[userbinator]

They can last longer but then die more abruptly, because they were designed with a more definite planned obsolescence and many people didn't bother to maintain them correctly before so the designers optimised for that. To make an extreme car analogy, it's like an engine that will last 200k miles with no oil changes but slowly destroys itself irreparably in doing so, instead of one that needs an oil change every 5k miles but will last 10-20x longer before only a mild overhaul with cheap replacement parts (mainly soft ones like seals) is necessary.

[drivebycomment]

Any statistics to back this up? It would be incredibly difficult to in aggregate increase the average lifespan of cars dramatically and consistently while reducing the long tail of the lifetime. So this claim smells like a negativity bias / rosy retrospection.

[thunderbird120]

Improvements in corrosion management, better machining, better materials, and competition from automakers providing longer and longer warranties has driven up the number of miles you can expect a new car to drive before encountering major problems. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/automobiles/as-cars-are-k...

[userbinator]

...but when you do encounter major problems, they are definitely major.

That's the point I'm trying to make: new cars are lasting longer because they were designed with a more definite lifespan (and all the "improvements" can be seen as a way to make that lifespan more definite.) Parts being made to tighter tolerances means far less margin and variation. The "bathtub curve" is being made sharper at both ends.