Preferences

That still begs the question. Why are their parts better?

Hondas are known for their reliability. If you don't crash it or trade it in, a Honda can easily go 200-300,000 miles and last for 20+ years. #3 and #4 on the "most stolen cars list" are the Toyota Camry and Corolla, which are the other cars most known for their reliability.

If you're looking to steal a car built before 1997 (17 years ago), there are relatively few other makes that are still on the road. Cars from American automakers rarely make it past 100,000 miles (about 10 years of normal driving) in workable condition; there are simply fewer cars out there to steal.

That sounds awfully low for American automakers. What exactly happens at 100,000 miles?

Generally cars will go through their first big part replacement cycle between 60-100k, these are wearing parts that come to an end at that age. That can cost a couple of thousands but that's just part of normal maintenance and will be 10x cheaper than buying a new car. These Hondas and Corollas sure as hell go through this phase and the next replacement cycle happens maybe another 100k later.

It's my impression that even these cheap little cars in Europe (such as Fiat Punto) can easily go 200,000 miles if only serviced so 100k sounds a bit odd. I've also assumed that the appeal to American cars with their big blocks is because they're built to last and eat hundreds of thousands of miles; this assumption might be outdated, however.

The 100,000 mile cliff is disappearing now. Build quality of American cars rose rapidly in the mid-2000s - for example, Ford repair rate declined nearly 50 percent between 2004 and 2009[1].

I remember reading somewhere that this was driven by accounting improvements that arose from the Enron scandal but I can't find the source now.

[1] http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-reduces-warranty-costs-by-1...

I would guess it's not that their parts are better, but because they are a popular car so there is a larger market of people needing spare parts for that model.
Popularity, longevity of service of the vehicle, and reasonably priced genuine replacement parts all helped to create a market for stolen cars and the parts they provided.
Not better as such, but have more value due to higher demand. Both cars have sold well so there are more out there that need repair from time to time and there are other models out there with the same (or compatible) parts, not just other civic/accord variants.

The age of a model can make a difference too when breaking for parts: newer cars will be covered by warranty, those not long past warranty are likely to be more reliable than those a couple of years older. After a few more years the value drops off because people will start to replace more than repair, so demand for parts falls.

Are you saying that they're stolen for the marketability of their parts because there are more that are stolen?
The marketability of their parts means that there are a lot of legally-owned Hondas which, of course, need parts replaced at times. And because everyone knows there are a lot of Hondas, the owners know it's easy to find a second-hand part from a junkyard or ebay to save money and thus for Hondas there exists a particularly lively market for old parts.

I always buy second-hand parts whenever it makes sense. It doesn't work that well with less popular cars, obviously. Either there aren't second-hand replacements that are easy to find or they're still too expensive (because of said scarcity...) so it makes sense to buy a new replacement part with warranty.

I guess this is one of the times where begging the question is not a fallacy.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal