Stellantis was crowing that they were going to crank up their margins to Apple levels with after-sale feature bills. Not hearing that much any more. The "more crap per car" approach backfired. For a while, rather blah SUVs were reaching for US$100,000. That didn't last.

    Outside the US, which now has a 100% tariff on cars imported from China, electric cars from China are taking over. Nio and BYD have good cars now. Without subscription-based heated car seats.

  • by Animats on 6/8/24, 2:57 AM

    To replace a touchscreen, you need knobs, sliders, and switches. They don't need to directly connect to things; they can just talk CANbus like everything else in a car. You just need low-cost, rugged, standard modules for knobs, lights, sliders, and switches. Make them all the same depth and mount them staked into a PC board. Provide the board with a stiffening rail so the thing feels solid if someone pushes hard. The board has one CANbus output that connects to the dashboard bus. No hand-wiring. Only one thing to install during vehicle assembly.

    Such controls are used in tractors, heavy trucks, and heavy machinery.[1] They just need to be engineered as a volume product. Probably in Shenzhen.

    [1] https://www.carlingtech.com/digital-switching

  • by oliwarner on 6/8/24, 9:24 AM

    > designs and features

    Nah, it's that new cars drop 50% of their value on the first three years. People are fed up setting fire to their cash. The pressures of living costs don't permit it for many.

    3-5yo cars are the sweet spot. The depreciation curve starts to flatten. A good clean and it's as good as new.

  • by DavidPiper on 6/7/24, 11:51 PM

    While I'm also in the anti-touchscreen crowd (and depressed to hear that cost reduction is the core reason they've taken over), I think another reason might be that we've been promised for years that cars (EVs in particular) are on the cusp of a technological revolution.

    Not just in terms of self-driving features, but also single-charge range and price. If you know next year's car is going to be significantly better - and at worst the same price - why would you buy a car this year?

  • by cut3 on 6/8/24, 1:04 AM

    My small suv from 2015 was $18k, now they are $40k...

  • by trashface on 6/8/24, 8:00 PM

    The article claims people are avoiding CVTs, is this true? I found some stuff on reddit, mostly about older nissans being troublesome and some people not liking how it changes the feel of acceleration, but a lot of people say they are fine.

    I bought a 9 year old honda recently with a CVT and it seems fine to me, I like how it accelerates but I'm not a pedal stomper. I also like that it has a CD player (can still use the CDs transferred from my previous 27 year old car). Minimalist touchscreen helps too, though its too old to show maps from my phone.

  • by daft_pink on 6/7/24, 11:47 PM

    I don’t want a new car because I don’t really drive anymore. We work remotely and we have two cars that we rarely drive.

    Meanwhile my friends waited a year to get the car they wanted. I’m not even going to bother going to the dealer to wait for a new Toyota at that rate.

    Not really motivated to spend much money on something I barely use.

  • by jmclnx on 6/8/24, 11:03 AM

    I 100% agree with the article. The expense if new, internet enabled, much higher insurance rates and taxes keeps me in my 17 year old vehicle.

    In the US anyway, I think the days of the "open road" is slowly coming to an end.

  • by readthenotes1 on 6/7/24, 11:30 PM

    Old is not better than new, better is better.

    Better is Lane keeping, breaking assist, and backup cameras.

    Better is physical buttons and cars without spyware.

    Better is 50 miles per gallon unless tire residue spreading microplastics all over our environment.

  • by m463 on 6/7/24, 11:35 PM

  • by BadJo0Jo0 on 6/8/24, 4:11 AM

    I can somewhat justify the cost of mid and full size SUVs currently, but still hate that you're looking to spend about 40-60k, more if luxury. The "popularity" of the segment has pushed makers to actually put some effort in handling, fuel efficiency, and reliability. The current offerings of this segment is leaps better than majority of the offerings of mid 2010s and older.

    However, each maker is just slightly missing the mark here and there, and you are pretty much just cross shopping compromises. Unibody or body on frame? Lose physical buttons? Get touchscreen distractions spanned across your entire dash? Half baked infotainment system? Laughable trunk space with the third row up? No fold flat third row? Off-road/overland trim, but barely capable and/or not even a good enough platform to warrant aftermarket support?

    At the current prices new or used, how long these cars last when taken care of, and being a "bang for buck"/"buy once cry once" kind of person. Nothing has really been compelling enough for me to purchase a 3 row for my spouse. (Nuclear family with kids really close in age that regularly road trip)

    When it comes to crossovers, compact, and sedans. (Non sport/performance trims) The prices are alright, just find a solid example of something made within the past decade within your budget, take care of it, it takes care of you.

    The sports car or performance trim segment is where I'm also torn. On one hand, everything is so much faster, capable, and more reliable (debatable) as time goes on. The other, is that the essence of what made older cars of the same segment great is slowly getting neutered out of the overall driving and owning experience.

  • by smitty1e on 6/8/24, 3:36 AM

    If buyers want features, this implies a demand in the market.

    If capitalism is {buyer; market; seller} then demand in the market should draw product from sellers.

    The market is regulated, so wildly unsafe demands should go unmet.

    But if the market is over-regulated, then an electoral feedback loop ought to trim excessive regulation so that the market can meet demand.

    Which brings us to the question: why aren't people running for office on a platform of taking pliers and a blowtorch to the Orwellian regulatory thicket?