MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Officially owning an oldtimer

Officially owning an oldtimer

posted 4 days ago by MarkPh (505)
25 replies | jump to latest

Here in Italy a car is considered an oldtimer when it is 25+ years old, but there's an oldtimer club that gets cars officially registered as oldtimers from 20 years onwards, where the advantage of that is a big reduction in car taxes and insurance price.
My wife owns a Peugeot 206cc bought in 2004 and starting today it's a registered oldtimer.
But that's not the point of writing here, my wife isn't an oldtimer fan and the car is ...... let's say it has seen better times.

Some time around 2010 we have been looking for a new car for my wife, where the only condition was, it had to be an affordable convertible with an electric metal roof.
This type of car has always been in high demand, meaning waiting times between ordering and delivery have always been much longer than for other models.
To our surprise back then, they had not increased production to meet the demand, but literally all manufacturers of affordable convertibles had either switched to a soft roof or completely terminated the production of convertibles.
This was such a shock to my wife and to me as well, because we absolutely do not want a different type of car, that we decided to keep the car and keep it in working conditions no matter what.
I myself own a convertible with electric metal roof as well, not that old and rather expensive (still the cheapest of this type of car on the market at the time), but it's the same story, the model was switched to soft roof in 2021 and the cheapest model of this type of car is now way out of my budget, meaning I'll keep my car indefinitely as well.

What I really don't understand is, why would literally all manufacturers worldwide cancel the production of a type of car that is (relative to production numbers) in higher demand than any other type of car.
I mean any car manufacturer that would start producing an affordable convertible with electric metal roof would be overrun by customers, so how can it be that capitalistic enterprises do not see the opportunity?

[–] strntz (12733) 2 days ago

I mean any car manufacturer that would start producing an affordable convertible with electric metal roof would be overrun by customers,

Would they though? I don't know your market, but I do know that certain things go in and out of favor. In the U.S., station wagons were so popular every car model line offered a station wagon body style as well as a two door and four door sedan. Eventually, all station wagons went away. Then it was minivans, and today they are no where near as popular as they once were.

so how can it be that capitalistic enterprises do not see the opportunity?

The answer is that the beancounters weigh the cost of producing a different major body assy like a roof vs how many people will actually buy it, and in your example, the manufacturers clearly don't see the return justifying the cost. If you're right (and you might be), then they are missing the boat.

In the U.S., convertibles used to be big sellers and pretty much every model line of car offered a vert as an option, even the lowly entry level cars like the Ford Falcon and Chevy Corvair. At some point, convertibles started falling out of favor and eventually, all convertibles went away when the model line entered another generation update. Then in the 1980s, some convertibles reappeared but they never achieved the market share they did in their heyday.

In the U.S., most manufacturers offer premium glass roofs as options, particularly the more expensive SUVs.

[–] MarkPh (505) 2 days ago

It isn't even all that much about terminating production of convevertibles.
Some trademarks like Peugeot have totally terminated all production of convertibles and if that's their business decision I may not agree but can understand that.
Most other manufactures, like BMW, Mercedes, VW, Fiat, etc., have switched from metal roof to soft top, meaning the technology is barely different, soft tops are only an easy target for vandalism, which is why my wife and me don't want that, after we've had a soft top some 30 years ago where someone has cut a hole into the roof 3 times within one year until the insurance refused to include that in the contract.

The technology isn't all that different, the price of production isn't much different, only the practical use for the customers is lower, so why do they do that?
To sell more repairs?

[–] strntz (12733) 2 days ago

The technology isn't all that different, the price of production isn't much different,

Until you do the cost analysis, you don't really know what the differences are.

*Any* single variation requires ordering production of the parts involved and wharehousing of the same, even for minor variances.

But I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about a car with a full hard top that retracts into the trunk turning the car into a convertible? If that's what you're talking about, that is an *expensive* to produce option. There are motors, hinges, sensors/switches, wiring harnesses, cover panel, gaskets, etc. and a bit of custom fitting is required to get it water and air tight. All that equipment must also be wharehoused and moved onto the assembly line as needed. That's a big undertaking of coachwork.

If you are talking about something else, can you post a link of the cars you're referring to?

[–] MarkPh (505) 2 days ago

"Are you talking about a car with a full hard top that retracts into the trunk turning the car into a convertible?"

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, look up Peugeot 206cc, whatever year of production, has always been the same.

But your argument that that may be too expensive to make doesn't hold up to the fact that most manufacturers are still making the same thing with soft top roof, still with all the motors, sensors and switches, still with the need of additional seals and stuff to make it water and air tight, only with some waterproof fabric as roof material instead of metal.
I really don't see how the different material could make such a difference in production cost, especially not because the metal roof they already had in production, the soft top they had to develop before they could replace the metal roofs.

