Except when you live in a city where they start to limit and ban transit of older cars, to force people transitioning into lower emission models, or public transit.
Like in Spain (through rules ultimately coming from Europe) there is a class of vehicles which are gradually being kicked out (banned from crossing certain very ample boundaries around the city): gasoline cars made before 2001, and diesel powered cars made before 2006.
For example, your 23 year old Toyota 4Runner would be deemed too polluting (or noisy, or both) to drive near the city center and auxiliary accesses of Madrid, and starting from 2025 it will be outright banned from driving on any part of the city, with a circle area of ~23 Km (14 miles) diameter from the center.
No: If you're rich enough to restore a car that you bought from someone that was poor enough to still be driving it with stock components, then the US won't punish you.
American carbrains can’t imagine a society that doesn’t depend on huge ass vehicles for daily transportation.
A reminder that driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege that you have to get a license to do, and many other places that aren’t America don’t design their cities and even their small towns [1] around the idea that you must own a vehicle.
Congestion taxes and pollution rules tend to affect city centers where personal vehicle ownership is unnecessary and even something that could be considered detrimental to society as a whole.
I didn’t agree to die early due to elevated pollution levels in my city just so you can drive your truck around downtown.
Approximately half of all global oil use is associated with roadways. Maybe draining the world’s oil is a solid plan for the oil states and geopolitically massive superpowers of the world, but many countries have to import all of their oil, so owning a 19mpg Toyota 4Runner in a country like Spain is arguably a national security issue.
"A reminder that driving isn’t a right"
It is in America. Our constitution constrains the government, it doesn't grant us rights - we already have them as human beings. I can't imagine living under a cynical government that has that equation flipped but obviously you've been conditioned to accept it.
That’s just plain factually incorrect. You aren’t allowed to drive unless you pass a written and driving test in all 50 states, with only a few exceptions like agricultural use.
The default state of your rights in the USA is that you are not allowed to drive. It is effectively an additive privilege that you have to go out of your way to obtain.
The constitution doesn’t restrict the government’s ability to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle, and all 50 states have enacted laws that effectively make driving a privilege. You’re even required to buy insurance from a private company in order to maintain that privilege.
The fact that driving was legal by constitutional default before the passage of traffic laws isn’t relevant to the present day legal status quo.
I would also like to request that right wing libertarian weirdos stop equating every mundane, benign, and sensible societal rule to draconian conditioning by the big bad evil government. Please.
We destroyed our world’s best rail infrastructure on purpose to serve industrialist automotive companies. You could get anywhere by train in 1925, with so much frequency it is a daunting task to even count up the schedules.
Despite now having 3x the population of that time period, our rail service is basically non-existent in comparison. This isn’t the case in less wealthy and less dense countries.
What is the cost of the interstate highway system? How much of it could have reduced lanes or not exist if there were trains? How much productivity and GDP is wasted on people operating vehicles on the highway when trains can travel over 3x faster and facilitate continued work?
I've never bought a new car and don't have any plans to soon
My 2001 Tundra is a spy-free, comfortable and versatile life/work vehicle that works as well in the city as it does hauling logs and steel on my property. I have three school age kids and prefer my truck to a Van (I've owned one in the past too) any-day.
I totally agree I just feel like there's a sweet spot in the early 2000s where crash safety was better (not the best, but way closer to modern) and traction controls were standard but you didn't have all the spyware. My 2000 4Runner was unfortunately designed in the 1990s which means the doors are super thin as are the roof pillars. Not a deal breaker mind you, it's just the sort of thing that I won't want it until it's too late.
Depending on your climate, you should probably have the right front frame member inspected for rust. My father had an '09 4Runner & got into a front-end crash. In the process that member was exposed, and while it looked fine on the outside, it was full of rust from the inside and quite thin.
Don't get me wrong, I drive an '01 Ranger that is more rust than steel at this point, but it is still good to know what you have.
>I drive an '01 Ranger that is more rust than steel at this point
You poor man. I had a 3.slow 6 cyl. 0-60 in 16s was almost an accomplishment. I guess that's what you get when you have a 155hp motor trying to pull a 3800 lb vehicle.
I drove a '93 Ranger with the 98 horsepower 2.3L 4-cylinder and the 5-speed manual in the late 2000s from 130,000 miles to 280,000 miles; it carried the supplies to paint dozens of houses and got me through college without any debt on car payments or tuition. My wife still mocks me for the purple pinstripes and the fact it was shorter than her, but I was driving it when she was just an acquaintance and I was still driving it home from our wedding, so clearly she actually liked it and just won't admit it.
It could eventually achieve 70 mph on the downhills with a slight tailwind, but it's not a vehicle for people who are in a hurry. I never entered it into any kind of drag race, so I didn't worry about the 0-60 time. Sadly, it died when a neophyte mechanic tried to lift it by the body instead of the ladder frame; the body mounts were able to keep the sheet metal from sliding around but the rust gave way when they tried to put them in tension. No, it would not have been safe in a rollover...
I like to imagine there's one still dry and rust-free in a barn somewhere in the Southwest that just needs some hoses, fluids, and a clean paint job (with purple pinstripes, that's important!) I would pick that over a new Maverick any day, never worry for a moment about it selling my data, and I'd have a stupid grin on my face every time I saw it. The only thing that could make it better would be if I could bolt an EV motor to the flywheel, elevate the bed by 6", and sandwich a battery pack under it.
the 4cyl was about as fast as the 3.0 6cyl but got much better fuel economy. I didn't hate that it was slow. I hated that it was slow and only got 20mpg lol
Not a bad plan. There might still be some options out there. The previous generation of Silverado (14-18?)you could get a work truck without OnStar or anything. Didn't even have a key fob or Bluetooth. Costs a hell of a lot less too.
Same here, I bought mine just as pandemic car prices plunged. It's not my primary right now but it might just become it. It's sad because I'm a car guy and I like some of the newer tech and all, I just can't stand all the markups and spyware and most of the time I just don't want to bother debugging my ride.
Like in Spain (through rules ultimately coming from Europe) there is a class of vehicles which are gradually being kicked out (banned from crossing certain very ample boundaries around the city): gasoline cars made before 2001, and diesel powered cars made before 2006.
For example, your 23 year old Toyota 4Runner would be deemed too polluting (or noisy, or both) to drive near the city center and auxiliary accesses of Madrid, and starting from 2025 it will be outright banned from driving on any part of the city, with a circle area of ~23 Km (14 miles) diameter from the center.