It is true that cars today, for the most part are of far better quality, and can easily go 80k if maintained regularly, and often much longer. However, for most manufacturers, once you get past 60-80K, the recommended maintenance becomes much more expensive...and at the same time as the value of the car is dropping.
If nothing major goes wrong, you'll be OK, and come out ahead financially. However, if something major does go wrong after 4 -5 years..unless you have considerable mechanical ability, and the necessary tools, then your car is essentially worthless, and you are faced with having to put several thousand $$ into something that has no value, and then the very next day, somthing else, completely unrelated, and very expensive, could also go wrong.
The average car of the last 3-4 years has MORE computing power than the Apollo space capsule..and you can't fix them..you just have to suck it up and put in a new one..and shall we talk about catalytic converters, or struts, or replacing calipers after maybe 5 sets of brake pads..
I'm just saying that an argument can be made for getting a new car every three to four years..yes..you have a payment, but you have basically no service costs....anything goes wrong, it's fixed no charge
The new lubricants are part of it... But there’s more to it. It’s the tighter machining tolerances, better materials, better science throughout. Pretty much anything made in the last ten years will last much, much longer than even the finest cars from 30 or 40 years ago. It used to be that 100,000 miles was about the end of life for most cars. Nowadays that’s literally -nothing-. A fairly recent vehicle with 150,000 miles can expect another 150,000 without a likely major service. No problem.
My 2006 Jeep Commander doesn’t even have it’s first major scheduled service until it hits 65,000 miles, and I’m not there yet. I have a 2000 Mustang GT that’s had a steady diet of synthetic oil and it still drives like the day I bought it new. No rattles. Still tight. Still a -whole- lot of fun.