Interestingly enough, the real changes in that sort of thing have been more recent, with advances in engine control, and especially in motor oil.
Today’s oil is drastically better than it used to be. Garden-variety oil like say… Quaker State or Valvoline is generally considered better than top of the line synthetic oil say… 20 years ago.
It’s not uncommon nowadays for an older car to have the rest of the car fall apart around an engine that still runs like a top, and the combination of electronic engine control and much improved motor oil is responsible for it, IMO.
Beyond that, cars seem to be more durable than they used to be. I have an 9 year old Dodge Dakota pickup that still has shiny paint, an intact un-broken headliner, an uncracked dashboard, and the seats are still in good shape, if a bit grungy. I have 78k on the vehicle, and it doesn’t burn oil, leak any fluids or otherwise give me any trouble, except that one of the seat-belt sensors shorted out and the warning light stays on constantly now. Most of the non-mileage related things seem to be working much better than they did on previous cars I’ve owned.
When did two car families become common? So many older houses have one car garages. My impression was that one car families were standard in the 1950s–as the wife stayed home and didn’t need a car.
Yeah, one of the things I found interesting when I was more into air cooled VW’s is that back in the day when they were new, an engine rebuild every 50-100k was pretty much routine maintenance. Sometime in the 90’s, though, the engines just quit wearing out and there’s plenty of air cooled VW engines running around with 200+k these days. The engines were still rebuilt to essentially the same specs so the drastic increase in longevity is mostly attributed to the better oil.
It might be accurate if you restrict to new car buyers. My family got its first car, a '41 Dodge in 1953. It died 5 months later. The second, a '49 Chevvy, last until 1962. Towards the end, I hung a weight on the end of the column stick to prevent its unfortunate habit of popping out of third gear. The next car was a '54 Ford for which my father paid $125 and I ended up driving till the engine fell out (on one end; amazingly I was able to pull over to the curb, although it left a gouge in the street) in 1968. Then I bought my first new car, a Volvo, which I sold two years later as I was going to Europe for a year. I bought a second Volvo in Europe which I had shipped home (the price included free shipping provided I took it to Goteborg, which I did) and drove it till it started falling apart in 1982. I drove used cars for 8 years (2 kids in college) and then bought a new Honda in 1990 that I drove until 2007 and then bought a second Honda that is now 7 years old. I do not expect to buy another car.
But people who bought new cars did tend to replace them after three years in those bygone days. But most people in our lower middle class could not imagine buying a new car. One uncle of mine gave a Caddy dealer a check for $5000. But the endorsement said it was payment in full for the model he wanted with the accessories he wanted. If the dealer signed it, it was binding. He signed.
50s cars in the UK were mostly not great. At the luxury end, Alvis, Aston Martin, Bristol, they were great, but cars for Mr Salesrep were pretty poor, and those were the ones that the workers bought at three years old. At ten years most cars were rusty and knackered.
In the 70s the Labour government introduced pay restraint. This made employers look to alternative ways to reward employees, and there was a boom in company cars, mostly leased on a three year deal. At the same time, encouraged by the Japanese, car manufacturers were getting their act together and making better cars.
In the 80s and 90s company car tax had removed the incentive for company cars, but the three year pattern stayed with us in various company and personal leasing schemes and for most car loans, although it is usually cheaper to borrow from a bank as an unsecured loan. It is still the case that auction houses have many excellent ex-company cars at very good prices. They may have 75 or 100 thousand miles on them, but will usually be well maintained and good for twice that.
My car (large family estate) was just such a car - I bought it at three years old, for less than half the new price. It is still running well, with no sign of rust, ten years on. It’s current value is probably only as scrap however, as it is seen as a ‘gas guzzler’, and the insurance for any younger driver would be extortionate.
A lot of people still get a new car every 3 years. And by “get,” I mean lease, not buy.
Can we throw them into the same bucket as those that used to buy new every 3 years when comparing or are they really very different?
The popularity of leasing has also made buying used a much more appealing option. The attendant mileage restrictions and incentives to keep the car in excellent condition combined with the greater longevity of the average car of today likely has caused many people to buy used/certified pre-owned when their 1950s selves would have chosen new.
As far as style changes - as much as we like to bemoan the fact that every car looks alike nowadays, it does mean that to the casual observer, your 3 year old Civic won’t look appreciably different than the new one on the lot. Heck, a 10 year old Civic won’t look that different if the exterior is in good condition.* The shape of the sheet metal is only one factor in that. Color is another. 10 years ago, your choices were black, white, gray, beige, dark blue, and dark red. Today, your choices are black, white, gray, beige, dark blue, and dark red. Yes, there are exceptions, but it’s not likely that a 10 year old car will stick out like a sore thumb because it’s some color that just isn’t done any more.
I did a little google image searching after I wrote that and realized that the Civic was kind of a bad example, as the new ones are noticeably swoopier than the older ones. Still, that 2004 Civic doesn’t look old/dated. It just looks kind of neutral.