$75 truck driven for 38 years

[Socmonkey]

http://www.ksdk.com/story/life/2015/01/02/man-drives-75-truck-to-work-for-38-years/21188051/

[chuckaluck]

Great video.  I think most of us on MMM have a bit of this in us.  Thanx for sharing!

[Paul der Krake]

"Sportel's one extravagance: four oil changes a year. He figures he's spent fewer than $1000 on repairs during nearly four decades of use."

Baller.

[arebelspy]

Haha, awesome, I love it.

[DesireeD]

That is one badass dude! It's nice to see that his daughter gets him.

[Davids]

How does it pass state inspection?

[Rural]

How does it pass state inspection?

"State inspection?"

[Sid Hoffman]

I think it's awesome any time you can nurse an old machine into getting its job done for a crazy long period of time.  That said... this is the modern world.  He's got no seat belts, no muffler, no emissions system, and probably gets about 8mpg.  Fuel usage has probably been about $55,000 adjusted for inflation based on my math and the 300,000 miles he says its got on it.  There's a point where old cars should be retired to show & display use only and not registered as regular street cars.

We can't say we're tough on greenhouse gasses and air pollution but then exempt the worst users and polluters from the law entirely.  I think cars over 25 years old should be required to be re-registered as show & display, which under NHTSA rules allows a maximum of 2500 on-road miles per year.  I think that's still plenty fair to fans of classic cars.

[Rural]

I think it's awesome any time you can nurse an old machine into getting its job done for a crazy long period of time.  That said... this is the modern world.  He's got no seat belts, no muffler, no emissions system, and probably gets about 8mpg.  Fuel usage has probably been about $55,000 adjusted for inflation based on my math and the 300,000 miles he says its got on it.  There's a point where old cars should be retired to show & display use only and not registered as regular street cars.

We can't say we're tough on greenhouse gasses and air pollution but then exempt the worst users and polluters from the law entirely.  I think cars over 25 years old should be required to be re-registered as show & display, which under NHTSA rules allows a maximum of 2500 on-road miles per year.  I think that's still plenty fair to fans of classic cars.

If we accept that gasoline burned is the limiting reactant in the production of CO2 / other pollutants from gasoline engines, then my 34 year old Tercel does less environmental damage than most newer gasoline-fueled vehicles. Maybe not most hybrids, but it gets far better fuel mileage at speed than many of them, too.

[MoneyCat]

Great story.  I plan to keep driving my car until it dies, so that's going to be a very, very long time.  I hope I make it 38 years like that guy.

[eyePod]

I think it's awesome any time you can nurse an old machine into getting its job done for a crazy long period of time.  That said... this is the modern world.  He's got no seat belts, no muffler, no emissions system, and probably gets about 8mpg.  Fuel usage has probably been about $55,000 adjusted for inflation based on my math and the 300,000 miles he says its got on it.  There's a point where old cars should be retired to show & display use only and not registered as regular street cars.

We can't say we're tough on greenhouse gasses and air pollution but then exempt the worst users and polluters from the law entirely.  I think cars over 25 years old should be required to be re-registered as show & display, which under NHTSA rules allows a maximum of 2500 on-road miles per year.  I think that's still plenty fair to fans of classic cars.

Let's not make laws that focus on the outliers and stick to ones with actual impact.

[Mr.Chipper77]

I love old trucks! Had an old 3 on the tree ford and bet that thing Is still running. So cool!

[ender]

This is awesome.

[libertarian4321]

I think it's awesome any time you can nurse an old machine into getting its job done for a crazy long period of time.  That said... this is the modern world.  He's got no seat belts, no muffler, no emissions system, and probably gets about 8mpg.  Fuel usage has probably been about $55,000 adjusted for inflation based on my math and the 300,000 miles he says its got on it.  There's a point where old cars should be retired to show & display use only and not registered as regular street cars.

We can't say we're tough on greenhouse gasses and air pollution but then exempt the worst users and polluters from the law entirely.  I think cars over 25 years old should be required to be re-registered as show & display, which under NHTSA rules allows a maximum of 2500 on-road miles per year.  I think that's still plenty fair to fans of classic cars.

Nothin' says "land of the free" like having government bureaucrats tell you what you can and can not do every step of the way...

What's next, regulating the number of toilet paper squares you can use for every wipe?

Using 4 squares is wasteful and damaging to the environment, folks.  Three is better.  Two is better yet.  If you break through and get some on your fingers, be proud that you did so in the name of "the environment."

