When to replace the car?

[melalvai]

In 1998, we purchased a new Ford Escort. We were young and foolish and bought new and financed it but we didn't do too badly: it was 0% interest and $13000. Way more than we could afford but we didn't know any better. That was not the most reliable car on the market, and we had a few expensive repairs from time to time, but each time we thought, "This is cheaper than buying a new car, and cheaper than any decent used car we could find." And that was true.

I didn't start biking until 2005, and my husband still won't bike, so we put a lot of miles on that little car.

Then a few months ago, we had to replace the transmission. It was a little cheaper than we expected, but that was because they discontinued the Ford Escort, and the "new" transmission had 100,000 miles on it. At that point, I realized that we should save up for a different car. It would only get harder and harder to find parts for it from here on out.

Then, at 222,000 miles, I drove the car into a deer on my way home from an out-of-town trip. :( We hadn't saved quite as much as we'd hoped for a replacement, but we had saved some, and we were able to pay cash for another car. We urgently needed the car as my husband had just started a new job (and did I mention he doesn't bike?)

Which has gotten me thinking, at what point do you quit repairing an old car and replace it? We learned several things from the experience.
1) We need to have savings (or emergency line of credit, whatever) so that we can replace a car, not just cover an expensive repair.
2) It sucks to be in a rush to buy a car. We had just moved, and I spent an enormous amount of time researching the options. I'm not convinced we made the right decision (2003 VW Jetta--not great mileage and will probably be relatively costly to maintain & repair). We were able to pay cash, and I was VERY VERY VERY proud of that. But if we'd had more time to pick something out, we could have waited for a) the right car, b) enough savings to pay cash for the right car, and c) I wouldn't have felt so stressed out about the decision. We did use a rental car for about 10 days, which helped.

Ideally, my husband would ride a bike or find another alternative so that we wouldn't be so dependent on a car. Then we could just wait for the car to eventually completely die (or run into a deer) and take our time about finding a replacement. But he-- and so many others of us-- won't do that, so how do we handle the transition to a replacement car most smoothly? Aside from an unexpected wreck, would you replace it at 250,000 miles whether it needs it or not? 300,000?

[turboseize]

replace a car only when an other car would be cheaper to operate. Make sure to include ALL costs - capital cost, depreciation, insurance, taxes, fuel, maintenance and expected repairs.

In almost any case, it's cheaper to stick with your old car and keep it on the road. NO new car can pay for it's depreciation with gas savings. And used cars will often be in the same condition as your current car - and probably even worse. Any used car you buy will have other flaws that you'll have to take care of. With your car, at least you know them already.

So unless you're driving a total wreck and could get something less wreckish for cheap (max 3 figures!) or you stumble upon a comparable car that is undoubtly in a much better shape, don't change. 
Repairing the car and keeping it on the road is almost always cheaper.


Besides, regular and adequate maintenance will prolong the life of nearly everything, including cars. :-)
Sometimes the manufacturer's prescriptions are not enough, for example many transmissions (and in rear wheel drive cars, differentials) never get an oil change. That's called "life-time filling", because the fluid will last as long as the life of the transmission. But the fluid also limits that life. In other cars, oil change intervals are too long (newer Saabs, but also Volkswagen are very famous for this). Changing the oil more often than required might save a lot of money, as oil changes will be cheaper than a new engine.

That's why, when I buy cars, I completely ignore mileage. A neglected city car will be completely worn out after 100.000km, while a well-serviced long-distance cruiser with 400.000km or 500.000km can be as good as a one- or two year old car. (Friend of mine just did that: bought an 400.000km Audi S8 for 2500€. Full service history. Has driven it now for 30.000km, only repairs were a ball joint and a driveshaft. And he needed new brake rotors, but that's maintenance, no repair. Besides that only spark plugs and oil changes... If you look at the car you coul dnot tell whether it has 100.000 or 400.000 on the odometer.)
Maintenance is everything. How the car was treated is much more important than how old it is or which mileage is on the odometer.

[melalvai]

So, if you had to replace a transmission or an engine in a car that had 100,000 miles on it, would you do that? Or would you buy a new car? Those repairs will be ~$2000, depending. (I know one could it oneself, but I'll be honest, I'm not interested in learning that skill.) Would you only consider buy a car that was <$2000 in that situation?

[turboseize]

If my transmission lasted only 100.000 miles, I'd look for the fault. ;-) Transmission should last at least twice as long. At least.

