How Long Will a Car Last?

My car had a little over 80,000 miles when I bought it. Its a Toyota Camry and I was assuming that I'd be able to get another 70,000 miles or so out of it before I ran into major problems. I've had it for a couple years now. Its got over 100,000 miles and so far so good. Is it realistic for me to expect to get 150,000 miles? What is the average that a new car will last nowadays?

I went searching on Google and found a couple references to lifespan of cars.
This MSNBC article says that "Consumer Reports (www.consumerreports.org/) says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle these days is around 8 years or 150,000 miles. Of course, some well-built vehicles can go 15 years and 300,000, if properly maintained."
This site states that "The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that the average life span of a vehicle is just over 13 years, with a final mileage of 145,000 miles."

So it seems like the average is somewhere around 8-15 years and 150,000 to 300,000 miles.

Of course the life of a car will depend on a LOT of factors.

• Quality of the car.
• Nature of the driving.
• Maintenance and upkeep.

A car driven hard up and down hills in stop and go traffic which never gets an oil change may break down fatally well before 100,000 miles. But the same model car could last 250,000 miles easily if its driven mostly highway miles on flat stretches and gets pampering and considerable routine maintenance.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the lifespan of cars is increasing as newer and better cars come out. Today's cars last longer. Back in the 50's or 60's you'd be lucky to get 100,000 miles out of a car without major problems. Nowadays 100,000 miles is pretty much expected out of any car. In the future we can expect cars to be more and more durable and last even longer. If you have a much older car like a vehicle from the 1980's then I would not expect to get as much life out of it as one of todays newer cars.

If you assume that you perform proper maintenance on your car and you don't abuse it then you should be able to expect to get 100,000 to 200,000 miles out of a newer car.

But if you treat your car right and have a little luck it could last much longer than average. Here is an article with an auto expert claiming that the family car can last 1,500,000 miles. There are a handful of car owners who have gotten over 1,000,000 or even more than 2,000,000 miles out of their cars. Some examples: A Volvo with 2,600,000 miles. and a Dodge Ram truck with 1,000,000 miles. Of course these are not normal situations and I would not expect to get a million miles out of a car. I'm sure that there are a LOT more instances of new cars breaking down and needing a total engine rebuild or replacement within the first 10,000 miles than there are cars that reach over 1 million miles. 1 million mile cars and lemons are the outlying exceptions. I would hazard a guess that 75% of cars will last 100,000 to 250,000 miles. There will be a few cars that break down sooner due to abuse or simply being lemons and a few cars that last much longer.

FREE subscription to BusinessWeek or Car & Driver

RewardsGold has a deal to get a FREE subscription to BusinessWeek or Car & Driver.

You have to fill in a survey and sign up to register with RewardsGold. The survey is a simple one pager and nothing too hard. I got a free subscription to Wired previously and there were no hidden costs or surprises.

I found this deal on FatWallet.

$10 off at JCPenny online

Using the online promo code GR8DAD you can get $10 off your purchase at JCPenney's. The promo is supposed to be valid June 7-21. But it seems to work now.

I found this deal at FatWallet.

Unemployment is NOT at a record

So I'm reading the news headlines and I come across this one: "U.S. unemployment hits record but job losses slow". Oh, no! I think to myself, this must mean that unemployment jumped above 20%. But then I read the article and it says this:

"However, the Labor Department said the unemployment rate raced to 9.4 percent, the highest since a matching rate in July 1983, from 8.9 percent in April. This reading beat the peak in the jobless rate during the 1973-1975 recession that lasted 16 months."

Well reading the title of the article and that quoted bit makes it sound as if 9.4% is the "record" at least post 1973. They say 9.4 is the highest since 1983 when it matched the rate and it is above the rate in the 73-75 recession.

Of course this isn't a real record though. They should know that unemployment during the Great Depression was over 20%, right? OK maybe their records don't go back that far like how the mortgage foreclosure/delinquency records only go back to 1972. No that doesn't explain it either cause the Bureau of Labor Statistics has unemployment data going back to the 1940's.
Its not too hard to find that the unemployment rate hit 10.8% back in 1982. Our current unemployment rate of 9.4% isn't even a record in the past 30 years. If you reread that bit quoted above, it makes it sound as if they were looking at data at least going back to 1973 so surely they should have spotted the peak in 1983. I find it odd that the article talks about "record unemployment" then talks about our current 9.4% rate matching what we had in July 1983 and exceeding what we saw in 1973 but neglecting to mention that unemployment was 10.8% in 1982.


Let me make it clear:

The current 9.4% unemployment rate is not a record. Unemployment was 10.8% in 1982. Unemployment was well over 20% in the Great Depression.

The current 9.4% rate is not even close to a record by any measure.

Now what I bet the author of the article meant to say is that the total number of unemployed people is at a record. That much is true. The total number of unemployed people is a record right now. But you know what is also true? The total number of people in the labor force hit a record in May as well. The population of the USA also hit a record this past month. In fact the nation has had quite a few months of record setting population totals now. While our population is growing it really doesn't make a lot of sense to report the "news" that labor figures also grow. Sure we have more unemployed people now than in 1982 or in 1973 but there are also many more employed people now than in those previous decades.

For a look at how the current recession stacks up to previous see my previous article on Comparing Unemployment Increases During Recessions