Mother Government knows best, people.  Bow down to your masters...

[Gone Fishing]

How does it pass state inspection?

It would be exempt in my state due to year model.

[Sid Hoffman]

Nothin' says "land of the free" like having government bureaucrats tell you what you can and can not do every step of the way...

What's next, regulating the number of toilet paper squares you can use for every wipe?

Using 4 squares is wasteful and damaging to the environment, folks.  Three is better.  Two is better yet.  If you break through and get some on your fingers, be proud that you did so in the name of "the environment."

Mother Government knows best, people.  Bow down to your masters...

I like freedom as much as the next guy, but there's some point where you need to say that once a pickup truck is grossly out of compliance with modern safety and air quality standards, it should be removed from the ability to register as a standard street vehicle.  The level of pollution that an old clunker puts out is something like 500 times as high as a modern car.  It's so high that it's crazy to just do nothing about it.

If you have such old vehicles required to register as "Show & Display" vehicles with strict annual mileage limits and a higher registration cost, say, an extra $250-500/year, that will not stop real car collectors from enjoying their collector cars at all, but will help get genuine clunkers off the road quicker.  The collector cars meanwhile are largely unaffected as they are either de-registered from road use for the true museum cars, or simply comply with the mileage limits and pay the modest extra registration cost.

[Jack]

I think cars over 25 years old should be required to be re-registered as show & display, which under NHTSA rules allows a maximum of 2500 on-road miles per year.  I think that's still plenty fair to fans of classic cars.

Screw that! I just bought a 1990 Mazda Miata that is now (just barely) old enough to no longer require emissions tests and qualify for a "hobby antique" license plate. However, it's got only 80K miles, drives like it's new (and I am not exaggerating about that), and -- except for the pop-up headlights, tape player and lack of a passenger-side airbag -- is basically the same as the Miatas Mazda was building all the way to 2005. It even gets better fuel economy than a Miata that's only 10 years old (which isn't surprising, since it's got a slightly lower-displacement version of the same damn engine!), and would certainly pass emissions if I were required to test it.

It's easily good enough to be a perfectly good daily driver (which is fortunate, since in fact it is my daily driver). Things like 80+ MPH on the freeway, stop-and-go traffic, and bad weather are no problem at all. I can treat it exactly as if it were a new car.

[Forcus]

I like freedom as much as the next guy, but there's some point where you need to say that once a pickup truck is grossly out of compliance with modern safety and air quality standards, it should be removed from the ability to register as a standard street vehicle.  The level of pollution that an old clunker puts out is something like 500 times as high as a modern car.  It's so high that it's crazy to just do nothing about it.

If you have such old vehicles required to register as "Show & Display" vehicles with strict annual mileage limits and a higher registration cost, say, an extra $250-500/year, that will not stop real car collectors from enjoying their collector cars at all, but will help get genuine clunkers off the road quicker.  The collector cars meanwhile are largely unaffected as they are either de-registered from road use for the true museum cars, or simply comply with the mileage limits and pay the modest extra registration cost.

I definitely get where you are coming from but the real question (as far as pollution) is the net effect that an old polluting "clunker" has on the environment. They might be polluting 500x what a modern vehicle does, but likely they are not being utilized at the same rate as modern vehicles. I realize this is somewhat regional but on a daily basis it is hard for me to find any vehicles on the road older than mid 90's. It is just a non-issue (here). I will grant you that in other places where vehicles don't start rusting away 3 years after they are built, this may be a somewhat different situation.

As far as I am concerned, safety of occupants is the occupants' responsibility and choice, not the government's. As far as safety to other people / travelers, IMO, the ONLY exception to self-management is where safety is so clearly restricted by the old design AND easily modifiable, that there is no reason ALL vehicles should not be required to retrofit. Example, single master cylinders. My dad was driving one of my trucks before (1962 International) and a wheel cylinder cracked. Lost ALL brakes because of a single point of failure. Could have been a fatal result. Most older vehicles also have very poor headlight and taillight brightness. Most can retrofit brighter but more efficient (and therefore safe to wiring) LED lights very easily.  A lesser example, bias ply tires, lock ring rims, both of which are absolutely obsolete (barring very rare applications where no retrofits are available).

