l've got a 2022 Defender and l do agree with the above, my old 2005 Defender was still going strong at 150,000 miles when l sold it last year.
All parts were still available, and likely to be so for the foreseeable future.
Chassis can be replaced as can body parts.
TD5 engine can be replaced or rebuilt for reasonable money.

As for the new one, l love the vehicle but l can see it being scrapped after 20 years even if looked after.

The complex monocoque body when it eventually rusts out won't be replaceable. The engine will be too complex to rebuild economically or replace. Some electronic modules may be available but once the manufacturer stops making them you'd be relying on someone offering a repair service....if they can get the parts.

Owners won't be able to fix the vehicle on their drive either.

And, this is the big one, l don't think owners will love these new ones like the old version, so they won't be prepared to spend more than the value fixing them up.

l knew all this when l bought my new Defender, and l'll keep it hopefully for at least 100,000 miles.
But l won't buy another. My next vehicle will be when l retire, and it will likely be another old model Defender

 

I don't agree that the future will provide the means to fix complex technology through technology. That's wishful thinking. Cars have indeed become more complex over time, and they have become shorter-lived also. The gripes about complex tech being unserviceable have mostly been spot-on, though the doom was probably predicted a bit sooner than it actually happened. Moreover, the problem hasn't been the impossibility of repairing or replacing the tech -- it's been the cost and the resulting benefit. Take Mercedes or Land Rover air suspension for example. Yes, the aftermarket (Arnott) has come to bring more affordable solutions; but consider that rear Arnott airbags are still $900 each for one of my cars, plus labor if I didn't do it myself. Then the shocks -- totally conventional shocks (not air shocks): Bilsteins are a mere $200 for a set, but the labor? Book rate is $1500 and it's not do-it-yourself because it requires special dealer-only tools. There is Federal legislation (in the US) for a "Right to Repair" bill that's proposed to force manufacturers to sell "dealer-only" equipment to third parties, but it hasn't passed yet and there's no practical way to force them to give up the tooling at anything affordable. So to repair normal wear items on the rear suspension (air springs and normal hydraulic dampers), parts and labor is many thousands of dollars -- and when the car is 15 or 20 years old, the entire car is not worth that much. By the time it gets that old, it could be traded for a microphone. The only way to conceivably make it more affordable would be to progressively strip it of the complexity and technology -- retrofit coil springs, and what? LS swap? carburetor? That's what people are already talking about with Discovery 2's and the ones they're denuding are not even 20 years old yet. Another example that comes to mind is the passenger seat occupancy sensors. The four corners of the seat of one of my cars has weight sensors that inform the control module whether to disable the airbag or not. There are no aftermarket sensors -- because if the sensors were to be replaced, it requires a calibration procedure with an incredibly expensive dealer-only apparatus. The cost of the dealer service for this minor feature could again exceed the value of the car -- it costs many thousands of dollars (possibly as much as $4000 according to some sources). The aftermarket does have a solution -- airbag sensor emulators. They're little electronic boxes that sell for about $100 and they fake the signal from the weight sensors so that it fails "on" instead of failing "off." Essentially, it bypasses the complex OE system to dumb the tech down to make it affordable.

 

lt's all doom and gloom isn't it.

ls there any good news?

 

Yes - because I think this discussion has focused on beloved classic cars that are lovingly restored by skilled owners.

For the population as a whole, however, the quality and durability of new cars is better than it’s ever been.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...y-used-to/amp/

My first car was a used 1977 Dodge. Simple to repair, but it always needed repairs. Our Defenders? Complex, but as this thread shows, most of them run perfectly and don’t need much service at all.

Replacing untreated steel and vacuum tubes with modern coatings and electronic actuators has extended the average age of cars on the road from 5.7 years in the 1970s to 12.5 years today.

My son is more into cars than I am. I mentioned to him once that if my old Dodge hadn’t rusted out, I could still replace parts on it today. But there’s no way I could replace the computer controls that operate our new cars. He rolled his eyes and replied “Dad, someone will just program a replacement on a Raspberry Pi.” (Google those if you don’t know what they are…). He has a point.

So if our current cars will last longer on average than the old Series ever could, the real issue may be that keeping them on the road in the distant future means skill with a keyboard, not a wrench. It doesn’t mean that our Defenders will be junked at less than 100,000 miles the way my old Dodge was.

 

I disagree with your assertion.

I had multiple late model German automobiles (Audi and VW) that were equipped with complex electronics and computer softwares and such that last more than decade with over 200,000 miles and did not have any meaningful problems except for tear and wear items.

This narrative of car manufacturers that design and mainfacture automobiles that will only last during the warranty period is simply not true. It reminds me of the narrative of needing to change your oil every 3000 miles.

