Ever since working on Integrated-Logistcs-Support I take issue when terms like reliability are thrown around. Because in the end it's a result of looking at Reliability (stuff not breaking down often), Availability (stuff being functional when planned to be), Maintainability (how easily stuff can be kept functioning and repaired when broken), Supportability (how easy spares can be get) and Testability (how easy it is to find defects).
On that, Availability is the result of all the rest. With the important part of planned Availability, because that excludes stuff like planned maintenance. Arguably modern cars beat old ones in that category.
I think that's true. What most of us care about in cars is that they work when we want to drive them someplace right now, won't leave us stuck on the side of the road, and don't have prohibitive (time or money) planned maintenance.
What's probably true is that older cars that aren't rusted out can probably be kept running by people with the appropriate mechanical skills even in the absence of proper factory/3rd party parts for longer than modern vehicles can. Given intact supply chains, modern vehicles are more available overall. But, to the point of the article, modern vehicles are more susceptible to lack of parts.
True, as an owner of a car from 1982 I agree. Requires a lot more preventive maintenance, e.g. oil changes every six months or 5-6k km, but runs perfectly fine when properly maintained. Also, I cam probably fix most issues with tools carried on board on the side of road. Enough to get to a proper workshop at least, I converted it to 2WD after killing a diff and drove for 200 km that way. If you cannot do that yourself, you're screwed so.
That being said, if I'd go on a 2k + mile trip I would put in some work to get the car fit for this. Looking at my dads VW camper, I'll just fill up drinking water, maybe gas and fuel. Without a serious amount of preventive maintenance those cars do have a tendency to break down so. I guess we are just not used to this kind cars or machinery anymore.
> Also, I cam probably fix most issues with tools carried on board on the side of road.
I think that is the largest appeal to me of older cars. There are only so many parts that can fail, and they are all repairable with some time and hand tools(and maybe a Haynes manual!).
(for people unfamiliar, a Haynes manual is a 3rd party manual customized for most makes/models of automobiles. It describes with pictures how to perform [almost] any repair.)
Yeah, the Haynes Books of Lies! Kidding, they are great. Also I found that original workshop manual are sometimes better. Fun fact, Haynes has an owners manual for the WW2 Panther tank.
Mine has a total of three 35 amp glass fuses. And dual carbs. I can confidently say there are no chips in there, excluding the radio and the rests of the snack variant on the back seat. Sometimes I'd love EFI, 17 l / 100 km just hurts...
I also remember when it was a good idea to carry spare fuses with you. I certainly don't in my current 10 year old vehicle and have absolutely no idea where the fuse box is (well I know the general vicinity where it probably is) without looking in the manual.
Oh, I have probably half a dozen or so in the glove box! The auxiliary circuit has a tendency to blow the fuse out... Still unable to figure out why...
On that, Availability is the result of all the rest. With the important part of planned Availability, because that excludes stuff like planned maintenance. Arguably modern cars beat old ones in that category.