[Jack]

As far as I am concerned, safety of occupants is the occupants' responsibility and choice, not the government's. As far as safety to other people / travelers, IMO, the ONLY exception to self-management is where safety is so clearly restricted by the old design AND easily modifiable, that there is no reason ALL vehicles should not be required to retrofit. Example, single master cylinders. My dad was driving one of my trucks before (1962 International) and a wheel cylinder cracked. Lost ALL brakes because of a single point of failure. Could have been a fatal result. Most older vehicles also have very poor headlight and taillight brightness. Most can retrofit brighter but more efficient (and therefore safe to wiring) LED lights very easily.  A lesser example, bias ply tires, lock ring rims, both of which are absolutely obsolete (barring very rare applications where no retrofits are available).

I agree with that in principle. However, who decides which safety (or efficiency, or whatver) upgrades are required for which vehicles? Should we create a whole new division of the NHTSA to do it? Should we make manufacturers responsible for re-engineering cars they already sold? Considering how few 25-year-old cars are still on the road to begin with, is the effort and expense worth it?

[eil]

What on earth are you smoking?

This is not mustachian. This is almost as unmustachian as you can get.

Read the story. It's not a work truck. For 38 years, he drove it across town for his work commute every single day. If this thing gets double-digit miles per gallon I'll eat my hat. And I won't even mention how much he must hate the environment. The price difference between even a brand-new fuel-efficient commuter car and the $75 that he paid it is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money he wasted fuelling it up.

No wonder it took him 38 years to retire.

[arebelspy]

What on earth are you smoking?

This is not mustachian. This is almost as unmustachian as you can get.

Read the story. It's not a work truck. For 38 years, he drove it across town for his work commute every single day. If this thing gets double-digit miles per gallon I'll eat my hat. And I won't even mention how much he must hate the environment. The price difference between even a brand-new fuel-efficient commuter car and the $75 that he paid it is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money he wasted fuelling it up.

No wonder it took him 38 years to retire.

How much pollution would have been created if he bought a new car manufactured for him?  It's not a zero sum game.  :)

[Forcus]

I agree with that in principle. However, who decides which safety (or efficiency, or whatver) upgrades are required for which vehicles? Should we create a whole new division of the NHTSA to do it? Should we make manufacturers responsible for re-engineering cars they already sold? Considering how few 25-year-old cars are still on the road to begin with, is the effort and expense worth it?

Well those are good and pertinent questions that I don't have the answer to. In Illinois (except Chicago? St. Louis area?) we don't even have inspections. I'm neutral on it. I see far more ill-maintained newer cars (less than 10 years old) than older "clunker" types. Very common to see newer cars with underinflated tires, very worn shocks, very low tread, and brakes totally worn down to the backing plates. People do the 72 month plan for less than a couple hundred a month but can't come up with the money for routine and expected repairs. In my mind those are much worse cases than a handful of 30-50 year old vehicles on the road (which are easy to spot and avoid if they look like death traps). I'm anti inspection because it appears to me that very few accidents around here have anything to do with maintenance, the state is already broke, and it's one more way for gov't to intervene in my life. But I'm also pro inspection because apparently people can't be trusted to keep their stuff in working order and that affects me and my safety (but likely to a very minimal extent).

[Jack]

Read the story. It's not a work truck. For 38 years, he drove it across town for his work commute every single day. If this thing gets double-digit miles per gallon I'll eat my hat. And I won't even mention how much he must hate the environment. The price difference between even a brand-new fuel-efficient commuter car and the $75 that he paid it is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money he wasted fuelling it up.

The owner estimates the truck has about 300,000 miles on it, some of which were the responsibility of the previous owner. That means the guy drove it at most 8K miles / year, and probably a lot less than that.

Besides, it doesn't sound like he was specifically trying to nurse it along, but rather (by dumb luck) ended up with the outlier on the reliability curve. If he maintained the replacement vehicle with the same cavalier attitude, he might not be so lucky and might have had to replace it more than once.

[gimp]

"It just becomes a part of you," the proud owner says. "I don't know how to explain it."

I laugh when people say that their car doesn't describe them. Sure as fuck does. If you treat a car right, it becomes part of you - just like your computer, your socket set and impact wrench, your oscilloscope; your tools that get you through the day. This is pretty awesome. (And people driving just any car to get from point A to point B - yes, your car describes you as the kind of person who doesn't care about cars. Take that for irony.)

Though I am curious as to the guy's costs. Oil changes four times a year are all well and good, but what about coolant, brakes and rotors and brake fluid, tires, various bushings and gaskets, fuel filter, engine air filter, carb cleaning, valves, spark plugs and wiring to them, random pieces of the electrical system, tire rotation and wheel alignment, various other wearable and consumable parts, standard inspections and checkups? Even if the guy is handy, he's gotta be at least paying for parts and access to some specialized tools. No matter how great the car is, wearable parts wear. I wouldn't be surprised if his total costs were next to nothing - some people have all the luck - but I'm still curious.