Is that 2000 dollar price tag for the part alone or for the entire repair? If that is the part price, I'd try to get hold of a used transmission which should be available for 500 or so.
And yes, if I knew the car I would probably repair it, even for 2000 dollars. Heck, even for 2000€. ;-)

After all, what else would you get for 2000 bucks? Another old beater. Which you don't know. Which can (and will) also have faults. Which will also be costly to repair. Which will produce other costs (you have to find it, drive around to inspect and test-drive before purchase - you will likely do this two or three times, than you'll spend at least half a day with administrative hassle de-registering the old and registering the new car and paying fees for that, perhaps you'll need new license plates... In Germany, fees and licence plates alone will can cost you nearly 100€. Also, selling your broken car won't net much: a car with a broken transmission is nearly impossible to sell, you may get 300-400, not more.

So yes, even with a 2000€-repair on a sub-2000€ car, changing the car will probably be more expensive.

[melalvai]

Well, my car was 200,000 miles when we replaced the transmission, but the "new" transmission that went into it had 100,000 miles. The repair cost about $1500. I believe around half of that was the part, half the labor. If I hadn't run it into a deer, I would assume the "new" transmission would fail when the car had around 300,000 miles. At that point, would you replace the transmission again? It would be even harder to find a transmission for that car at that point, because it would have been a 22 yr old car discontinued 10 yrs before.

I guess the answer is, it's different for every car. The best solution would be to be in a position where even if the transmission fails or I run into a deer, we don't have to be in a rush to get another car. Failing that, it'd be nice if we could decide in advance when the best time is for that purchase, but there's not really an easy answer for that.

[turboseize]

Of course it depends on the car. With old Mercedes oder BMW, spare parts supply is excellent - Mercedes for example guarantees that they can provide any part you need (that means chassis, propulsion, safety - obviously they can't stock every interior part in every colour) for any car built after the second world war. And if they don't have it in stock, they'll make it. Of course, this has a price, but you need not worry. BMW is similar. And Volvo and Saab, which have a not-so-good manufacturer support have a "cult" following on the net, so you still get get nearly anything you need. And with BMW and Mercedes, the internet community and the car clubs also offer a lot of help, so in many cases you even don't need thge manufacturer.
For every car I ever owned I knew I would be able to find a (used) engine or transmission for under 500€ within a few days.



I do not know, however, if this also applies to a (US) Ford escort. For euro Escorts (entirely different car), most certainly it doesn't. They were crap when new, they are crap now. There were a lot of them, and they are ugly, so nobody cares about them...
Plus, somewhen in the late 80s, Ford's spare parts depot burned down, so spares just don't exist, and as everybody hates the car, there are no enthusiast who could help out.
That is one of the cars I'd never buy in the first place.


In your case, I'd start scanning the market. If you have the garage, perhaps even get a cheap, somewhat working beater and store it "just in case". Not much money tied up, but you know it is there (and working). Then drive the escort until it falls apart. If it does, take the beater and you have have all the time in the world to find a long-term solution. No need to rush and overspend.
(Ok, admittedly, I'd do it even differently. I'd just borrow a car from a friend - we have a kind of emergency mobility network: there are more cars than people, and not everybody needs his car permanently, so there are redundancies. For example, at the moment I drive a friend's Saab, as mine is in the workshop for extensive troubleshooting. Last year, another of my friends drove mine. If you know each other well and know you have the same opinions on how a car deserves to be treated, this works quite well.)

[the fixer]

I went through this dilemma over the summer. Just as we finished driving our van across the country to our new home in the PNW, I started hearing a grinding noise from the drive train. We killed the differential because some of the bolts on the inspection cover were loose and all the fluid leaked out. The rear end had been rebuilt not too long before I bought it, to add insult to injury. I paid $3100 for that van, and getting a remanufactured rear end put in cost... $3100. I paid for the van all over again.

We thought long and hard about what to do before making that call, and considered everything posters are saying above. Similar vehicles at this price would have similar levels of problems, and we'd already put some money and effort into fixing some of the issues in this van. Also, it appears that used cars are pricier out here than in Maryland where we bought it. There are small transaction costs with changing cars: sales taxes, plates, registration. Since I do a fair amount of work on the car, my familiarity with the vehicle, how to work on it, and intimate knowledge of its recent maintenance history favor keeping the vehicle. I would not be able to get that in a replacement without going through an adjustment period.

[chasesfish]

My philosophy is budget to make it to 200k miles and/or 15 years, anything after that is free time.  The only reason it isn't longer is we both need a generally reliable car to get to/from work and for me to go see clients in.

[prodarwin]

No hard rule, but if you can't do the work yourself, it usually makes sense to look for a replacement when the cost of repair exceeds the value of the vehicle (unless its a really cheap car).  I.E. you have a car with 250k miles on it that needs a $3000 repair?  Probably better off just buying something with 150k on it.

That said, more often than not, its better to do your research and get rid of the car before those problems arise. 


