The average age of vehicles is trending up because cars are more reliable and just last longer. It used to be an event to roll over a 5-digit odometer. Now, 250K miles is just getting broken in.
One 1998 Range Rover here with 130,000 miles on the clock, the other with 270,000 - and the latter did 100,000 miles in about six or seven years since I got it.
There's a guy on my forum with an ex-police Range Rover the same age as mine that is now considerably north of 400,000 miles.
Sure. Those are examples of cars that post-date many of the significant longevity improvements (galvanizing, better primers, electronic fuel injection, ABS) that are helping to drive up the average age. You can think of that 1998 Range Rover as offsetting one 2022 car to result in the average of just over 12 years.
Our 2005 CR-V and 2015 LEAF also offset each other to arrive at the average age.
Longevity improvements introduced 25 years ago pull the average age up far more strongly than improvements introduced only 10 years ago and an improvement introduced just last year has an effect indistinguishable from zero.
Most rusted, or were discarded. They were forced to die.
There were loads of cars I, and my friends inherited, because the car was "old", a repair was $500, and the car was only worth $1k (this is the 80s, so 80s figures...), and the car had a tiny rust spot or two.
Yet that repair done at home, with a friend, could be done for 50 bucks and parts from a wrecker.
This is not survivor bias, these cars were in great shape, but instead for appearance sake, and "estimated value of the car" sake, people would throw it away.
I think there is likely a more throw it away culture overall now than in the 70s.
Cars started to last significantly longer when body rust-proofing improved (mostly in the 80s for American cars), when electronic fuel injection reduced fuel wash in the engines, and when anti-collision tech reduced the number of write offs of lower value used cars (ABS being perhaps the single biggest one, which prevents a lot of $2000 accidents from taking a $2500 used car off the road).
A carbureted, unprotected mild-steel car built in 1959, 1969, or 1979 was much less likely to be on the road 23 years later than a fuel-injected, galvanized steel 1999 model is to be on the road today.
We've mostly negated rust proofing improvements by using road salt that's more effective at getting everywhere and using salt in more places (you'll notice that the white crusted post-snowstorm hellscape was not a thing in the 90s or '00s). OEMs have gotten good at using plastic cosmetic trim to cover the initial rust points (wheel arches, rocker panels, etc, etc,) so that instead of needing attention after 10yr the problem can be ignored until a much later date when the rust finally makes it out from behind that plastic (and your car starts failing safety inspection if you live in an applicable state).
Agreed overall, though I think that last sentence is probably a very good thing.
If OEMs improve their product so that it does not require an expensive cosmetic rust repair at 10 years, but instead the cosmetic problem is hidden so the car lasts an extra 5-7 years before becoming a throwaway product, the consumer has a net win overall.
