[sam_pointer]

I can supply some anecdotally. I own two vehicles with reputations for running after neglected or minimal maintenance: a 1966 VW Beetle and a Land Rover.

The more correct way of characterising both would be that they will continue to run and function without ongoing maintenance (the proper level of which is way above a modern vehicle) until they break in a spectacular and often terminal way.

To attempt to answer your question, I think the general implication is that "old trucks" are designed for high maintenance intervals whereas Land Rovers, especially as used by the military, are designed to perform a function for short intervals with the long-term aid of a logistics chain.

[vacri]

> until they break in a spectacular and often terminal way

One bloke had his Citroen die in such a way in Africa... and had to rebuild it into a motorcycle to get out of where he was

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168061/French-elect...

https://m.thevintagenews.com/2016/05/18/emile-leray-built-wo...

[georgespencer]

> "old trucks" are designed for high maintenance intervals

I find this fascinating. To a layperson like me all combustion engines seem like they must be uniform. Thanks.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Nope. Not even close.

I have a 2001 Nissan Xterra that's been sitting in my driveway for almost 4 years with a blown head gasket because of the combination of lack of spare time, other available vehicles that I could drive, and the complexity of disassembling the engine to remove the heads. The seats and hatch area are now full of engine parts and I still have to finish taking off the passenger side head.

Contrast that with my 1987 Toyota pickup: I would have had the entire job done in a weekend with time to spare.

[ahartman00]

think notepad vs ms word. imagine if you had to debug one of them...