If you CAN do the work yourself... then its just a matter of when you don't feel like dealing with it anymore.  It costs me about $90 to go snag a ~100k mile motor from the junkyard for my Saturn.  $150 more and i can replace the seals, timing chain components, put fresh oil in, and drop it in the car.  Drive another 150-200k and repeat.  That gets old though.

[thurston howell iv]

^^ I agree that if the repairs are going to exceed the value then it may be time to swap. That being said, if you are going to continue to rely on a car (any car) for regular transportation (as many of us HAVE to do, due to our circumstances), it would be a good idea to learn something about how the cars work. Even the basics can save you a bunch of money. 

However, it's some of the stuff that is perceived to be "harder" that really saves you some cash- (eg: timing belts/chains, head gaskets, etc.) If you can do those things you an usually keep a car on the road indefinitely as long as you follow regular maintenance (especially regular oil changes)

As for the issue of the Escort being old and hard to get parts for- Yes, it's old but it is by far one of the most ubiquitous cars out there!  Ford sold  ton of them. If I go to a salvage yard I am guaranteed to find more Escorts than nearly any other car model.  BTW, a trans for that car should not cost anywhere near $2k! (That's performance transmission territory).

Most of my cars have over 150k and my Honda has over 225k and it's going strong. I can't see why it would not last another 100K or more.

[Boz86]

One thing I learned was to keep up on the interior. I do all the things mentioned above, including the oft-forgotten differential and transfer case. We have a truck that has already had one seat recovering after 10 years, about to get another because I've worn it out again, and just had to put a new headliner in.

If I didn't keep up I'd be climbing in a deteriorating interior every day, and after a while it gets depressing. There's some things I haven't addressed yet, like the sun faded dash and door panels, but I will. Mostly I'm waiting on LMC to start making them. My truck is just old enough to be old and not a restorable classic -- yet.

BTW, everyone keeping up on their brake fluid changes? DOT 3 and 4 brake fluid have glycol in them, which attracts water, which leads to corrosion. DOT 5 apparently has silicone so it's not as critical. I'm surprised they removed these from most (mine anyway) manufacturers preventative maintenance schedules.

[prodarwin]

BTW, everyone keeping up on their brake fluid changes? DOT 3 and 4 brake fluid have glycol in them, which attracts water, which leads to corrosion. DOT 5 apparently has silicone so it's not as critical. I'm surprised they removed these from most (mine anyway) manufacturers preventative maintenance schedules.

Do NOT use DOT 5 in a DOT3/DOT4 braking system.  It can cause damage to the seals and other problems.  No manufacturer that I know of specifies DOT5, except for Harley Davidson.

If you want the thermal performance of DOT5 in a DOT3/4 system, use DOT 5.1 fluid.



On the topic of keeping up on maintenance, brake fluid is cheap.  Any time I have to touch my pads or rotors, I'll usually make sure to do a minor flush/bleed.

[MrMoneyPinch]

Since I live in the snowy north, the expected lifetime of a car is 10 years.  After that, you can keep it if there is no structural rust damage.  Repairing an unibody "frame" right is pretty much the same as rebuilding the body, so that's my breaking point.
If you can't depend on it getting you to your destination every time, repair it or junk it. Never happened to me.
If keeping it in dependable state costs more than a suitable replacement, junk it.  This measure depends on your own definition of "suitable replacement".
If you can get more by selling it than it is worth to you, list it.

[Boz86]

BTW, everyone keeping up on their brake fluid changes? DOT 3 and 4 brake fluid have glycol in them, which attracts water, which leads to corrosion. DOT 5 apparently has silicone so it's not as critical. I'm surprised they removed these from most (mine anyway) manufacturers preventative maintenance schedules.

Do NOT use DOT 5 in a DOT3/DOT4 braking system.  It can cause damage to the seals and other problems. 

Thanks, I should have mentioned that.

[turboseize]

Rust can be prevented (or at least slowed down considerably).

[MrMoneyPinch]

Rust can be prevented (or at least slowed down considerably).

Unfortunately, rust cannot be prevented on a vehicle.  Every rock chip, scratch or bump is a starting point.  Undercoating covers a part of the vehicle which gets the worst of it, but it is not infallible.  Rustproofing is helpful, but it only slows the process from the inside of panels.

Rust is not a result of misuse in northern climates, it is part of "normal wear".  And I assure you: 10 years is excellent compared to what was normal before the nineties.

Believe me, you cannot beat rust, if it was possible you would see big rigs basically going on forever.

[DunkCityFan]

Okay. I've got a 96 Cherokee with 84,000 miles on it. No garage. So the hood and roof are starting to rust. Paying $2000 for a decent paint job seems crazy to me for a car that old. But the rust will rust through if I don't hit is soon. I'd love to drive it for another 4-5 years. So here's the question on this.

