Quote:
|
The big thing to keep in mind is that they, (like 911s), were originally designed for very affluent buyers who could afford to drop them off at the dealer for some expensive maintainance on a regular basis. They are not good shade tree fiddle around on cars.
|
This was said in the MB 560SL thread. It's an accepted universal truth, but is it more nuanced?
This might be a stupid question. Just because a car is expensive, does it automatically mean it has higher maintenance costs?
Was it designed to have more expensive maintenance?
What if Honda overnight changed the price of an Accord to $100,000? Would this now be a $100k car that requires $100k caliber service? Would we now say, "This is a $100k car, so be prepared to maintenance that reflects the price". No.
So, what is it about an expensive car that directly translates to higher maintenance costs? Are there empirical and quantifiable differences that truly do result in higher maintenance costs? I can see a $100k performance car having racing parts that cost more. But labor should be similar. Or, maybe expensive cars are, by definition, more complex, and therefore have more repairs down the road? Are there expensive cars that are built more simply? Other things might require downstream less maintenance, like superior paint or sheet metal. After all, don't expensive things last longer?
I'm just wondering if it's not as simple as, "This was $100k new, so it will be 4x more expensive to maintain than a $25k car"