Today we wrote about the Tesla Model S refresh, with Thomas calling the car “a dinosaur.” This led to a discussion among Autopian writers about platforms; how big of a deal is it that a platform is old? Personally, I don’t think it matters much at all, necessarily; here’s why.
Right out front of my house I’ve got a 2021 BMW i3S, an astonishing little city-car that I adore. This particular vehicle, by 2021, had been on the market for eight years, and many criticized it for being dated. But was it?
The platform itself was not even almost dated; in fact, to this day it’s fair to call the carbon fiber-bodied i3’s chassis “futuristic.” The interior? Its styling holds up to this day, and I believe that to be the case with the exterior as well.
But where the i3 is dated is in terms of interior tech/infotainment. It has Apple Carplay, a screen that isn’t the size of a billboard, and physical controls; what’s more, the car doesn’t have cooled seats or an overhead 360 degree camera or a panoramic sunroof. I personally don’t want these things, but many do, so I get why folks saw the i3 as dated. What’s more, even though battery/drivetrain/chassis tech was updated between 2014 and 2021 model-years, the i3’s EV tech wasn’t really state-of-the-art by that last model-year. By 2021, the i3 was a $55,000 EV with half the range of a Tesla.
Image: Author
My point is that I don’t really care about platform age as long as that platform gets updated. In the case of the i3, its platform was awesome, and I’d have loved to see it continue on for 20+ years; it was what was bolted to that platform that was shriveling a bit on the vine.
ADVERTISEMENT
Then there are cars like the Dodge Journey, which stuck around forever, offering weak performance/efficiency, but at a highly competitive price. In that case, I’m totally fine with old bones.
Photo credit: Dodge
Here are a few thoughts about platform age by Thomas:
I reckon that a platform is too old to buy new when age doesn’t necessarily enhance the ownership experience and the driving experience is close to what you can get elsewhere in a newer, better-driving package. The R35 GT-R lost some of its luster at the end of its run, partly due to a mid-cycle suspension update that increased its tendency to corner entry understeer and partly because a super-fast turbocharged automatic car now describes almost every ICE performance car. On the other hand, a final-year Challenger SRT Hellcat with the six-speed manual would’ve been worth it because that’s a rare experience you couldn’t really get elsewhere brand new without modifying another platform.
What does the data tell us? Well, according to Bank of America, “replacement rate” — defined as the “estimated percentage of an OEM’s sales volume to be replaced with all-new or next-generation models” — actually does matter, with the bank writing in its “Car Wars” analysis:
We believe replacement rate drives showroom age, which drives market share, which in turn drives profits, and ultimately stock prices…
[…]
Although other factors such as mix, price, execution, distribution, brand power, and unforeseen disruptions impact market share, we think this data supports our thesis that successful new products drive higher market share and profits.
Bank of America’s Car Wars report goes on to say that new-model launch activity is stagnating, writing:
As shown in Exhibit 3, we expect OEMs to launch 159 new models during our forecast period (MY2026-29), or an average of just 40 per year. This rate is just below the average number of models launched per year between model years 2006 and 2025. This level of new model introductions is concerning as fewer new models may not stimulate consumer interest, which may pressure total volume.
The lower launch count is largely a result of the delay in new EV programs as consumers remain disinterested, the regulatory push for EVs is relaxed, consumer EV incentives are likely to be eliminated, and potential tariffs are roiling production/supply chain management decisions. This appears to be motivating automakers to focus on core ICE (& Hybrid) products, which should generate solid profit/cash flow. In addition, EVs are not being completely ignored, but development appears to be slowing to more closely mimic consumer demand, which is not much.
Image: Bank of America
So it seems that people usually do care about how old a car is, but at the same, I bet the average person has no clue about the bones underneath their vehicle’s sheetmetal. I personally couldn’t care less as long as the vehicle remains competitive/useful, like a 2001 Jeep Cherokee that, when new, had been on the market for 17 years but still offers great styling and off-road performance at a good price.
ADVERTISEMENT
Though I suppose now that I’m a dad, the biggest factor in platform age is: Will it excel in all modern crash tests? Anyway, I welcome your thoughts on this.
I will say, there is one huge benefit (to me) to the “new” Z sharing many parts with the old Z: that is, when all of the 350zs have been drifted and crashed into extinction, many of the parts on the new Z will bolt right onto mine. (Mainly interior parts but who knows what else.)
This will be great when the new Z is old enough to start appearing in junkyards, coinciding when my 350z is age 30-40.
Just off of me test driving the new Z, these parts are taken directly from the 350/370:
– Non frameless rear view mirror
– Power seat controls
– Heated seats and trunk release buttons
– Handbrake (also shared in the G cars)
– interior door handles and the plastic vent around it
– probably thhe climate control dials
– and a lot more than what meets the eye
This was always a top tier benefit of buying GM cars up through their bankruptcy. The C5 was as near as a total redesign of a car that GM has ever done which more or less carried it through when it switched to being mid-engined; and it was still surprising just how many parts from as late as the C7 that would just bolt right onto a late C4 from 20 years prior just because GM never bothered changing mounting dimensions of stuff.
Last edited 1 month ago by Logan King
Chewcudda
1 month ago
I don’t remember any complaints about the Ford Fox or Chrysler K being dated. Plain, maybe but not dated. Nobody complained about the 1970 Maverick being a reskin of the 1960 Falcon.
If Chrysler hadn’t bought Jeep and AMC from Renault for pennies on the dollar they would have gone bankrupt in the early 90s from riding the K platform for well past its competency date.
I deeply resented that Ford didn’t even update the Maverick/comet twins to get rid of the spring/shock tower in the engine bay. It made changing the spark plugs on the V8 a miserable job. It also did leave room for a power brake booster and allow disk brakes. I also hated Ford for keeping the linkage assist power steering rather than paying a license fee (?) to GM or Mopar to use an integrated power steering box.
NewYorker In LA
1 month ago
VW MQB is 13 years old now, and will probably be around for another 10-15 years easy.
Captain Avatar
1 month ago
Of all the things I try to compare or think about when I buy a car, ‘platform’ isn’t even on the list.
Age, mileage, real or percieved reputation for reliability, ergonomics for the driver, safety features, and the quality and comfort of the seating is pretty much the list.
Buying a platform that has been in production long enough so that problems have become apparent and resolved is the only way to buy a new car with a “real or percieved reputation for reliability”
Really, platform is the first thing I would consider.
Then again, I’m dubious about this whole “new car” thing if only for that smell, but I’m open to newish cars.
Except I would look at reliabilty ratings, both owner/user driven comments, and professional publucations, for the specific year and model I’m thinking of purchasing.
I don’t look for or know the names of platforms.
Curtis Loew
1 month ago
Nope don’t care. We bought a 2023 Mirage new knowing the platform was 11 years old. I see it as tested and relaible and it has been.
Comet_65cali
1 month ago
GOOD NEWS!
Do I care if a platform is old: No.
Do I care if a platform costs too much money: Yes.
There is HAS to point where Development Cost becomes Nil.