To paint or not to paint?? Not painting will certainly mean less than 4-5 years.

[prodarwin]

The hood and the roof are the problem areas?  Give it a quick sanding, paint it with a rust-stopping paint, and call it good.  That'll make the 4-5 years into 10+.

[MrMoneyPinch]

Okay. I've got a 96 Cherokee with 84,000 miles on it. No garage. So the hood and roof are starting to rust. Paying $2000 for a decent paint job seems crazy told. But the rust will rust through if I don't hit is soon. I'd love to drive it for another 4-5 years. So here's the question on this.

To paint or not to paint?? Not painting will certainly mean less than 4-5 years.

That rust pattern tells me you live in a sunny climate.  If you do a thorough job removing the rust and do at least an OK paint job over it, you could make it last.  I recommend checking out the Haynes body repair and painting manual to see how to do the best job, and cutting sanding steps after the primer to cut the total job time.
On the other hand, if you do it by the book and get the right products you could get quite close to a pro job with custom-mixed rattlecans.  I am using PPG, but I have also had good results with other pro lines.  Anyway, if you put that much time and attention into it, you will find the paint is not that expensive ;)

[Rust]

Rust can be prevented (or at least slowed down considerably).

Believe me, you cannot beat rust, if it was possible you would see big rigs basically going on forever.

Hear that folks.  I cannot be beat!  Who wants to play some poker!

[Melody]

Okay. I've got a 96 Cherokee with 84,000 miles on it. No garage. So the hood and roof are starting to rust. Paying $2000 for a decent paint job seems crazy to me for a car that old. But the rust will rust through if I don't hit is soon. I'd love to drive it for another 4-5 years. So here's the question on this.

To paint or not to paint?? Not painting will certainly mean less than 4-5 years.

If you really don't car what your car looks like, you can buy this grey paint in a grafitti can which stops rust (from AutoZone or whatever) and a can of basic spray paint in a close colour to your car's colour. Grey Paint first. Wait til it's fully dry, then spray with colour. It won't be a good match but it will be acceptable (depending on what you class as acceptable.)

[rocketman48097]

I think honestly you are buying the wrong cars.  Stay away from Ford's and Volkswagen's.  VW's are notorious for leaking oil and not being reliable. 

Stick to Toyota's and Honda's only, and your overall cost of long term ownership will be much lower.  I drive a Nissian Altima so I can't yet comment on the reliability of these as this is our first Nissan.  My other car is a 2001 Acura that my wife bought new before she met me and it's been very reliable although we did rebuild the transmission at 130k miles.  It's unfortunate but given how little I drive I thought $2700 for a rebuilt transmission was a bargain vs. buying another used car.  Even with a foot stress fracture and having to drive my car daily to work (7 miles total roundtrip), I will only put on 1800 miles this year.  At this pace, I will not need another used car until about 2030 or so. 

[MrMoneyPinch]

Okay. I've got a 96 Cherokee with 84,000 miles on it. No garage. So the hood and roof are starting to rust. Paying $2000 for a decent paint job seems crazy to me for a car that old. But the rust will rust through if I don't hit is soon. I'd love to drive it for another 4-5 years. So here's the question on this.

To paint or not to paint?? Not painting will certainly mean less than 4-5 years.

If you really don't car what your car looks like, you can buy this grey paint in a grafitti can which stops rust (from AutoZone or whatever) and a can of basic spray paint in a close colour to your car's colour. Grey Paint first. Wait til it's fully dry, then spray with colour. It won't be a good match but it will be acceptable (depending on what you class as acceptable.)

Please don't do that.  It will look horrible AND flake off.

Automotive paint has to have the following layers:  bare metal - primer - color coat.  You can optionally use rust-inhibiting primer and add a clear-coat on top for better results. If the panel has paint on it, use a primer to help the new coat stick on the panel.

Auto zone paint is OK, but pro products are not significantly more expensive AND you can have it exactly matching the rest of the car.

[dragoncar]

BTW, everyone keeping up on their brake fluid changes? DOT 3 and 4 brake fluid have glycol in them, which attracts water, which leads to corrosion. DOT 5 apparently has silicone so it's not as critical. I'm surprised they removed these from most (mine anyway) manufacturers preventative maintenance schedules.

Do NOT use DOT 5 in a DOT3/DOT4 braking system.  It can cause damage to the seals and other problems.  No manufacturer that I know of specifies DOT5, except for Harley Davidson.

If you want the thermal performance of DOT5 in a DOT3/4 system, use DOT 5.1 fluid.



On the topic of keeping up on maintenance, brake fluid is cheap.  Any time I have to touch my pads or rotors, I'll usually make sure to do a minor flush/bleed.