[bzzzt]

Sid Hoffman: How about you go spin wrenches for a while and become amazed at the newer (OBDII, 1996+) that can run horribly for a long time without throwing emissions codes. It's so bad that it's almost a joke. Most people don't realize their car is running bad until the light pops on or it dies. You can't fix stupid, but our legislators do make it cost more for everyone due to people being too busy/lazy to care about how their "new" car is maintained. I've never had a need for tire pressure sensors because I know how to use a $.99 air gauge or even my eyes. A whole lot more emissions is created by smug people driving newer cars with under inflated tires than is created by those still driving antique vehicles (classified as >30 years old in most locales). The sensors were mandated for MY2008 and newer vehicles and about every time I hop into one, it has a tire light on because "Those sensors are expensive! I'd rather just forget about the light."

Forcus: No inspections in Chicago either.

Though I am curious as to the guy's costs. Oil changes four times a year are all well and good, but what about coolant, brakes and rotors and brake fluid, tires, various bushings and gaskets, fuel filter, engine air filter, carb cleaning, valves, spark plugs and wiring to them, random pieces of the electrical system, tire rotation and wheel alignment, various other wearable and consumable parts, standard inspections and checkups? Even if the guy is handy, he's gotta be at least paying for parts and access to some specialized tools. No matter how great the car is, wearable parts wear. I wouldn't be surprised if his total costs were next to nothing - some people have all the luck - but I'm still curious.

Hah, there weren't nearly the need for as many specialized tools back then. A truck of that vintage, it doesn't even have metric bolts unless the replacement parts used them. You can about rebuild the thing with a set of standard wrenches, sockets, screw drivers, and feeler gauges. Anything bigger and you can rent at most auto parts stores.

As far as tires, you can easily mount 14/15" tires with a cheaper Harbor Freight mounter, I do. Hell, you can do it with a pair of pry bars and a 3lb hammer (to break the bead) if you were really feeling ambitious. About the alignment, you don't need fancy tools. I align my race car (sees up to 145MPH) with a digital level and a piece of angle aluminum to set the camber, eyeball the caster, and a pair of toe plates/tape measures ($60) to set the toe. I've aligned beaters using 2x4s/tape measure and then taken it in for a free alignment check and it was within spec.

Basically, everything you listed is routine maintenance and would have to be applied on any car.

[greenmimama]

What on earth are you smoking?

This is not mustachian. This is almost as unmustachian as you can get.

Read the story. It's not a work truck. For 38 years, he drove it across town for his work commute every single day. If this thing gets double-digit miles per gallon I'll eat my hat. And I won't even mention how much he must hate the environment. The price difference between even a brand-new fuel-efficient commuter car and the $75 that he paid it is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money he wasted fuelling it up.

No wonder it took him 38 years to retire.

How much pollution would have been created if he bought a new car manufactured for him?  It's not a zero sum game.  :)

Yes, or if he bought a newer one every few years like lots of Americans do, that is a LOT of metal and plastic in the landfills, this is quite green, just not in the way you first think, like MPG and emissions.

[gimp]

Basically, everything you listed is routine maintenance and would have to be applied on any car.

Of course. That's why I'm wondering if he paid for it, did it himself, or managed to somehow avoid needing most of it.

I've never had a need for tire pressure sensors because I know how to use a $.99 air gauge or even my eyes.

Eh, now I think you're getting a bit into luddite territory. My 2000 model has tire pressure sensors. (Not very good ones, to be honest.) Very smooth car. I can have one tire at 20 PSI and the others at 30 and not notice - it rides the same. Looks the same, too, with a simple visual inspection. It's nice for the car to tell me, hey, yo shit is whack. I'd rather know I caught a nail when the tire is still holding air, not when it's nearly empty. I've never had to replace the sensors. Turning the alert off (after either fixing the tire, or more likely, checking that everything is completely okay and the sensor glitched a little due to just recently having mucked with wheels, or due to a small leak) is a press of a button.

With that said, I know a guy with a porsche who needed his TPMS sensors replaced - all four. Because the batteries were dead. Oh, and because the batteries can't be swapped. No, wait, it gets better. He got OEM replacements - $150 each. With labor, it came out to a thousand bucks. Granted, he tracks the car and probably would like accurate real-time reporting, but, come on, who the hell designs a $150 (x4) wearable part with no battery replacement possible?

every time I hop into one, it has a tire light on because "Those sensors are expensive! I'd rather just forget about the light."

