Both my cars are 2002 models, bought in 2001. Minor, occasional repairs and they’re running fine, the Saturn with >250k miles, and the Cavalier ~200k. I figure I’ll wait until maintenance costs approach a new car payment before replacing one or both of them.
I haven’t paid attention to cars for almost 30 years now and must say it’s encouraging to hear they can run this long now. Back in the day, I recall they seemed designed to fall apart after five years, just about the time they were paid off.
I drive a 2000 and a 2003. They seem fine. ???
I have a 2004, which I bought in 2006, so I’m average! Almost 120K miles. I see no point in buying a new car, as mine is perfectly fine, and I love it. It’s a Mazda 3. As long as it’s reliable and gets me where I want to go, why would I replace it? No non-maintenance repairs yet.
Volvo 740 is 28 years old, the Toyota Cressida 25, the Mercedes S 420 is a teenager at 18 and the Honda is only 8.
The Honda PC is a youthful 17 compared to the 650 BSA at venerable 45.
Yes, they all run.
When I first owned cars you didn’t expect them to reach 100 thousand, and parts/service for 10 year old cars was sometimes hard to find. My car is 14 years old, with 95,000 miles. I don’t expect to own another.
I would bet the average age of cars varies substantially depending on location.
In many parts of the country the climate is relatively benign. Mild winters mean the engine isn’t subjected to brutal cold starts with a prolonged period of mixture enrichment (this contaminates the crankcase oil with raw and partially-combusted gasoline) and warm up (adds water to the oil), so the engine lasts longer. And salt use is minimal or non-existent, so the body/paint last far longer.
The opposite is true up north. Long, cold, salty winters are tough on the drivetrain and on the body. I sold a 2003 Maxima last year; the engine was still OK (burning just a bit of oil), but the body was starting to show cancer in a few spots.
I had a Saturn 14 years before it got too expensive to fix. Our Honda is 9 and our truck is 14, but my Prius is a baby at 4 1/2.
I think the recession did stretch out replacement cycles - I remember reading that mechanics did well as people repaired instead of replaced. Even more good news is the relative increase in fuel efficiency and safety increases as the car getting replaced is older.
I drive a '98 and an '03, both Hondas, both in great shape. The transmission in the 98 was getting a little balky, but I smoothed it out with some Redline and Lubegard. Love not having car payments, but sometimes I wish I had an excuse to go out and blow money on a new car. 
My daily driver is a 2003 Hyundai Elantra Hatchback. Has about 220,000 miles on it, still mechanically sound, all the various electronic bits on it still work. The body is starting to go though, with multiple rust patches. Gas mileage average about 28mpg.
I don’t really know where I stand. I have a 2012 Ford Fiesta with about 30,000 miles on it so that would make it 2 years old. I also have a 1994 Ford F-150 with about 130,000 miles (I think) so that would be 20 years old. And I have a 1984 Buick Regal with about 33,500 miles on it which would be 30 years old (it was in storage for 20). I don’t know if that makes me above average or what.
My '07 only has 28k on it, looks brand new and is the #1 rated make for initial quality so I imagine it’ll be in my garage for many years to come.
Your '07 what?
That program was a complete joke and had nothing to do with getting old cars off the road, but about getting new cars off the showroom floor.
During that program, I would prowl around the junkyards and see perfectly good cars, ruined on purpose, so GM execs could get million-dollar bonuses. :rolleyes:
I did get some nice, useable stuff off nice cars. Also damn near the only time I’ve ever seen a brace of Nissans in the junkyard.
Mostly Ford Explorers, as I recall, which tells you something. :rolleyes:
I agree that new cars are much better than old ones, in general. Our newest car is a 2003; well, actually, we bought two new cars that year, both Suzuki Aerios. One has nearly 200K miles on it, and has been as good a car as anyone could ask for. The other has about 150K, and after it got into a wreck and was fixed, it’s never quite been the same.
My previous car was a Dodge Omni, and when I sold it at 235K, it was still going strong.
But my 1972 Duster only made it to 176K before it was tired enough that I got rid of it.
We owned a red '64 Rambler convertible for a while and I spent a lot of dough fixing it up. It was a lovely lovely car, but, in every way except charisma, it was inferior to the worst car (Chevy Sonic? 
) you could buy today.
I have a 2005 Civic with a 110K miles on it. I drive it for the sole reason that I’m emotionally attached to it. I’m going to keep it even though we’re upgrading next year.
i gather from talking and hearing from people is that, if something is not broken, dont fix or replace it.
i also have been considering in getting a new vehicle, but there is that note and higher insurance premiums. that is the only - con - towards in getting a newer vehicle ( at least for me )
the newest vehicle ( i own ) is an 01 truck and everything it had was not going good for it. so i replaced the engine and transmission ( also refurnished computer ). and at the moment, its running good now …
but i am saving up in getting my other vehicle on the road ( which is 30 plus years old ) and drive it as my daily driver. at least, that one is a bit more mechanic friendly than these newer make(s) and model(s) …
but anything nowadays, has its pros and cons to it =/
Your average car is about 17 years old, so way above the average. My average car is 14 years old so I’m right there with you.