Wut?  I upgraded to DOT 6 beta.  My car now brakes twice as fast and rarely crashes.

[Melody]

Okay. I've got a 96 Cherokee with 84,000 miles on it. No garage. So the hood and roof are starting to rust. Paying $2000 for a decent paint job seems crazy to me for a car that old. But the rust will rust through if I don't hit is soon. I'd love to drive it for another 4-5 years. So here's the question on this.

To paint or not to paint?? Not painting will certainly mean less than 4-5 years.

If you really don't car what your car looks like, you can buy this grey paint in a grafitti can which stops rust (from AutoZone or whatever) and a can of basic spray paint in a close colour to your car's colour. Grey Paint first. Wait til it's fully dry, then spray with colour. It won't be a good match but it will be acceptable (depending on what you class as acceptable.)

Please don't do that.  It will look horrible AND flake off.

Automotive paint has to have the following layers:  bare metal - primer - color coat.  You can optionally use rust-inhibiting primer and add a clear-coat on top for better results. If the panel has paint on it, use a primer to help the new coat stick on the panel.

Auto zone paint is OK, but pro products are not significantly more expensive AND you can have it exactly matching the rest of the car.

I did this to my 93 and it lasted a few years (potentially longer, but the car died so I don't know how long it could have lasted.) But the car had a very low value and I was a broke student... I just didn't want a rust hole to develop (and it didn't). Agree with what you said about it looking like crap though ;-) - I purchased the car for $1200 - at this price you are looking for two things - road registered and running ;-) so making it ugly wasn't going to depreciate it.

Your method sounds good, especially if OP's vehicle is worth something or it's looks are important to them :)

[Boz86]

Classic discussion on the $50 roller paint job here: http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=2331682&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1

I've read that's how the early auto manufacturers did it.

Cons: labor, longevity
Pros: $50

[MrsPete]

All of our cars (except the one that was totaled) have lasted about two years past the point we've said, "It'll be any day now".  At that point, the car is worth basically nothing, so every day you can keep it going is a savings. 

Our plan: 

Always have the money for a car available.
When you think the car's on its last legs, start shopping around for what you might like to buy (keeping in mind that once-in-a-lifetime bargains don't exist). 
When the car finally breaks down and just isn't worth fixing, buy what you've been considering and donate the old car to a charity that'll fix it up and profit from it.

[MPAVictoria]

Melalvai I think you are being way to hard on yourself. You bought this car almost 16 years ago and drove it over 220,000 miles! That is actually a pretty good job! If you are not mechanically handy often the cheapest way to have a car is to buy new and then hold on to it for as long as possible.

Unfortunately, the Volkswagen you bought to replace your Escort does not have the best reputation for reliability. However you paid cash for it and you might have gotten a good one so I would not worry about it too much.

As for when you should get a new car there is no hard and fast rule. Instead you need to look at how much the car is costing you in time and money to keep it running. Your plan of being able to bike to work so you don’t have to rush into any purchase when your current vehicle bites the dust is a good one. Take your time and you will find a good deal.

Finally, I have to disagree with some of the above posters telling you to only buy Honda's or Toyota's. These makes tend to be highly over priced in the used market. Instead I would recommend gently used full size American cars, especially Buick's. These cars are under valued in the used market because they are thought of as “old people” cars but they are reliable, comfortable and relatively fuel efficient. Good luck!

[melalvai]

Melalvai I think you are being way to hard on yourself. You bought this car almost 16 years ago and drove it over 220,000 miles! That is actually a pretty good job! If you are not mechanically handy often the cheapest way to have a car is to buy new and then hold on to it for as long as possible.

Unfortunately, the Volkswagen you bought to replace your Escort does not have the best reputation for reliability. However you paid cash for it and you might have gotten a good one so I would not worry about it too much.

As for when you should get a new car there is no hard and fast rule. Instead you need to look at how much the car is costing you in time and money to keep it running. Your plan of being able to bike to work so you don’t have to rush into any purchase when your current vehicle bites the dust is a good one. Take your time and you will find a good deal.

Finally, I have to disagree with some of the above posters telling you to only buy Honda's or Toyota's. These makes tend to be highly over priced in the used market. Instead I would recommend gently used full size American cars, especially Buick's. These cars are under valued in the used market because they are thought of as “old people” cars but they are reliable, comfortable and relatively fuel efficient. Good luck!

Thank you!!

[RetiredAt63]

So, if you had to replace a transmission or an engine in a car that had 100,000 miles on it, would you do that? Or would you buy a new car? Those repairs will be ~$2000, depending. (I know one could it oneself, but I'll be honest, I'm not interested in learning that skill.) Would you only consider buy a car that was <$2000 in that situation?