Furthermore sales numbers of convertibles have significantly dropped when they switched to soft top without sales numbers of non convertibles increasing, because a lot of owners of hard tops like me have decided to keep their old hard top rather than buy any new car, not with soft top nor any non convertible.

[–] strntz (12733) 2 days ago

Furthermore sales numbers of convertibles have significantly dropped when they switched to soft top without sales numbers of non convertibles increasing, because a lot of owners of hard tops like me have decided to keep their old hard top rather than buy any new car, not with soft top nor any non convertible.

Your observation may be correct, but is your conclusion?

This is a chicken or the egg thing - are sales dropping because they did away with hard top convertibles in favor of cheaper soft tops or are they doing away with hard top convertibles in favor of cheaper soft tops because sales of convertibles in general are dropping?

[–] MarkPh (505) 2 days ago

Look into the used car market, full of non convertibles and a small but existing number of soft top convertibles, but whenever a convertible with hard top comes on sale it's gone within a few hours.

In fact I own a BMW with hard top from 2017, they switched it to soft top in 2021.
In 2021 an average used one of the model and production year I own has cost in Germany about 25,000€, today the very same model and production year with obviously way more km on it, iffffff there ever comes one on sale, sells for over 30,000€.

It couldn't be any more obvious what's in demand here.

[–] strntz (12733) 2 days ago

When new convertibles of any kind disappeared in the U.S. in the 70s, demand of used ones went up significantly, but when they went back into full production, sales percentages were still relatively low.

My point is is that capitalists are driven by, well, capital. If those greedy little bastards thought they could make more money selling the hardtop convertibles, why wouldn't they?

[–] MarkPh (505) a day ago

If I got it right it has to do with fuel consumption.
A soft top weighs less, therefore the car consumes less fuel and that's in line with political demand for using less oil.
Of course the difference is minimal and the fact that ever more cars are gigantic SUVs that weigh way more than any convertible makes this absurd, but for all I know it's the reason.

Furthermore the car industry wants to sell their way overpriced electric cars, which due to the huge space the batteries need and the heavy weight they have kinda requires a huge car where a convertible is ..... let's say unpractical.
Car manufacturers know the life expectancy of these batteries, they know by the time the batteries need to be replaced the value of the car is less than a new battery pack costs, therefore car manufacturers calculate much higher sales numbers once the market for used cars collapses because nobody would buy a used electric car and they all have to buy a new one, rather than (like my wife and me do) keeping a car for 20+ years.

[–] strntz (12733) a day ago

Car manufacturers know the life expectancy of these batteries, they know by the time the batteries need to be replaced the value of the car is less than a new battery pack costs,

Maybe, but as far as life cycles and miles, the battery packs calculate to lasting longer than the *average* lifespan of an internal combustion engine and transmission. If you put 250K miles on a car in 10 years, most likely you won't need a battery ever.

BUT, what is still unknown is what *calendar* aging will bring to earlier NCM batteries or the newer LFP types. What we do know is that if you have a 1995 gas or diesel car with 50K miles on it, you can pretty much throw gas, oil, and a 12V battery in it and it will most likely run fine, maybe needing some minor repairs. I have a '66 Mustang 289 with 55K miles on the original engine, and it starts and runs despite being almost 60 years old. But what about a 30 year old EV with low miles/charge cycles? Will it accept a charge and run? Will the low mileage but older battery simply become inert? Who knows, maybe. Maybe even probably.

But since most cars aren't run too much past 20 years anyway, that may not be a problem. As far as replacement cost, used batteries are actually pretty cheap. There are far more EVs being totaled from collision than being scrapped due to worn out or defective battery packs, so battery packs are available if you need one without having to buy one from the manufacturer.

For instance, a 15K mile long range battery pack for the Mach E brings $3-3.5K on ebay, and probably cheaper on co-part. Labor is much cheaper to replace a battery than an engine, so even a catastrophic failure of a battery is not really a big deal.

Also, prices of new production batteries cells continue to fall, and I can see a day when a Chinese manufacturer offers low cost generic packs for the most common EVs like Leafs, Teslas, Mach Es, etc, BUT only if there is a demand, and there may never be a demand if the new gen of LFP batteries are half as good as they supposedly are.

[–] MarkPh (505) a day ago

I know a thing or two about lithium batteries and I can tell you, that's not true.

https://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/180/P3_2D00_Datasheet-Cell--3232-LFP-26650.pdf

The life expectancy of a lithium battery depends on the charge/discharge current you put onto it.
An LFP battery will reach 2,000 cycles at a charge/discharge current of

RECOMMENDED CHARGE CURRENT 1.6 A

which means a regular 3,200mAh cell requires 2 hours charging time and cannot be discharged any faster, not even for a short time, or else the life expectancy drops.
Fast charging stations that can load a battery to 80% in 10 minutes push 10A into the battery and stepping on the pedal in a Tesla will easily reach > 20A in discharge current.
Under such conditions you can be very happy if your battery survives 300 cycles.
How long the effective life of a battery is depends on the individual owner, how often he puts it on fast charge and how often he drives fast, uses air condition or heating, etc.