Why I think Dacia is so successful and what Mitsubishi/FIAT did with Proton/Lada: Give another brand hand-me-down tech that still works at-cost prices.
Yep. Dacia is successful because it does what someone needs, at a price they are willing to pay, that is lower than competitors, without “feeling cheap.”
That’s it. That’s the formula. That’s always been the formula.
Just now so many feel they need the new, big, X, with the screens, the Snapchat, and all the mediocre “leather” that’s been kissed by toucans that have never farted. They complain about the price for the things they’ve asked for, but turns many of ’em are getting eight-year loans we used to call a “rent payment” seven years ago, while the vehicle’s resale value journeys to the center of the earth.
Hasn’t that been the history of a lot of emerging markets for cars? E.g. Iran still making old Peugeots, etc. The mothership licenses out the old, amortized, debugged vehicles and sells the tooling, and they live on for several more years in their new adoptive country.
It is. Sell the stuff that works that you’ve amortized into the ground.
Thing is, there’s a lot more demand for that stuff in the primary markets. Europe proved that with Dacia. The US is clamoring hard for it but manufacturers are reticent to do it as they know they’ll cannibalize their big margin products. Granted, the US is in a weird spot in that everyone wants their “leather” filled, screen-filled everything too. I think the market could shift more “basic”, but it’d take a decade for there to be enough buyers where folks feel they’re part of the herd.
However, I don’t think most manufacturers in the US realize that they’ll be forced to do it one way or another once everyone hits their breaking point. It’ll happen eventually. Moreover, if one of them goes against the grain and does it? They’re going to eat everyone else’s lunch and force it. I’m curious as to which brand hits first. If Nissan were smart, they’d ensure it was them, as it’d be a great way to repair the brand image.
What you describe is kind of what we saw with the Ford Maverick. A small truck with a decent price that sold so well at the beginning that Ford had a hard time keeping it in stock. What surprised me is we haven’t seen Chevy, Ram, or Toyota come out with a competitor.
JP15
1 month ago
With so many brands now using a common platform for their cars, like the Subaru Global Platform (SGP) for example, the true age of a platform is harder to pin down.
The SGP was launched in 2016, and their entire fleet of vehicles except the BRZ had adopted it by 2021 (though apparently the BRZ borrows some features of SGP).
When the same platform underpins the Tribeca and the WRX, how old is it really? The Tribeca is probably the least refreshed vehicle in Subaru’s fleet, but it rides on the same platform as the newest Outbacks and Foresters.
In light of that, I don’t really care how old a platform is and instead judge a car off its own merits, trims, etc.
Tribeca used something else. I’m guessing a Nissan platform the way the engine is under the core support. Same with others, like svx and 300zx appear to be the same platform judging by the gas tank and rear subframe mounts. Subaru briefly had a Isuzu rodeo it sold. Iirc a minivan was rebadged as part of the Chevy forester deal.
You get wierd stuff like the 80s xt was different than the “loyale” of the ssme period. But while the 90s legacy was closer to the xt, everything bolted up fine to a loyale. OK, pedal box didn’t, but let’s blame the spare tire messing up the firewall. Engine mounts for a newer EJ bolted in.
Cranberry
1 month ago
I don’t mind too much, the rest of the car plus value matters more.
I bought a 4Runner so modernity isn’t necessarily at the top of my list after all! Bigger factors would be what a platform change entails. I don’t really see much benefit to TNGA-F in the new 4Runner but there’s a host of new downsides ranging from cost-cutting to downgraded interior packaging. (but of course it’s not really a new phenomenon, since the 5th gen lost some standard features when replacing the 4th)
I have a soft spot for the new Frontier though, the older underpinnings mean it’s narrower than the other mid-sizers, which have pretty much grown to full-size width.
How many ways can you make a body-on-frame car anyway? If there was stiffer competition in the mid-size, economy (kinda), BOF SUV category maybe it’ll make a difference but I did not care for a retro-styled, removable roof SUV.
Of course, I recognize platform updates can enable improvements I would care about like safety or improved packaging.
Last edited 1 month ago by Cranberry
The Dude
1 month ago
Not really so long as it’s still a good car. But I do care if I’m trading in a car, and there’s not a new design out.
Tesla’s were cutting edge and fresh looking, but they’re just stale now.
Dottie
1 month ago
My Captain Obvious, legally distinct Todd Talk answer is that the dinosaur aged platforms may be the way to have lower priced, reasonably nice new cars without resorting to Mirage-spec penalty boxes or shoving everyone into the used market. Of course as long as they can continue to comply with safety, emissions, and the likes without monstrous cost, a mid cycle refresh can go a long way in making an old platform look relevant in the future.
Logan King
1 month ago
I think a good argument could be made that after ~2005 a lot of new model cars largely just started tinkering in the margins in terms of improvements. There have been some substantial leaps in that time for individual models and EVs are a new frontier, but a car from the 2000s (in many cases even the 90s) is perfectly suitable, reliable and safe as a daily driver today in ways that wouldn’t have applied to a typical car from a decade prior.
For example, there was an article on here the other day about a 2007 Corvette. Even though that was essentially a refreshed car from 1997, what modern standards does it really fall behind on in 2025? Slap a new head unit in it and a reverse camera and it basically has daily driver feature parity with a lot of cars today, twenty years after it debuted. Granted, that loses its luster a lot when a manufacturer actually does such a thing with an enthusiast car that was only ever *okay* (See: Nissan Z), but the greatly increasing average age of cars in the US tells me the public looking for a “normal” car just doesn’t care that Nissan and Chrysler have spent two decades spinning their mid-2000s wares into allegedly new vehicles over and over.
I suspect crash safety is the biggest driver in new car weight bloat. In terms of, reliability, and package efficiency anything from late 90’s (OBD2) on should be more than suitable.
Rollin Hand
1 month ago
Well, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it….
In reality, I have no problems with a GOOD older platform. Part of the reason the Charger/300 was acceptable for so long was they used an older — and quite good — Mercedes Benz chassis. And they improved the car as they went.
Where I start to lose interest is when the safety falls short. If the old platform means that the driver and their passengers are poorly protected, give me a new platform.
Case in point, I get nervous about 1994-2004 Mustangs. They gusseted the Fox Body chassis and did a good job, but that gas tank is still hanging in the rear crumple zone.
Mr E
1 month ago
If it ain’t broke…
I’m much more concerned with styling and handling than giving a damn if my chassis is drinking age or not.
I think ICE chassis development is near peak at this point. Changes are to meet safety standards or new tech developments.
Dan1101
1 month ago
The Volkswagen Beetle was a good example of this, 1938 to 2003!
Xt6wagon
1 month ago
Yes, but mostly because crash regs keep moving the goal posts.
Why the mustang has access tunnels behind the door. Platform is from a different time, and the easy way to deal with it is more crush space because a new platform isn’t in the cards.
Max Headbolts
1 month ago
My newest car is two genrations older than it’s current model, clearly I don’t care how old a platform is 🙂
There is a marked difference in overall quality and feel between my 7th gen Civic and 9th gen Civic; so what I really care about is how good the vehicle is, regardless of the actual platform.
