Why the fuck don't they make cars like they used to?

>Why is that necessarily correct
because it's a lot easier to sell a surviving person a car, than sell a surviving car a person.

also it's human nature to want to not die, anything else is a big malfunction.

New cars have bad bumper designs and hard to work on.

>Allowed to
>he bought a new car with warranty

Buy a shitbox. Insurance replaces it with a slightly cheaper shitbox when that happens. Insurance also replaces old cars because they get frame damage too.

And here's a tip: don't crash

It's cheaper and more economical to make "disposable products" these days, especially things like cell phones and cars that get replaced every 4 years. If they built a car to last you'd end up paying 60k+ for a 100hp FWD econobox which I'm sure wouldn't sell. If you want something almost indestructible and built to last a couple million miles, buy a semi tractor.

What kind of genetic damage must you be a victim of for this to appeal to someone?

On the other hand, every now and then a company designs an exceptional vehicle to "the last one you'll ever own" standards and sells it at a loss, especially in enthusiast-dominated market segments like motorcycles and sportscar.

The performance/weight/reliability (pick two) dilemma goes out the window for a split second

And then flies back into the window and stays there for decades until the company thinks its image is in danger again, with the help of faggots who buy new toys before their old ones can brake and sticks in the mud who swear their heavy, but bulletproof iron bricks are good enough.

>brake
fug

Probably that, but also consider this:
>Hood does not dent
>High velocity impact
>Hood connection breaks and hood itself flies back into car
>Entire front and possible back row decapitated by gigantic sheet of metal

Most hoods are now designed to crumple along with the engine block to ensure that in a head-on collision you basically have a gigantic block of steel that slows the car and acts as an armor plate to protect the passengers. Most automobile deaths are caused by either
a) shitty cars with airbags that don't deploy correctly or other technical faults, not features
b) someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt
c)The car collided in such a way that damage couldn't be blocked by the car's design (folding around trees, objects through windows, etc)

Yeah, you pay more, but in theory insurance should cover damage from accidents, and you'll stay alive long enough to actually collect.

Except more often than not fatalities in crashes are suffered by the victim, not the aggressor in a crash. It's never the drunk guy who dies in an accident, it's always the family in the sedan he T-bones while he's running a red light.

>If you crash, it's your fault, not the car's fault.
Whose fault is it when you're driving along one day with your wife and kids and out of nowhere bubba the drunk slams into you with his big lifted diesel truck? If you have a car that that was designed primarily with chassis rigidity and strength at the cost of passenger safety, it would be 100% your fault when your entire family is killed because of your dumbass choice to drive a car like that