[leetcrew]

> Except depreciation and other costs are pretty heavily a function of miles rather than time.

this isn't really true of most mainstream cars. as long as people perceive the 2020 civic as an improvement over the 2019 model, a 2019 civic with zero miles will be worth less (you can verify this by visiting any dealership that still has the outgoing model in inventory). this is even more true of high-end cars until you get into stuff that's truly rare.

[ghaff]

Sure, if I'm buying a new car I'll pay less for last year's model all other things being equal. (And the dealership will sure want to provide an incentive for me to buy last year's model.)

But if I already own a car, how long I will continue to be able to drive it is far more determined by the mileage than by how old it is within reason. This is admittedly from the perspective of someone who basically drives cars until it's no longer economically sensible to do so.

[sokoloff]

I think almost anyone would prefer a 5 year old car with 100K miles on it than a 10 year old car with 25K (or 10K) miles on it.

[leetcrew]

I now realize ghaff is making a different point. since they intend to drive the car until it it is not economical to maintain, the resale value doesn't really matter. this is an unusually pragmatic approach to car ownership though.

[ghaff]

Yes, that was my point. I have never sold a car that had material resale value. (And, in fact, just donated one--which was about 20 years old.)

I do think that new computer tech-type features may be shifting the equation to make older vehicles less attractive more quickly. Although I'd argue those are probably more important for the driver than the passenger--modulo some safety features.

[ghaff]

Somewhere like California? Not clear to me at all.

[sokoloff]

New England cars rust due to age. CA, AZ cars have rubber parts (mounts/seals/bushings) decaying due to heat. The latter is way less fatal to the car, but still incredibly annoying to chase down and fix (unless you just ignore them).