Either way, they last by far not as long as you think they do.
Only users who don't use the car much and never drive/accellerate fast can expect to get to about half the lifetime the battery has under storage conditions, as in not used at all, just laying around.
This so called "service life" in storage (under optimal conditions like +25°C and 50% charged) is 7-8 years for LFP batteries, meaning in cases of moderate usage you get to a max of under 4 years.

[–] strntz (12733) a day ago

There are a few operators that do nothing but fast charge - livery services etc., and they don't report many issues getting over 200K on the batteries.

Most people who own electrics rarely if ever visit a public charging station. In 7 years, I have 4 times over two longish road trips. Other than that, I just plug in in my garage two or three times a week.

My S is waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy beyond 300 cycles now and is showing 91% of original capacity. This is after 7 years and 140K miles. I'd guess 600 full cycles by now.

My battery warranty expires next year and I haven't decided whether to upgrade it to a newer model or get a Mach E which I drove and loved. What I hate about the Tesla is the Kindle that's glued to the dash to control everything. My understanding is that the new ones won't even have a turn signal stalk in the traditional location. The Mach E will.

This so called "service life" in storage (under optimal conditions like +25°C and 50% charged) is 7-8 years for LFP batteries, meaning in cases of moderate usage you get to a max of under 4 years.

Under 4 years? I can't even imagine where you got that idea, but I'd love to see a citation. Even though they're relatively new to EVs, LFP batteries are supposed to have a longer life and less reaction to 100% charging than NCM batteries. In the Mach E I looked at with the LFP pack, the battery warranty is EIGHT years and 100K miles, twice as long as you project the pack to last on average. I can't imagine anyone giving a warranty for twice as long as the MTBF.

[–] MarkPh (505) a day ago

Tesla does that, which is why their cars cost much more than other electric cars not giving such a long warranty, they have the price of the second battery pack included in the price of the car.

7-8 years "service time" is what producers say and has nothing to do with capacity left, it's the time it takes until chemical reactions inside the battery make a replacement neccessary for security reasons, even if the battery hasn't been used at all.
That's why batteries come with a production date printed on them, so you know when the service time is up.
If you choose to ignore that only based on capacity, that's your decision.

[–] strntz (12733) 18 hours ago

It's not just Tesla, all manufacturers are giving long warranties, including the relatively cheap Leaf. I belong to a couple of Tesla groups are virtually none have had any battery issues. The biggest problems were the early Roadsters that by now have all had the packs replaced, but most of the 10 year old S models still have their original packs.

7-8 years "service time" is what producers say and has nothing to do with capacity left, it's the time it takes until chemical reactions inside the battery make a replacement neccessary for security reasons, even if the battery hasn't been used at all.

That's the thing - there are a lot of early EVs with more than 8 years on the battery packs, and that's not just "service time", that's under actual usage, which is far more than the "you get to a max of under 4 years" time you mentioned.

But if you're right, then these batteries will all hit the wall at the 8 year mark..

[–] MarkPh (505) 17 hours ago

Nope, you got that wrong, nothing will "hit the wall".
Security reasons to replace a battery are similar to not eating food past expiration date.
Most times it will be fine, most times a while past expiration is still good to eat, in many cases a long time after expiration is still ok to eat, but in some cases you can end up in hospital or even die from it.
With a lithium battery you CAN use it past service time and it will almost certainly work for a while longer, there's even a good chance it will work a lot longer, but then there are cases where you end up with the car on fire which rarely happens within the service time but afterwards has an ever increasing risk.
Insurances know this and if you read the fineprint of an insurance that includes damages on your own car (not sure in English, in German it's called "Kasko") they do not cover any damage caused by batteries past service time.

[–] strntz (12733) 17 hours ago

Nope, you got that wrong, nothing will "hit the wall".

I'm not the one who said these batteries have a "service life" of eight years and a real world life of four years.. What other conclusion is there? They either start failing in statistically significant numbers at eight years if not used or four years if they're driven if using your claim (and I'd still like to see a citation on that).

All I said is that if your claims are accurate (and they may be, we'll have to wait), then these batteries will all start rapidly becoming inert sometime at the eight year mark. If they don't, then that claim would be disproved.

Here's what I *do* know - people on SM and other places have been claiming that all these cars are a "scam" and a "joke' because they will all need $25K batteries after 5 years and will all spontaneously burst into flames. I won't use my single example anecdotal evidence to dispute that, but up to this point at least, the stats don't support those claims of short battery life and fires.

