>>1344784Ask anybody, who works on cars.
Look into used car listing. You will find there story like this
>07' %brandname%, 400 000 km, runs like a clock>13' %brandname%, 200 000 km. %expensive thing name% had failed. Engines usually last quite a bit (sure, they might burn oil (which is super eco-friendly), but they don't just break.
Transmissions, on the other hand, tend to fail more and more, since making 10-gear hydraulic actuated thing is comparable to engineering an airplane something. Older 4-6 gear trannies were pretty reliable, but with space high consumption.
Manuals are always the best option, unless we're speaking about hybrid CVT like they use on Prius, which is pretty simple device, which has couple planetary gears and motors, which last forever.
Interior quality - just find museum state 00's car, and similar car from today. You will see that 00's cars were well built, while modern are cheap trash interior.
>>1344782>Yeah man, only people on the fringes of society think everyone shouldn't be forced to spend $40k to sit in a cage 2 hours a day. Except I don't see much people using public transport, when they get a car... I guess sitting 2 hours isn't as bad, as sitting 1.5 hou- oh, standing in overcrowded train, where you can get lice and shit.
They only use public transport, when car stopped working for some reason.
>>1344786I have doubts fire resistance had changed, and I have doubts they care, since new AC refrigerant is flammable AF, and it produces fucking HF acid, which etches glass
>>1344787You can't see quality over statistics you moron. You need you be in fucking car to see if it is shit quality or no.
If you mean reliability: here is pic related, Mercedes. W114/115. 1970's car. They could easily 2 million km no problem.