Either that's a bit of an exaggeration or you drive with a lot of stupid people. Yeah, I've heard of people driving with the oil light on, too. Dumb ass thing to do unless the car's a complete beater.

[bzzzt]

Eh, now I think you're getting a bit into luddite territory.

I did just admit to being able to dismount/mount a tire with pry bars and a hammer...

... or you drive with a lot of stupid people.

Part of why I come off as a Luddite. I think being able to check the fluids, checking the tire pressure, and knowing how to jumpstart a car should be part of passing the driving exam. We'd see about a 25% reduction in traffic at least. The last two GUYS I've helped with dead batteries couldn't find the hood release...

[alsoknownasDean]

That's pretty good considering paying that much a week in payments is often seen as normal outside of here.

Chances are working at a farm supply place he may have needed to use the truck as a truck from time to time. No point using a fancy truck to haul shit.

[Forcus]

Hah, there weren't nearly the need for as many specialized tools back then. A truck of that vintage, it doesn't even have metric bolts unless the replacement parts used them. You can about rebuild the thing with a set of standard wrenches, sockets, screw drivers, and feeler gauges. Anything bigger and you can rent at most auto parts stores.

This just brought back a funny memory. I had a 1951 IH truck maybe 15 years ago (I'm 33 now). Couldn't get the generator to charge the battery. Messed around with it and found it had a mechanical voltage regulator. Looked it up on the computer and sometimes the contacts get fouled and a matchbook cover can be used to tune them up a bit. Did it and it worked, 10 minutes and a matchbook.

One of my other cars has flickering lights and it's totally annoying me. Could be the alternator, the internal / integral voltage regulator, or one of the miriad computers, miles of wiring, etc. Wish I could fix it with a matchbook (but I love the A/C and ability to top 45 mph vs. the IH).

[gimp]

Flickering lights aren't fun. Shop manuals usually have a diagnostic procedure for that stuff though.

Speaking of which, a shop where I do alignment and rotation noticed one of my headlights was out. The bulb was quoted $5, the work $49.99. Fifty bucks to replace a bulb. I had never done my own headlight bulbs before (previous shop did it for free, just charging for the bulb, before I moved) so I cracked open the shop manual and figured it out in about 20 minutes. Now I know how to do it, five minutes of work tops. Fifty bucks my ass.

[bzzzt]

One of my other cars has flickering lights and it's totally annoying me. Could be the alternator, the internal / integral voltage regulator, or one of the miriad computers, miles of wiring, etc. Wish I could fix it with a matchbook (but I love the A/C and ability to top 45 mph vs. the IH).

Which lights and what kind of car? If it's the volt. reg., you should be able to check quick with a DVM.

[GetItRight]

Read the story. It's not a work truck. For 38 years, he drove it across town for his work commute every single day. If this thing gets double-digit miles per gallon I'll eat my hat. And I won't even mention how much he must hate the environment. The price difference between even a brand-new fuel-efficient commuter car and the $75 that he paid it is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money he wasted fuelling it up.

Better start eating. A small lightweight 2wd truck like that with a small engine and manual trans certainly gets double digit MPG. In my experience I'd wager about 15 MPG mixed around town driving and around 20 MPG on the highway. Maybe higher, depends on gearing. I've got  nearly 20 MPG out of full size big block cars with no overdrive, and high teens out of much larger and heavier 4x4 trucks. It's not rocket science. Compact cars in the 60s were getting 30+ MPG and were much larger than compact cars on the market today.

So compare this $75 truck at 15 MPG average to a new Chevy Cruze Eco at $20k and 30 MPG average. 170,000 miles is your ROI point, assuming neither vehicle needs repairs and maintenance costs (wear items) are similar. The new car will likely need some expensive repairs by 100l-150k miles. Electronics, emissions, computers, etc. are not simple or cheap for anyone to fix with basic hand tools quickly and easily. Real world the ROI would be pushed out farther, maybe never reaching ROI depending on repair costs. Also factor that the old truck has wear items that will last far longer than the new car, as tie rods, ball joints, king pins, etc. are all  greasable and serviceable. New cars are sealed for life and that inability to grease and lubricate components means the life of those undersized by bean counter components is shortened over typical expected life previously. Expensive and complex repairs on the new vehicle vs cheap and simple repairs on the old vehicle mean that the new vehicle has a much shorter economically viable life than the old one.