Permanentwaif
1 month ago
I don’t care at all if a platform is aged. Aged platforms is basically Toyota’s bread and butter and they’re doing just fine. The one thing I will put my foot down and will absolutely not buy no matter how much it’s improved upon is the belt and pulley cvt (fight me jatco). Ecvts are superior and no reason anyone should subject themselves to cvt misery.
Hazdazos
1 month ago
The ONLY people that give a rats ass about the age of a platform are pinhead journalists who need something to talk or write about in a review. Most buyers couldn’t even tell you what a “platform” even is, and most people who claim they are into cars wouldn’t know the differences between platforms.
Engineering is all about iterations, so it is funny how a car company can produce a dialed-in platform, and then 6 years later have to (mostly) throw it away for fear of being labeled as old. It would be vastly more cost effective to iterate on an existing platform – reinforcing this, moving that, and just in general continuing to use as much of a platform with minor changes, as long as the platform meet requirements.
There is obviously only so much you can do with an existing design, but most platforms are incredibly designed these days. But journalists LOVE to talk-up clean sheet designs as if that is somehow the holy grail.
There are instances where a vast change occurs – the late ’70s GM and Ford downsizing or the industry wide adaptation of FWD unibodies in the early ’80s. In those cases fully new platforms are relevant and praiseworthy. I think we are at the point of suspension, etc development now where such sea change will never occur again. An EV skateboard design will become pretty standardized and take over everything.
Kind of harshly worded, perhaps, but I agree in most instances. They have traditionally stressed things that are out of touch with most buyers (even enthusiasts) and convinced burgeoning, unquestioning enthusiasts that those largely irrelevant things or largely paper-only advantages really do matter, pushed performance numbers for far too long over the driving experience (only to be pulled back recently as they’ve become effectively irrelevant, though we still hear about every pointless Nurburgring record that only a pro with a lot of experience on the course, backed by the OEM with greater safety gear, and who isn’t paying for the car could ever achieve), harped on a lack of tech that most real people do not actually want while playing down their glitches and the frustration of using them, and withheld or glossed over glaring problems that they only reveal when reviewing that model’s replacement, then talk about it like it’s common knowledge that they’ve mentioned all along. I could mention the long term issues that might barely get a mention, but I’ll reluctantly give them a pass as they’re reviewing new cars, not longterm ownership. That so many condemned Toyota for not jumping on the EV bandwagon and predicting their downfall (despite having plenty of experience with EVs as hybrids and sitting on so much money that they could have just waited out for a company to come up with a great solution to buy them up), shows how out of touch they were. It shows that they don’t get Toyota’s reasons for success in conquering foreign markets by selling large quantities of cars to regular non-car people, that is, the great majority of the market, therefore not understanding what most people really value.
However, I think they can at least get partial credit for some improvements we’ve seen, like interior quality (with much credit to VW). People seemed to be settled on whatever hideous plastic mass of crap was dropped on them in the worst shade of dogshit beige the OEMs could get discount injection molding pellets in when VW changed the game by showing that a lower end car could have an interior that didn’t look like an ant’s view of a Tyco toy with the equivalent quality feel of a grocery store vending machine and journalists sold the hell out of it. Perceived build quality improvements also owe a little to them similarly pointing out things like panel gaps that most people don’t even notice and they helped push safety in a time before people were so obsessed over it with things like braking distance and stability under braking, which is something we take for granted today.
I’m agreeing with much of what you wrote, and here’s another mess that journalists created:
massive touchscreens on the insides of our cars. I recall reading reviews when a car maker hadn’t jumped on the massive tablet bandwagon yet and journalists would poo-poo the design and claim it was old fashioned. Naturally no car maker wants to be labeled as an old-person’s car, so to get positive feedback from the press, they all jump on that damn bandwagon and played the every-larger-tablet game for around a decade.
It is infuriating just how much these fucks have messed with the industry.
That’s what I was thinking of specifically when I mentioned that they harped on a lack of tech, though it could cover some other stuff I hate, like active “safety” features that are more effective at being an annoyance than working as intended.
I’ll never understand lane centering assist. If you’re not paying enough attention to keep your car in the middle of the road, you shouldn’t be driving. Our daily driver has it, but we never turn it on.
I guess it gives the reviewer something to write/complain about.
I think most of them only enable and encourage bad driving and lack of attention. Every time I mention that and someone responds with “feature X saved me the other day when it xyz’d for me”, my mind automatically translates that to: “I am a terrible driver who not only lacks basic situational awareness, but also the self awareness to recognize it and am inadvertently supporting your assertion through personal example.” I’m not saying I’ve never made a driving error, but they haven’t been down to a lack of attention in spite of ADD (though I guess I’m lucky in that driving is one of the few things where I have no problem with focus, likely because the type of risk supports my hypervigilance, but hey, school was torture for me and I’m uncomfortable with the imposing quiet, casual falsehoods, and inanity of the “civil” world, so I’m not the one who’s better suited to day-to-day life out of the car).
“more effective at being an annoyance”
Holy crap, isn’t that the truth, and yet you watch any YT review these days and they take off points for any brand that doesn’t offer up that useless tech (which the owner is probably going to turn off anyways). They are so out-of-touch it is infuriating and making cars worse.
I don’t think large touchscreens are a problem. I LIKE massive touchscreens, I WANT to be able to read the SatNav map! Just make sure its well integrated into the dash and not just glued on.
What I don’t like (conceptually, I haven’t suffered this myself yet) is moving all functionality to that giant touchscreen. Give me well placed knobs, buttons, stalks, sliders and switches I can control by feel and that always work. Glove boxes have no need to be opened only by a nested touchscreen menu.
They are a problem in that if the screen is there and it is massive, then car executives are doing to ask the designers, why not just use the screen to control everything. Having one, enables the other. Yeah, a nice REASONABLY sized screen is great to see a map, but still give me controls for the AC and make it look well integrated. Too many car makers have gone off the deep end when it comes to having restraint.
Meh. Can’t say I am a fan of that look. Sits too low, so you are always looking down and taking your eyes off the road. Vertical orientation never seems right to me.
I honestly think GM’s approach on their newest cars is by far the best approach to screen size, while keeping most controls you need. The Lyriq is an impressive looking screen with still some controls. Same with most new Chevys and especially the upcoming ’26 Corvette.
To each their own, but your eyes are side-by-side, not one on top of the other. For me, I think a horizontal screen works way better – just like watching a video on a TV is infinitely better than watching a vertical Tiktok.
It depends on what is being conveyed. For a portrait of a standing person for example a vertical orientation is best to show only the person and as little else as possible. For that same person reclining on a couch horizontal works best for the same reason. For a head shot both square, oval or round work well.
Dennis Birtcher
1 month ago
The GM B body debuted in 1926. It was already 46 year old platform when my Oldsmobile was built, and that happened 53 years ago. I like to believe some parts of my car may be fully 99 years old in design. Gets the job done though.