I just replaced the engine on my car - car was at 154,000 km, replacement engine has about 7000 km (probably from a car that had a rear-end collision) and a one-year warranty.  The engine self-destructed, a ring broke, oil leaked in and burned, and the soot was all through it.  The new engine was $2000, installation another $1300 (a lot of cleaning, some new bits like antifreeze, a spark plug, a new oxygen sensor). Cars like mine on Kijiji were listed for about $12,000, so it was definitely worth doing.  And now instead of expecting my car to go to 300,000+ km, I expect to get to 400,000+ km. I did have the garage check the whole car over, no point putting in a new engine if the body was shot.  Only work needed was new brakes (rotors and disks) but that is maintenance, and the first time the car has needed it in the 154,000 km, so I was good to go.  And my garage did it, I do lots of things but car maintenance is not one of them!

So unless the private sale value of your car is super low, or the rest of the car is junk, the engine replacement should be the better route.

Comment - now that I am retired I am not driving to work, but living in a rural area and having a lot of fun, I am still driving - 130 km round-trip on Wednesday, just a nice drive to an activity.  Living in the country is a trade-off - much lower COL, but a car is a necessity.  My over-all mileage is definitely lower, I don't do major drives every day, but I am not sitting at home either.  I am actually out doing things more, now that I have time - my pre-Christmas social life is super busy this year. My neighbour has commented on how little I am home ;-)

Retirement is wonderful.

[turboseize]

Rust can be prevented (or at least slowed down considerably).

Unfortunately, rust cannot be prevented on a vehicle.  Every rock chip, scratch or bump is a starting point.  Undercoating covers a part of the vehicle which gets the worst of it, but it is not infallible.  Rustproofing is helpful, but it only slows the process from the inside of panels.

Rust is not a result of misuse in northern climates, it is part of "normal wear".  And I assure you: 10 years is excellent compared to what was normal before the nineties.

Believe me, you cannot beat rust, if it was possible you would see big rigs basically going on forever.

Even if you cannot stop rust, you can slow it down considerably to the point where the damage occurs after 30+ years instead of 10. And that is a HUGE difference.

[BlueMR2]

I'm putting $1000 into a '95 with 130,000 miles on it and consider it worthwhile.  It's got a bad wheel bearing and the whole assembly is rusted to death.  Would normally be a $80 fix, but the rust makes simple replacement impossible.  So, it's getting a whole new (junkyard sourced, overhauled before installation) rear end.  I consider it a reasonable deal.  Should be good for a number of years.  I could spend $5000+ on another used car and not be certain that it would last any longer.

[daverobev]

If you are not mechanically handy often the cheapest way to have a car is to buy new and then hold on to it for as long as possible.

Simply not true. Buying a 2-3 year old car for 60% the price of new will work out better.

The 'drive it off the lot' depreciation is just too steep.

[follicular]

My philosophy which I apply in full measure to my 2001 nissan altima is if the monthly maintenance on the car does not exceed what I would generally pay monthly for a replacement 'lightly used' used car, I will continue to hold on to my nissan. it has 167k miles and I drive it 70+ miles/day, mostly highway. Once the overhead curve crosses over the used-car purchase curve for a prolonged period (TBD) I will dump the nissan and buy the used car. I am now budgeting $100/month on maintenance for my nissan and it has averaged that for the last 3-4 years. I hope to drive it to the ground while it still get >25 miles/gallon.

[MPAVictoria]

[/quote]

Simply not true. Buying a 2-3 year old car for 60% the price of new will work out better.

The 'drive it off the lot' depreciation is just too steep.
[/quote]

I have to disagree. You have no way of knowing how that car was treated. That is why they call it used.

Can it be a good idea to buy a 2-3 year old car? Of course! But that is not the only "smart" way to purchase a car.

[daverobev]

Simply not true. Buying a 2-3 year old car for 60% the price of new will work out better.

The 'drive it off the lot' depreciation is just too steep.
[/quote]

I have to disagree. You have no way of knowing how that car was treated. That is why they call it used.

Can it be a good idea to buy a 2-3 year old car? Of course! But that is not the only "smart" way to purchase a car.
[/quote]

You get the car inspected, by a mechanic. Abuse will be visible. There is *no way* the vast majority of 2-3 year old cars have had anything like the percentage depreciation beaten out of them. What I mean is - for a $15k car new, bought 3 years old for $10k, the chances of a first owner doing that much extra wear and tear? No way.

Buying a new car is not smart. The smartest way of buying a new car is to get an end of model year one when a new model is about to come out, at steep discount. But even then, you're probably better off buying one a couple of years older.