Insurances know this and if you read the fineprint of an insurance that includes damages on your own car (not sure in English, in German it's called "Kasko") they do not cover any damage caused by batteries past service time.

My insurance for my Tesla does cost more than my wife's Ford Edge (year for year), but that's because the cost of repairing collision damage is much higher, not because of fires. There is also no mention of operating my EV with a battery past "service time". My homeowner's policy has a dog provision for certain aggressive breeds, but nothing about storing an EV indoors.

Insurance company statistics say gas cars are 10 -20X more likely to catch fire than an EV per million miles driven, so if it's a car fire that worries you, don't drive a gas car. Even if you filter in that EVs are generally newer than the average gas car, they still don't come close.

[–] MarkPh (505) 16 hours ago

me "car on fire which rarely happens within the service time"

you "gas cars are 10 -20X more likely to catch fire"

Both of that is correct, we're basically saying the same thing.
The part where I don't agree is your

"Even if you filter in that EVs are generally newer than the average gas car, they still don't come close."

The vast majority of electric cars is less than 8 years old so far.
"Per million miles" as of today will mean 99% driven by privately owned cars with very little use and less than 8 years old.
You cannot possibly know what the statistics will be once these cars become the work cars of package delivery guys or other professionals, nor can you know what the statistics will be when the low use cars will be 10 or 15 years old, nobody can know, all we can know today is the simple chemistry that producers of batteries calculate their "service time" from.

[–] MaximRecoil (4782) 2 days ago

"In the U.S., station wagons were so popular every car model line offered a station wagon body style as well as a two door and four door sedan. Eventually, all station wagons went away. Then it was minivans, and today they are no where near as popular as they once were."

Today almost every non pickup truck passenger vehicle on the road is a "crossover," which is nothing more than a station wagon with a little extra ground clearance. There's no difference between them and the old AMC Eagles like this (introduced in 1979 for the 1980 model year)...

https://hagerty-media-prod.imgix.net/2020/05/Worldwide-AMC-Eagle.jpg

... which no one called a "crossover" back then (that term in that sense hadn't even been coined yet). It was simply called a station wagon, even though, in contrast to a typical station wagon, it had additional ground clearance and 4WD. These days people retcon them as "the first crossover":

https://youtu.be/o09rROOlPoM

The term "crossover" has no good reason to even exist, since it merely denotes a station wagon. A couple inches of additional ground clearance isn't enough to warrant placing them in a new category, which is why 2WD pickup trucks are in the same "pickup truck" category as 4WD ones with additional ground clearance. I assume it was coined by a marketing department, rather than arising organically.

[–] fourlemons (2843) 2 days ago

I don't know the answer to your question except for to say that the people in charge probably sat around a table chortling and in very stuffy voices discussed this and decided to do whatever cost their company the least money and made them the most money. Then they sipped some Brandy.

[–] MarkPh (505) 2 days ago

I kinda doubt that selling convertibles with soft tops instead of metal roofs generates more profit.
Furthermore convertibles have relative to production numbers always been in higher demand than other types of cars, easily notable through the waiting times between ordering and delivery, meaning increasing production would have increased their profit.
Terminating production like Peugeot did for the car of my wife and switching to soft top as BMW did for my car only means for the manufacturers that alone my wife and me have bought at least 3 new cars less over the last 15 years, than we would have if they had kept making metal roofs.
Given the fact the market of used cars is bursting full with offers but convertibles are relatively rare to find because almost any used convertible coming on sale gets bought near instantly, I highly doubt manufacturers are now making more profit than before.

[–] fourlemons (2843) 2 days ago

Well I wasn't in that boardroom. Talk to them! Tell them to stop drinking so much Brandy and start using good sense.

[–] MarkPh (505) 2 days ago

Yea, wish I could.

The independent mechanic and car body workshop is grateful though, they are now getting the money for keeping our cars in working condition that otherwise the manufacturers would have gotten.

[–] moviechatterer (16049) a day ago

25+?
You're lucky , both of mine would qualify for that . In the UK its 40 and they dont

[–] MarkPh (505) 14 hours ago

With the membership at this club it's actually 20+.
I'd still happily throw the old one away and get a new one, if only manufacturers were still making anything like the one my wife has.

[–] SamNoyoun (5933) 16 hours ago

Ha! When I saw the title of this thread I assumed it was about getting one over on a senior citizen...

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21601) 16 hours ago

I’ve owned several 😄

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SuysytHkLoQ/Ui1SWDbb3QI/AAAAAAAACKU/9pQDgcai-js/s1600/$(KGrHqF,!rUFIe,8MwHNBSLRZNyV4g~~60_57.jpg