You do understand that it was just a NAME right? Like there weren’t physical parts that remained the same for those 5 decades.
GM (and other car makers) simply used the same NAME for decades (or brought back previously used names). A lot of times, the name simply designated the rough size or function of the platform.
I’m choosing to believe at least one part, perhaps the body bushings, did indeed survive several decades unchanged, until such time as I have to replace them and do actual research. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
That aside, it’s still 53 years old, I still think it’s brilliant.
It depends on the platform. Topshot is a perfect example, I went out to buy a 2003 350Z and despite it being a brand new car I just couldn’t as the platform felt older and inferior to my 12 year old SVX. (By platform I’m mostly describing things like suspension mounting points, interchangable or similar subframes, etc. not the appearance of the car) The car I purchased instead, a 2004 RX8 has a great platform that Mazda is still using on the ND miata and is nowhere near it’s expiration date. The RX8 platform is a minor evolution of the FD RX7 and NA Miata platform so despite being roughly 40 years old, if you design it well the first time it stays relevant.
I had one for just over 3 years and really loved it with big caveat. I was in the market for a regular reliable car just before my final year of college but saw this thing sitting in one of those shady buy here pay here used car lots. Everything looked to be in order and it even came with service records including a transmission rebuild a month prior. Bought it, and for some reason went against my typical behavior and decided to also get the 30 month third party warranty they offered, $1100 on a $5000 car. No idea why they priced this car so low, at the time carmax was estimating roughly $9000 if I wanted to sell it to them.
It was really well put together and felt very advanced even when compared to new cars in 01. It also had sort of a split personality in that it was a very comfortable luxurious cruiser on long road trips, but transformed into something athletic and aggressive once you feed it some corners. One thing I really loved was that even at 80MPH if you lower all 4 windows and open the sunroof there was absolutely 0 wind noise. (has to be all 5) It’s a weird experience to hear all the mechanical bits of the car you’re passing doing their thing.
As to the caveats, it wasn’t that hard to work on, but OMG are the spark plugs impossible to get to. The big thing for me and why I ended up getting rid of the car was the transmission. I had it roughly 6 months on the car when the center differential exploded, but as it’s inside the transmission the metal bits go every where, lock up all 4 wheels, and also ruin several other gears. Since I had the receipt for when it was last serviced less than a year ago I took it back to them and they rebuilt it under warranty. 1 year later and the center differential does it’s explodey thing again. This time I use the extended warranty and they recommend a shop to use. Roughly 10 months after this I’m now in my first real job out of college, head to lunch with some co-workers downtown, and right as I’m about to cross Main street I give it gas to get through a yellow, the center differential explodes again, all 4 wheels lock up, and I skid to a stop at a exactly in the middle of the busiest intersection. It can’t be pushed out of the way as the center differential is just jammed, so I have to wait there an hour with cops directing traffic for a flat bed to show up. Warranty is now up but I have the car taken to the last place that rebuilt the transmission, and they agree to rebuild it under their 1 year warranty.
As this was my only car that I needed to rely on to get to work and I finally had a steady source of good income, I knew it was time to get myself something more reliable like a Mazda Rotary! 🙂
Sold it to a kid for $3000 who then proceeded to put a nitrous kit on it within 3 months and grenade the center differential, and the cycle continues.
I took very good care of the car, but I also did drive it hard on mountain roads, took it autocrossing several times, etc. so it was well used but never abused.
Found some pictures from when I was selling it. As we can’t upload picture here directly, I wonder if I can upload it to discord, put a link here, and then have that expand for other site members.
Within the bounds of modernity, I am ambivalent for a daily driver.
The platform is secondary to a bunch of other aspects of the vehicle. I’d take a known-quantity reliable older drivetrain in a new platform, because the daily driver isn’t going to be something I want to devote a bunch of effort to keeping on the road. At most, I’d be focused on if the user experience is irritating or frustrating versus friendly and intuitive.
If I’m playing cars with a toy, the older platform has the advantage of being a known quantity and has aftermarket support.
Now, with computers, this is different. Give me an older Windows 10 platform (alas, going end of life in October) versus the newer Windows 11 any day of the week.
If it’s just your PC at home (or two), you can easily build a bootable Win11 USB with any hardware checks turned off using rufus.
Then, Win11 will install on basically anything, including stuff as old as a Dell OptiPlex with a Core 2 Duo.
The caveat is that this is technically not blessed by Microsoft, so they could derail automatic updates at any point. But that would be quite foolish, as then there would be an available botnet of Win11 PCs ready to go because no security updates can be applied easily.
There was also talk that feature updates would need to be applied manually, as opposed to being automated through normal Windows Update, but in practice they have applied as normal even to machines running “unblessed” Win11 installs on technically ineligible hardware.
For business, you can’t (or shouldn’t) do stuff like this. For home…. Absolutely fine IMO.
After I posted my comment I saw Microsoft had backtracked on their hardware requirements. I guess there were just too many folks like me who have older hardware that still works fine. So maybe Ill stick with Microsoft but only because Win11 is a free “upgrade” for current Win10 users
I don’t think they backtracked recently, unless you’re talking about what happened at the end of last year. You still technically need TPM 2.0, an Intel 8xxx or better CPU, and some other BS.
Installing on anything less is easy enough to do, even now, but MS doesn’t guarantee continued support.
So, for clients…. We can’t advise or do this. But if it’s just stuff in your house… Just upgrade to Win11 and call it a day.
I still have a few Dell Optis and Latitudes at home with 4xxx Intel chips, they run Win11 just fine even though they’re technically not blessed to do so.
But why? As I said, officially your PC won’t be blessed to run Win11, but it will run it just fine if it’s already running 10.
There are plenty of reports with people running Win11 builds on fx processors.
And as I also mentioned, we’ve run 11 on Core 2 chips, those are almost 20 years old now.
We have Win11 running on a bunch of 4xxx series Intel rigs, and those are all from 2013.
So if you just want run Linux anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that obviously, but you absolutely have the choice to run Windows still.
It depends on how persistent the *helpful* reminders to upgrade the hardware are. But its good to know it will run on even ancienter Core 2 processors as well since I have a few of those too.
There are no hardware reminders AFAIK. In many cases, you cannot upgrade the hardware to make it officially compliant anyway.
Besides, the hardware checks occur at installation, once Win11 is running there is no point in MS bothering the user, except when another feature update occurs perhaps. There is always the possibility that you’ll have to manually install feature updates in theory, but in practice so far these have come down the pipe through automated Windows Update just as they do on sanctioned machines.
MS was clearly (at least IMO) under pressure from PC manufacturers to create reasons for people to have to artificially buy new hardware (as evidenced in my mind by the fact that MS published, until fairly recently, regedit guidance on how to defeat the hardware checks at install on their own site). I don’t think they actually care what you run Win11 on, so long as you keep running current Windows and hopefully pony up for MS365, OneDrive, and all the other subscription stuff that is their bread and butter.
The truth is that PC hardware has gotten far ahead of most people’s simple daily needs, a 10 yo PC with an SSD of some sort and 8+GB RAM is good enough for the majority of users, both at home and in generic office settings.