Of course, without people buying new cars, there wouldn't be any second hand ones. But at the moment, with the way the market currently is? Second hand all the way. And it'll get better in the next couple of years, what with all the new cars sold when people realised the world wasn't about to end...

[MPAVictoria]

"You get the car inspected, by a mechanic. Abuse will be visible."

Sorry but I have to disagree. This remark shows that you don't actually know that much about cars. There is tons of abuse that a car could have that would not be discovered during a pre-purchase inspection.

I am not saying that buying a 2-3 year old car is always a bad idea. I am saying that buying new can make sense as long as you keep the car for a long time.

[turboseize]

My father would always buy new. But he would buy base models with no extras*, pay cash, and negotiate hard. Then he aims at keeping the car for 20 years (or until somebody else crashes it).

I, on the other hand, only buy upper-middle or upper class cars. Used. There are two strategies: a) buy the best car you can find, even if it costs a lot more than average for this model and year. b) buy cheap. And by cheap, I mean CHEAP.

All three car strategies - my fathers "buy new, no extras, pay cash, hold forever", my "buy collector car in the best shape you can find" and my "buy a cheap beater and know what you are doing" end up costing roughly the same per kilometre, with my strategies leading a little bit. (We know, because my father used to mock me on my first purchase. I then started tracking cost and showed him, since then he does not mock me anymore. ;-) )
The difference is I have more fun, father has less risks (at least he assumes so). My approach also binds less capital, but then, father's stache is big enough, and he does not really care of driving pleasure or luxury, so to each his own. He could possibly save just a bit more by buying slightly used, but he likes the control.


*In Germany, pretty much everything that is included in US spec costs extra. In the mid 80s Mercedes even charged DM 169,- extra for a second rear view mirror...

[turboseize]

I think honestly you are buying the wrong cars.  Stay away from Ford's and Volkswagen's.  VW's are notorious for leaking oil and not being reliable.   

Well, that depends.

Until the mid 90s, VW were very reliable. VW petrol 1.8 (2 valve!), 1.9 TDI and the Audi 5-cylinder engines last nearly forever.
They started having severe problems with the 1.4 petrol engines, and their 2.0 TDI. and ever since they tried to build a reliable ptrol direct injection engine, they failed. TSI and TFSI do not last.
I would NOT recommend to buy a modern VW - besides their notorious engine and gearbox problems, they are an absolute pain to work on. However, a well serviced older VW might be a good buy (after all, these were the cars that build VW reputation.)

Ford Europe had some engine problems, but this was mostly when they recommended "fuel-efficient engine oils" with a reduced HTHS-value. Engines "unexpectedly" wore out prematurely...
Generally speaking, a (euro) focus is a relatively good buy. Excellent suspension (superb handling!), economical, reliable. They tend to wear out wheel bearings, though.

All Japanese manufacturers offer high quality and seem to be extremely reliable. But IF anything failes, repair cost will be astronomical (at least in Germany). They seldom fail, so buying a Toyota or Honda usually is no bad idea.

[prodarwin]

There is tons of abuse that a car could have that would not be discovered during a pre-purchase inspection.

True, but this:

There is *no way* the vast majority of 2-3 year old cars have had anything like the percentage depreciation beaten out of them. What I mean is - for a $15k car new, bought 3 years old for $10k, the chances of a first owner doing that much extra wear and tear? No way.

The amount of abuse caused in 2-3 years is going to be very low even for a very neglectful driver, unless their goal is to destroy the car before selling it/returning the lease/etc.

Many new cars have a maintenance schedule that is insanely low during the first couple years of ownership (oil change once a year, etc.), and many of them also have included maintenance.

Finally, the gamble is WAY worth the risk.  Say 1 in 10 cars is heavily abused enough in the first 3 years to cause significant problems (I'd say this number is more like 1 in 500 or 1000), and you somehow get stuck with ONE of them in your lifetime.  You've saved ~30% on 9 other vehicles.  Also, the 30% you saved on that car alone is likely enough to cover all repairs necessary.

Our plan: 

Always have the money for a car available.
When you think the car's on its last legs, start shopping around for what you might like to buy (keeping in mind that once-in-a-lifetime bargains don't exist). 
When the car finally breaks down and just isn't worth fixing, buy what you've been considering and donate the old car to a charity that'll fix it up and profit from it.

This, is a bad plan.  The value of a running, mostly working car is significantly more than a broken one.  The additional value you are going to recover from the car when its close to dying is not worth it, nor is it worth the additional risk of a catastrophic failure far from home.  A beater with a mostly straight body that will get someone to work is worth $1500 minimum.  Once the motor pops or the trans explodes out, its worth $scrap.   This can vary for higher-value cars, but the point is that the scale between working and not-working is roughly the same.