Car manufacturers actually makes way more profit in the long haul by striving for a positive reputation through continuously improve their products in all aspects. The idea that car manufacturers scheme the consumers by designing products that don't last just to make a quick buck is a short term low rung antiquated thinking concept.

 

This: "My son is more into cars than I am. I mentioned to him once that if my old Dodge hadn’t rusted out, I could still replace parts on it today. But there’s no way I could replace the computer controls that operate our new cars. He rolled his eyes and replied “Dad, someone will just program a replacement on a Raspberry Pi.” (Google those if you don’t know what they are…). He has a point."

Exactly my point! We have no idea. The younger generation is leaps ahead of us (and I am gen xer not a boomer). Naming this "wishful thinking" is just closing your eyes to the reality happening in front of us day in day out. Started back with a thing called "the Internet" and going strong with AI and automation. That won't stop as much as we wish it would. Pun intended .

And this: "Car manufacturers actually makes way more profit in the long haul by striving for a positive reputation through continuously improve their products in all aspects. The idea that car manufacturers scheme the consumers by designing products that don't last just to make a quick buck is a short term low rung antiquated thinking concept."

That's right. How in the world manufacturers would make more money just tricking consumers into ****ty products that will last only 4 or 5 years and tarnish their reputation just to see the consumer frustrated and quick jumping to the competition? IMO, they will make much more money in having a reliable reputation and providing maintenance service to a product that will last years, WHILE selling even more of that product because of a good reputation. Now, don't ask me about fair prices for that maintenance cause that's a whole different thread.

 

I'm not claiming that they're engineering a scheme to short-term the lifespan. I don't believe that either. I don't believe they engineer obsolescence or anything like that. I'm not even accusing them of any kind of scheme or scam.

If there is a scam, it is the financing. It's the financialization of consumer purchases that has made it so people buy $80K and $120K vehicles because this financialization permits them to regard only the monthly payment -- that's where the "short term" scheme comes into play (not in the engineering). Now the result of that are these colossal purchase prices that enable fantastic engineering. People are buying stuff for daily drivers that NASA could only dream of a couple decades ago. Those products cannot be affordably renewed no matter the future tech.

No, raspberry pi's (or the pi's of the future) are not going to replace the ECM or BCM on the car -- not unless the systems are totally dumbed down. Automotive systems have an incredible array of application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) that cannot just be replaced by software. If that were not so, the chip shortage a couple years ago would not have stopped Toyota production. It is true that cheap microprocessors can resolve deficits that emerge over time. For example, I use a "Ultra-gauge" on my Discovery 1 because while the stock gauges are woeful, the car did comply with OBDC2. But will anyone re-write code for the sunroof or window-control module? No. It's just not worth the return. There wouldn't even be an ultragauge if it were a Land Rover-specific thing. Witness that the people with pre-ODBC Lucas systems are out of luck.

So it is not engineering for planned obsolescence or short-term horizons that is the fault here. It is simply an enormous level of complexity that has a limited lifespan and cannot be renewed in an affordable way. No doubt the lifespans before renewal that cars are engineered for are longer, not shorter than they were before. What's different is that the cars are no longer engineered to be renewed. They are essentially disposable. A Series Land Rover can have the front axle and steering rebuilt repeatedly over 70 or more years. Rebuilding or replacing the entirety of the steering and front axle systems on a Defender 2020 after 7 years is inconceivable. The car would just be totaled - ask any insurance adjuster. Fortunately, it's conceivable that the original parts will last 14 years of hard use -- something a Series Rover is not likely to achieve without parts replacement. But the new car has no means to go for 50 years.

 

Now somebody will say, well, of course not, nobody buys a car to last 50 years! That's my point. My claim is that the cars are built for the initial purchaser -- not the person who will buy the car 15 or 20 years from now. The person who initially purchases a late model car will have a good time of it (other than those payments). The person buying it decades past its vintage will have a hell of a time. I contrast that with older vehicles where the initial purchaser could very well expect maintenance and repair headaches in their ownership period, but 25, and even 50 years later, the car is a classic that can with a little effort be put back to the same condition it left the factory or better. When I think about what I want to own 25 years from now, it is decidedly not a presently current-model Defender. It would either be a then-current model vehicle, or a vehicle that would be practical to put into good operating condition -- I'd pick a classic Range Rover.

 

 

I echo this. I've typically put over a 100k on all of the cars I've owned. Some a lot more like my '97 Z3 that pushed 200k that was also tracked before selling after 15 years, or my VW camper with 200k that I still own after 36 years. I've yet to have a vehicle fall apart on me where it was more advantageous to dump it rather than repair. (Well, one exception was a '68 VW Squareback that lost compression.) Right now, I'm not seeing anything different for my Defender - expect to keep it for a loooooong time.