Tbird
1 month ago
My daily is a 2014 Camry Hyrbird, the underlying bones and suspension hardpoints date to 2001 so with 2 full rebodies in between through I think 2018. To be honest the iterative approach does not bother me. They did the same with the Corolla, 2002 – 2020 or so share the basic underbody structure. Few actual parts are individually shared and drivetrians, etc… matured over the generations. This is a daily driver, not a racecar.
That said, the S needs a full rebody and it sounds like the tech is being left behind.
Last edited 1 month ago by Tbird
Timbales
1 month ago
I don’t think so, unless there’s some flaw that hasn’t been addressed. I’m not usually a fan of change for the sake of novelty, especially when a refresh will usually do.
Cerberus
1 month ago
If it’s cheaper for being old, it doesn’t bother me, but I wouldn’t expect to pay high prices for something already long amortized and, frankly, wasn’t amazing when new (looks sideways at Nissan Z). If it was a great platform that was enjoyable to drive and easy to repair to begin with or if it’s lighter because it’s old and hasn’t been ruined with weight to excel at the IIHS small frontal overlap tests, those are all pluses over an unproven, likely heavier and more isolated new platform with higher maintenance cost. That the GR86 is not only very much the same as the 1st gen, which is based on a Subaru platform with roots in my beloved mk1 Legacy, was all part of the appeal and it certainly gives up nothing in handling for it.
However, unless it’s a unique driving experience (like, Morgan, though they have a new platform), if I bought high end cars, it would bother me as I would expect to be paying for expensive R&D.
That platform with a modern hybridized drivetrain…
MrH42
1 month ago
Really depends on whether the platform is still competitive or not. With EVs, the battery architecture is a large part of the platform. I would say that the Model S is not remotely competitive anymore.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional cookies
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional cookies
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I will say, there is one huge benefit (to me) to the “new” Z sharing many parts with the old Z: that is, when all of the 350zs have been drifted and crashed into extinction, many of the parts on the new Z will bolt right onto mine. (Mainly interior parts but who knows what else.)
This will be great when the new Z is old enough to start appearing in junkyards, coinciding when my 350z is age 30-40.
Just off of me test driving the new Z, these parts are taken directly from the 350/370:
– Non frameless rear view mirror
– Power seat controls
– Heated seats and trunk release buttons
– Handbrake (also shared in the G cars)
– interior door handles and the plastic vent around it
– probably thhe climate control dials
– and a lot more than what meets the eye
This was always a top tier benefit of buying GM cars up through their bankruptcy. The C5 was as near as a total redesign of a car that GM has ever done which more or less carried it through when it switched to being mid-engined; and it was still surprising just how many parts from as late as the C7 that would just bolt right onto a late C4 from 20 years prior just because GM never bothered changing mounting dimensions of stuff.
I don’t remember any complaints about the Ford Fox or Chrysler K being dated. Plain, maybe but not dated. Nobody complained about the 1970 Maverick being a reskin of the 1960 Falcon.
But by the time the New Edge Mustang came out, on a modified SN95 platform, which was a modified Fox platform, people were complaining
If Chrysler hadn’t bought Jeep and AMC from Renault for pennies on the dollar they would have gone bankrupt in the early 90s from riding the K platform for well past its competency date.
I deeply resented that Ford didn’t even update the Maverick/comet twins to get rid of the spring/shock tower in the engine bay. It made changing the spark plugs on the V8 a miserable job. It also did leave room for a power brake booster and allow disk brakes. I also hated Ford for keeping the linkage assist power steering rather than paying a license fee (?) to GM or Mopar to use an integrated power steering box.
VW MQB is 13 years old now, and will probably be around for another 10-15 years easy.
Of all the things I try to compare or think about when I buy a car, ‘platform’ isn’t even on the list.
Age, mileage, real or percieved reputation for reliability, ergonomics for the driver, safety features, and the quality and comfort of the seating is pretty much the list.
“real or percieved reputation for reliability”
Buying a platform that has been in production long enough so that problems have become apparent and resolved is the only way to buy a new car with a “real or percieved reputation for reliability”
Really, platform is the first thing I would consider.
Then again, I’m dubious about this whole “new car” thing if only for that smell, but I’m open to newish cars.
Except I would look at reliabilty ratings, both owner/user driven comments, and professional publucations, for the specific year and model I’m thinking of purchasing.
I don’t look for or know the names of platforms.
Nope don’t care. We bought a 2023 Mirage new knowing the platform was 11 years old. I see it as tested and relaible and it has been.
GOOD NEWS!
Do I care if a platform is old: No.
Do I care if a platform costs too much money: Yes.
There is HAS to point where Development Cost becomes Nil.
Why I think Dacia is so successful and what Mitsubishi/FIAT did with Proton/Lada: Give another brand hand-me-down tech that still works at-cost prices.
Yep. Dacia is successful because it does what someone needs, at a price they are willing to pay, that is lower than competitors, without “feeling cheap.”
That’s it. That’s the formula. That’s always been the formula.
Just now so many feel they need the new, big, X, with the screens, the Snapchat, and all the mediocre “leather” that’s been kissed by toucans that have never farted. They complain about the price for the things they’ve asked for, but turns many of ’em are getting eight-year loans we used to call a “rent payment” seven years ago, while the vehicle’s resale value journeys to the center of the earth.
Hasn’t that been the history of a lot of emerging markets for cars? E.g. Iran still making old Peugeots, etc. The mothership licenses out the old, amortized, debugged vehicles and sells the tooling, and they live on for several more years in their new adoptive country.
Several decades actually. Pakyan (Hillman Hunter) stop producing producing a car from 1967 in 2005, and the truck version until 2015.
It is. Sell the stuff that works that you’ve amortized into the ground.
Thing is, there’s a lot more demand for that stuff in the primary markets. Europe proved that with Dacia. The US is clamoring hard for it but manufacturers are reticent to do it as they know they’ll cannibalize their big margin products. Granted, the US is in a weird spot in that everyone wants their “leather” filled, screen-filled everything too. I think the market could shift more “basic”, but it’d take a decade for there to be enough buyers where folks feel they’re part of the herd.
However, I don’t think most manufacturers in the US realize that they’ll be forced to do it one way or another once everyone hits their breaking point. It’ll happen eventually. Moreover, if one of them goes against the grain and does it? They’re going to eat everyone else’s lunch and force it. I’m curious as to which brand hits first. If Nissan were smart, they’d ensure it was them, as it’d be a great way to repair the brand image.
What you describe is kind of what we saw with the Ford Maverick. A small truck with a decent price that sold so well at the beginning that Ford had a hard time keeping it in stock. What surprised me is we haven’t seen Chevy, Ram, or Toyota come out with a competitor.
With so many brands now using a common platform for their cars, like the Subaru Global Platform (SGP) for example, the true age of a platform is harder to pin down.
The SGP was launched in 2016, and their entire fleet of vehicles except the BRZ had adopted it by 2021 (though apparently the BRZ borrows some features of SGP).