When the car is on its last legs, but still working, sell it.

This is predicated on the idea that your opinion of "last legs" is similar to the average person's.  My opinion of "last legs" is well beyond the point where most people would even think of driving a car.

[MrMoneyPinch]

Rust is not a result of misuse in northern climates, it is part of "normal wear".  And I assure you: 10 years is excellent compared to what was normal before the nineties.

Believe me, you cannot beat rust, if it was possible you would see big rigs basically going on forever.

Even if you cannot stop rust, you can slow it down considerably to the point where the damage occurs after 30+ years instead of 10. And that is a HUGE difference.

On Cali or Az, maybe.  I stand by my statement for Canada.  Believe Me I tried: I keep my wheels until they have structural damage.

[StarswirlTheMustached]

Okay. I've got a 96 Cherokee with 84,000 miles on it. No garage. So the hood and roof are starting to rust. Paying $2000 for a decent paint job seems crazy to me for a car that old. But the rust will rust through if I don't hit is soon. I'd love to drive it for another 4-5 years. So here's the question on this.

To paint or not to paint?? Not painting will certainly mean less than 4-5 years.

If you really don't car what your car looks like, you can buy this grey paint in a grafitti can which stops rust (from AutoZone or whatever) and a can of basic spray paint in a close colour to your car's colour. Grey Paint first. Wait til it's fully dry, then spray with colour. It won't be a good match but it will be acceptable (depending on what you class as acceptable.)

Please don't do that.  It will look horrible AND flake off.

Automotive paint has to have the following layers:  bare metal - primer - color coat.  You can optionally use rust-inhibiting primer and add a clear-coat on top for better results. If the panel has paint on it, use a primer to help the new coat stick on the panel.

Auto zone paint is OK, but pro products are not significantly more expensive AND you can have it exactly matching the rest of the car.

I saw a Suzuki Samurai a couple months ago that seemed to be painted in truck bed liner. I think it might be the only thing holding that little truck together.

[ritchie70]

*In Germany, pretty much everything that is included in US spec costs extra. In the mid 80s Mercedes even charged DM 169,- extra for a second rear view mirror...

In the mid 70's at least that was true in the US as well. Source: family (and later my) '76 Oldsmobile. Had one driver's side mirror, no right side mirror. Right side mirror was an option.

[BlueMR2]

*In Germany, pretty much everything that is included in US spec costs extra. In the mid 80s Mercedes even charged DM 169,- extra for a second rear view mirror...

In the mid 70's at least that was true in the US as well. Source: family (and later my) '76 Oldsmobile. Had one driver's side mirror, no right side mirror. Right side mirror was an option.

I learned to drive in a pair of 1985 Pontiacs where the right side mirror wasn't even an option.  Took me years to get used to having a mirror over there when I bought my Japanese car that has mirrors on both sides!

[MicroRN]

I'd generally say when the monthly repair bill is getting high, or it's becoming unreliable.  I used to own a pickup that was always in the shop.  Every month (literally) it needed another repair that took it out of commission for a few days to a week and cost anywhere from a few bucks for things I'd fix myself to hundreds of dollars.  The money wasn't even as much an issue as the fact that I couldn't count on it to get to school or work.  After having it towed for the 3rd time in 6 months, I called it quits and sold it with full disclosure to a guy who liked working on vehicles.  I bought a Dodge Neon with cash, drove it for 2 years and only put basic maintenance into it. 

[prodarwin]

*In Germany, pretty much everything that is included in US spec costs extra. In the mid 80s Mercedes even charged DM 169,- extra for a second rear view mirror...

In the mid 70's at least that was true in the US as well. Source: family (and later my) '76 Oldsmobile. Had one driver's side mirror, no right side mirror. Right side mirror was an option.

I learned to drive in a pair of 1985 Pontiacs where the right side mirror wasn't even an option.  Took me years to get used to having a mirror over there when I bought my Japanese car that has mirrors on both sides!

You could order a Saturn SL w/o a right side mirror up until 2002 I believe.

[turboseize]

Ok, seems like my impression was a little bit off. I'm only (slightly) familiar with the US version of european premium cars, and with euro versions of US-cars, which both usually were equipped very well.

[daverobev]

"You get the car inspected, by a mechanic. Abuse will be visible."

Sorry but I have to disagree. This remark shows that you don't actually know that much about cars. There is tons of abuse that a car could have that would not be discovered during a pre-purchase inspection.

I am not saying that buying a 2-3 year old car is always a bad idea. I am saying that buying new can make sense as long as you keep the car for a long time.

The statistics disagree, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.

At the moment, the numbers are skewed to new - unusually - because of the dearth of new cars bought during the recession. But even so, used > new. If new > used, look for a better deal on the used ;)