When the same platform underpins the Tribeca and the WRX, how old is it really? The Tribeca is probably the least refreshed vehicle in Subaru’s fleet, but it rides on the same platform as the newest Outbacks and Foresters.
In light of that, I don’t really care how old a platform is and instead judge a car off its own merits, trims, etc.
Tribeca used something else. I’m guessing a Nissan platform the way the engine is under the core support. Same with others, like svx and 300zx appear to be the same platform judging by the gas tank and rear subframe mounts. Subaru briefly had a Isuzu rodeo it sold. Iirc a minivan was rebadged as part of the Chevy forester deal.
You get wierd stuff like the 80s xt was different than the “loyale” of the ssme period. But while the 90s legacy was closer to the xt, everything bolted up fine to a loyale. OK, pedal box didn’t, but let’s blame the spare tire messing up the firewall. Engine mounts for a newer EJ bolted in.
I don’t mind too much, the rest of the car plus value matters more.
I bought a 4Runner so modernity isn’t necessarily at the top of my list after all! Bigger factors would be what a platform change entails. I don’t really see much benefit to TNGA-F in the new 4Runner but there’s a host of new downsides ranging from cost-cutting to downgraded interior packaging. (but of course it’s not really a new phenomenon, since the 5th gen lost some standard features when replacing the 4th)
I have a soft spot for the new Frontier though, the older underpinnings mean it’s narrower than the other mid-sizers, which have pretty much grown to full-size width.
How many ways can you make a body-on-frame car anyway? If there was stiffer competition in the mid-size, economy (kinda), BOF SUV category maybe it’ll make a difference but I did not care for a retro-styled, removable roof SUV.
Of course, I recognize platform updates can enable improvements I would care about like safety or improved packaging.
Not really so long as it’s still a good car. But I do care if I’m trading in a car, and there’s not a new design out.
Tesla’s were cutting edge and fresh looking, but they’re just stale now.
My Captain Obvious, legally distinct Todd Talk answer is that the dinosaur aged platforms may be the way to have lower priced, reasonably nice new cars without resorting to Mirage-spec penalty boxes or shoving everyone into the used market. Of course as long as they can continue to comply with safety, emissions, and the likes without monstrous cost, a mid cycle refresh can go a long way in making an old platform look relevant in the future.
I think a good argument could be made that after ~2005 a lot of new model cars largely just started tinkering in the margins in terms of improvements. There have been some substantial leaps in that time for individual models and EVs are a new frontier, but a car from the 2000s (in many cases even the 90s) is perfectly suitable, reliable and safe as a daily driver today in ways that wouldn’t have applied to a typical car from a decade prior.
For example, there was an article on here the other day about a 2007 Corvette. Even though that was essentially a refreshed car from 1997, what modern standards does it really fall behind on in 2025? Slap a new head unit in it and a reverse camera and it basically has daily driver feature parity with a lot of cars today, twenty years after it debuted. Granted, that loses its luster a lot when a manufacturer actually does such a thing with an enthusiast car that was only ever *okay* (See: Nissan Z), but the greatly increasing average age of cars in the US tells me the public looking for a “normal” car just doesn’t care that Nissan and Chrysler have spent two decades spinning their mid-2000s wares into allegedly new vehicles over and over.
I suspect crash safety is the biggest driver in new car weight bloat. In terms of, reliability, and package efficiency anything from late 90’s (OBD2) on should be more than suitable.
Well, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it….
In reality, I have no problems with a GOOD older platform. Part of the reason the Charger/300 was acceptable for so long was they used an older — and quite good — Mercedes Benz chassis. And they improved the car as they went.
Where I start to lose interest is when the safety falls short. If the old platform means that the driver and their passengers are poorly protected, give me a new platform.
Case in point, I get nervous about 1994-2004 Mustangs. They gusseted the Fox Body chassis and did a good job, but that gas tank is still hanging in the rear crumple zone.
If it ain’t broke…
I’m much more concerned with styling and handling than giving a damn if my chassis is drinking age or not.
I think ICE chassis development is near peak at this point. Changes are to meet safety standards or new tech developments.
The Volkswagen Beetle was a good example of this, 1938 to 2003!
Yes, but mostly because crash regs keep moving the goal posts.
Why the mustang has access tunnels behind the door. Platform is from a different time, and the easy way to deal with it is more crush space because a new platform isn’t in the cards.
My newest car is two genrations older than it’s current model, clearly I don’t care how old a platform is 🙂
There is a marked difference in overall quality and feel between my 7th gen Civic and 9th gen Civic; so what I really care about is how good the vehicle is, regardless of the actual platform.
I don’t care at all if a platform is aged. Aged platforms is basically Toyota’s bread and butter and they’re doing just fine. The one thing I will put my foot down and will absolutely not buy no matter how much it’s improved upon is the belt and pulley cvt (fight me jatco). Ecvts are superior and no reason anyone should subject themselves to cvt misery.
The ONLY people that give a rats ass about the age of a platform are pinhead journalists who need something to talk or write about in a review. Most buyers couldn’t even tell you what a “platform” even is, and most people who claim they are into cars wouldn’t know the differences between platforms.
Engineering is all about iterations, so it is funny how a car company can produce a dialed-in platform, and then 6 years later have to (mostly) throw it away for fear of being labeled as old. It would be vastly more cost effective to iterate on an existing platform – reinforcing this, moving that, and just in general continuing to use as much of a platform with minor changes, as long as the platform meet requirements.
There is obviously only so much you can do with an existing design, but most platforms are incredibly designed these days. But journalists LOVE to talk-up clean sheet designs as if that is somehow the holy grail.
Journalists have really fucked up this industry.
There are instances where a vast change occurs – the late ’70s GM and Ford downsizing or the industry wide adaptation of FWD unibodies in the early ’80s. In those cases fully new platforms are relevant and praiseworthy. I think we are at the point of suspension, etc development now where such sea change will never occur again. An EV skateboard design will become pretty standardized and take over everything.
Kind of harshly worded, perhaps, but I agree in most instances. They have traditionally stressed things that are out of touch with most buyers (even enthusiasts) and convinced burgeoning, unquestioning enthusiasts that those largely irrelevant things or largely paper-only advantages really do matter, pushed performance numbers for far too long over the driving experience (only to be pulled back recently as they’ve become effectively irrelevant, though we still hear about every pointless Nurburgring record that only a pro with a lot of experience on the course, backed by the OEM with greater safety gear, and who isn’t paying for the car could ever achieve), harped on a lack of tech that most real people do not actually want while playing down their glitches and the frustration of using them, and withheld or glossed over glaring problems that they only reveal when reviewing that model’s replacement, then talk about it like it’s common knowledge that they’ve mentioned all along. I could mention the long term issues that might barely get a mention, but I’ll reluctantly give them a pass as they’re reviewing new cars, not longterm ownership. That so many condemned Toyota for not jumping on the EV bandwagon and predicting their downfall (despite having plenty of experience with EVs as hybrids and sitting on so much money that they could have just waited out for a company to come up with a great solution to buy them up), shows how out of touch they were. It shows that they don’t get Toyota’s reasons for success in conquering foreign markets by selling large quantities of cars to regular non-car people, that is, the great majority of the market, therefore not understanding what most people really value.
However, I think they can at least get partial credit for some improvements we’ve seen, like interior quality (with much credit to VW). People seemed to be settled on whatever hideous plastic mass of crap was dropped on them in the worst shade of dogshit beige the OEMs could get discount injection molding pellets in when VW changed the game by showing that a lower end car could have an interior that didn’t look like an ant’s view of a Tyco toy with the equivalent quality feel of a grocery store vending machine and journalists sold the hell out of it. Perceived build quality improvements also owe a little to them similarly pointing out things like panel gaps that most people don’t even notice and they helped push safety in a time before people were so obsessed over it with things like braking distance and stability under braking, which is something we take for granted today.
I’m agreeing with much of what you wrote, and here’s another mess that journalists created:
massive touchscreens on the insides of our cars. I recall reading reviews when a car maker hadn’t jumped on the massive tablet bandwagon yet and journalists would poo-poo the design and claim it was old fashioned. Naturally no car maker wants to be labeled as an old-person’s car, so to get positive feedback from the press, they all jump on that damn bandwagon and played the every-larger-tablet game for around a decade.
It is infuriating just how much these fucks have messed with the industry.
That’s what I was thinking of specifically when I mentioned that they harped on a lack of tech, though it could cover some other stuff I hate, like active “safety” features that are more effective at being an annoyance than working as intended.
I’ll never understand lane centering assist. If you’re not paying enough attention to keep your car in the middle of the road, you shouldn’t be driving. Our daily driver has it, but we never turn it on.
I guess it gives the reviewer something to write/complain about.
I think most of them only enable and encourage bad driving and lack of attention. Every time I mention that and someone responds with “feature X saved me the other day when it xyz’d for me”, my mind automatically translates that to: “I am a terrible driver who not only lacks basic situational awareness, but also the self awareness to recognize it and am inadvertently supporting your assertion through personal example.” I’m not saying I’ve never made a driving error, but they haven’t been down to a lack of attention in spite of ADD (though I guess I’m lucky in that driving is one of the few things where I have no problem with focus, likely because the type of risk supports my hypervigilance, but hey, school was torture for me and I’m uncomfortable with the imposing quiet, casual falsehoods, and inanity of the “civil” world, so I’m not the one who’s better suited to day-to-day life out of the car).
“more effective at being an annoyance”
Holy crap, isn’t that the truth, and yet you watch any YT review these days and they take off points for any brand that doesn’t offer up that useless tech (which the owner is probably going to turn off anyways). They are so out-of-touch it is infuriating and making cars worse.
I don’t think large touchscreens are a problem. I LIKE massive touchscreens, I WANT to be able to read the SatNav map! Just make sure its well integrated into the dash and not just glued on.
What I don’t like (conceptually, I haven’t suffered this myself yet) is moving all functionality to that giant touchscreen. Give me well placed knobs, buttons, stalks, sliders and switches I can control by feel and that always work. Glove boxes have no need to be opened only by a nested touchscreen menu.
They are a problem in that if the screen is there and it is massive, then car executives are doing to ask the designers, why not just use the screen to control everything. Having one, enables the other. Yeah, a nice REASONABLY sized screen is great to see a map, but still give me controls for the AC and make it look well integrated. Too many car makers have gone off the deep end when it comes to having restraint.
It is possible to have a generous integrated touchscreen and physical controls, even in older cars not designed for them.
For example this one for the Gen7 Honda Accord. 12″ of touchscreen AND physical controls!
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0009/1766/7958/products/O1CN01RVWWV51tdhE6kyifk__2200780555925_1200x1200.jpg?v=1571717860
Meh. Can’t say I am a fan of that look. Sits too low, so you are always looking down and taking your eyes off the road. Vertical orientation never seems right to me.
I honestly think GM’s approach on their newest cars is by far the best approach to screen size, while keeping most controls you need. The Lyriq is an impressive looking screen with still some controls. Same with most new Chevys and especially the upcoming ’26 Corvette.
Vertical works better IMO for navigation since orienting the road you are on vertical most closely mimics reality.
To each their own, but your eyes are side-by-side, not one on top of the other. For me, I think a horizontal screen works way better – just like watching a video on a TV is infinitely better than watching a vertical Tiktok.
It depends on what is being conveyed. For a portrait of a standing person for example a vertical orientation is best to show only the person and as little else as possible. For that same person reclining on a couch horizontal works best for the same reason. For a head shot both square, oval or round work well.
The GM B body debuted in 1926. It was already 46 year old platform when my Oldsmobile was built, and that happened 53 years ago. I like to believe some parts of my car may be fully 99 years old in design. Gets the job done though.
You do understand that it was just a NAME right? Like there weren’t physical parts that remained the same for those 5 decades.
GM (and other car makers) simply used the same NAME for decades (or brought back previously used names). A lot of times, the name simply designated the rough size or function of the platform.
I’m choosing to believe at least one part, perhaps the body bushings, did indeed survive several decades unchanged, until such time as I have to replace them and do actual research. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
That aside, it’s still 53 years old, I still think it’s brilliant.
If it makes you happy, then keep believing the lie. Like Santa Clauses or the possibility for peace on Earth.
The cake is a lie!
It depends on the platform. Topshot is a perfect example, I went out to buy a 2003 350Z and despite it being a brand new car I just couldn’t as the platform felt older and inferior to my 12 year old SVX. (By platform I’m mostly describing things like suspension mounting points, interchangable or similar subframes, etc. not the appearance of the car) The car I purchased instead, a 2004 RX8 has a great platform that Mazda is still using on the ND miata and is nowhere near it’s expiration date. The RX8 platform is a minor evolution of the FD RX7 and NA Miata platform so despite being roughly 40 years old, if you design it well the first time it stays relevant.
You have an SVX? I’m envious. What’s it like to own and drive?
I had one for just over 3 years and really loved it with big caveat. I was in the market for a regular reliable car just before my final year of college but saw this thing sitting in one of those shady buy here pay here used car lots. Everything looked to be in order and it even came with service records including a transmission rebuild a month prior. Bought it, and for some reason went against my typical behavior and decided to also get the 30 month third party warranty they offered, $1100 on a $5000 car. No idea why they priced this car so low, at the time carmax was estimating roughly $9000 if I wanted to sell it to them.
It was really well put together and felt very advanced even when compared to new cars in 01. It also had sort of a split personality in that it was a very comfortable luxurious cruiser on long road trips, but transformed into something athletic and aggressive once you feed it some corners. One thing I really loved was that even at 80MPH if you lower all 4 windows and open the sunroof there was absolutely 0 wind noise. (has to be all 5) It’s a weird experience to hear all the mechanical bits of the car you’re passing doing their thing.
As to the caveats, it wasn’t that hard to work on, but OMG are the spark plugs impossible to get to. The big thing for me and why I ended up getting rid of the car was the transmission. I had it roughly 6 months on the car when the center differential exploded, but as it’s inside the transmission the metal bits go every where, lock up all 4 wheels, and also ruin several other gears. Since I had the receipt for when it was last serviced less than a year ago I took it back to them and they rebuilt it under warranty. 1 year later and the center differential does it’s explodey thing again. This time I use the extended warranty and they recommend a shop to use. Roughly 10 months after this I’m now in my first real job out of college, head to lunch with some co-workers downtown, and right as I’m about to cross Main street I give it gas to get through a yellow, the center differential explodes again, all 4 wheels lock up, and I skid to a stop at a exactly in the middle of the busiest intersection. It can’t be pushed out of the way as the center differential is just jammed, so I have to wait there an hour with cops directing traffic for a flat bed to show up. Warranty is now up but I have the car taken to the last place that rebuilt the transmission, and they agree to rebuild it under their 1 year warranty.
As this was my only car that I needed to rely on to get to work and I finally had a steady source of good income, I knew it was time to get myself something more reliable like a Mazda Rotary! 🙂
Sold it to a kid for $3000 who then proceeded to put a nitrous kit on it within 3 months and grenade the center differential, and the cycle continues.
I took very good care of the car, but I also did drive it hard on mountain roads, took it autocrossing several times, etc. so it was well used but never abused.
Found some pictures from when I was selling it. As we can’t upload picture here directly, I wonder if I can upload it to discord, put a link here, and then have that expand for other site members.
https://discord.com/channels/1111431722442170408/1111431722924507163/1383473894094012466
Thank you!!
What is up with that differential?
Within the bounds of modernity, I am ambivalent for a daily driver.
The platform is secondary to a bunch of other aspects of the vehicle. I’d take a known-quantity reliable older drivetrain in a new platform, because the daily driver isn’t going to be something I want to devote a bunch of effort to keeping on the road. At most, I’d be focused on if the user experience is irritating or frustrating versus friendly and intuitive.
If I’m playing cars with a toy, the older platform has the advantage of being a known quantity and has aftermarket support.
Now, with computers, this is different. Give me an older Windows 10 platform (alas, going end of life in October) versus the newer Windows 11 any day of the week.
End of Win10 support might turn out to be just the impetus I need to switch to Linux.
If it’s just your PC at home (or two), you can easily build a bootable Win11 USB with any hardware checks turned off using rufus.
Then, Win11 will install on basically anything, including stuff as old as a Dell OptiPlex with a Core 2 Duo.
The caveat is that this is technically not blessed by Microsoft, so they could derail automatic updates at any point. But that would be quite foolish, as then there would be an available botnet of Win11 PCs ready to go because no security updates can be applied easily.
There was also talk that feature updates would need to be applied manually, as opposed to being automated through normal Windows Update, but in practice they have applied as normal even to machines running “unblessed” Win11 installs on technically ineligible hardware.
For business, you can’t (or shouldn’t) do stuff like this. For home…. Absolutely fine IMO.
After I posted my comment I saw Microsoft had backtracked on their hardware requirements. I guess there were just too many folks like me who have older hardware that still works fine. So maybe Ill stick with Microsoft but only because Win11 is a free “upgrade” for current Win10 users
I don’t think they backtracked recently, unless you’re talking about what happened at the end of last year. You still technically need TPM 2.0, an Intel 8xxx or better CPU, and some other BS.
Installing on anything less is easy enough to do, even now, but MS doesn’t guarantee continued support.
So, for clients…. We can’t advise or do this. But if it’s just stuff in your house… Just upgrade to Win11 and call it a day.
I still have a few Dell Optis and Latitudes at home with 4xxx Intel chips, they run Win11 just fine even though they’re technically not blessed to do so.
My latest and greatest system has an AMD FX processor released 13 years ago so I guess it’s Linux for me after all.
But why? As I said, officially your PC won’t be blessed to run Win11, but it will run it just fine if it’s already running 10.
There are plenty of reports with people running Win11 builds on fx processors.
And as I also mentioned, we’ve run 11 on Core 2 chips, those are almost 20 years old now.
We have Win11 running on a bunch of 4xxx series Intel rigs, and those are all from 2013.
So if you just want run Linux anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that obviously, but you absolutely have the choice to run Windows still.
It depends on how persistent the *helpful* reminders to upgrade the hardware are. But its good to know it will run on even ancienter Core 2 processors as well since I have a few of those too.
There are no hardware reminders AFAIK. In many cases, you cannot upgrade the hardware to make it officially compliant anyway.
Besides, the hardware checks occur at installation, once Win11 is running there is no point in MS bothering the user, except when another feature update occurs perhaps. There is always the possibility that you’ll have to manually install feature updates in theory, but in practice so far these have come down the pipe through automated Windows Update just as they do on sanctioned machines.
MS was clearly (at least IMO) under pressure from PC manufacturers to create reasons for people to have to artificially buy new hardware (as evidenced in my mind by the fact that MS published, until fairly recently, regedit guidance on how to defeat the hardware checks at install on their own site). I don’t think they actually care what you run Win11 on, so long as you keep running current Windows and hopefully pony up for MS365, OneDrive, and all the other subscription stuff that is their bread and butter.
The truth is that PC hardware has gotten far ahead of most people’s simple daily needs, a 10 yo PC with an SSD of some sort and 8+GB RAM is good enough for the majority of users, both at home and in generic office settings.
My daily is a 2014 Camry Hyrbird, the underlying bones and suspension hardpoints date to 2001 so with 2 full rebodies in between through I think 2018. To be honest the iterative approach does not bother me. They did the same with the Corolla, 2002 – 2020 or so share the basic underbody structure. Few actual parts are individually shared and drivetrians, etc… matured over the generations. This is a daily driver, not a racecar.
That said, the S needs a full rebody and it sounds like the tech is being left behind.
I don’t think so, unless there’s some flaw that hasn’t been addressed. I’m not usually a fan of change for the sake of novelty, especially when a refresh will usually do.
If it’s cheaper for being old, it doesn’t bother me, but I wouldn’t expect to pay high prices for something already long amortized and, frankly, wasn’t amazing when new (looks sideways at Nissan Z). If it was a great platform that was enjoyable to drive and easy to repair to begin with or if it’s lighter because it’s old and hasn’t been ruined with weight to excel at the IIHS small frontal overlap tests, those are all pluses over an unproven, likely heavier and more isolated new platform with higher maintenance cost. That the GR86 is not only very much the same as the 1st gen, which is based on a Subaru platform with roots in my beloved mk1 Legacy, was all part of the appeal and it certainly gives up nothing in handling for it.
However, unless it’s a unique driving experience (like, Morgan, though they have a new platform), if I bought high end cars, it would bother me as I would expect to be paying for expensive R&D.
A nice W123 would be my choice, everything since was a step in the wrong direction direction.
123 and 126 should always be the answer.
That platform with a modern hybridized drivetrain…
Really depends on whether the platform is still competitive or not. With EVs, the battery architecture is a large part of the platform. I would say that the Model S is not remotely competitive anymore.