Another Car Question

[RobertInOntario]

OK, so now I have another car question! in addition to this one <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1932">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1932</a><!-- l -->

My wife was visiting our new neighbours yesterday when the subject of older cars came up. She mentioned that we have a 1998 Honda Civic (which has 185,000 km or 115,000 miles on it) and were thinking of buying new snow tires for it. His reply was that we should not spend any more money on it and he strongly advised us to buy either a small new car or slightly used car. He said that he's seen far too many fatal accidents caused by old cars which are still on the road. Usually the engine is still good, but it's something else that's worn out such as the suspension or part of the steering mechanism, etc.

So now I'm wondering if he's right. Our old Honda has been excellent but I'm wondering if I should trade it in for a similar car that's (say) 2-4 years old? Or, maybe I should simply take our Civic into our local garage and have them do a thorough safety inspection of it?

We only put around 15,000 km per year on each car (our mileage is spread out between the two cars). But, when you add it up, we do rack up a fair bit of mileage per year due to frequent drives into the country (visiting family, going on hikes or driving to railway events ).

Thanks in advance for any feedback or advice.

Rob

[eightyeightfan1]

What?..You gonna buy a new car everytime you need new tires?
If you are really worried about it, take it to the Honda dealer..No wait...Bad idea....Take it to a reputable mechanic and have him check it out. I've driven cars with more miles(or kilometers) than that on them(the most being 325,000), and as you can see...I'm still alive. Its easier and cheaper to replace worn parts, than replace the whole car, and even buying a newer, used car might give you more headaches than you're ready for.
The only reason I told you not to take it to the Honda dealer is, he may tell you something is bad with it and can't be fixed..Just to sell you a new car. Especially today.

[nachoman]

88 has it right - all the things like brakes, tires, and suspension can be fixed and inspected far cheaper than a new car. In fact, I would not necessarily trust a new car's brakes any better than an old car with new brakes. The only difference is design - perhaps the old car had inadequate brakes by design (I have not heard of any complaints about 1998 Honda brakes), or if you want a car that handles a crash better (more airbags). I don't know how a 1998 Honda compares to a new Honda in crash tests.

I drive a 45 year old car with manual drum brakes and manual steering. I replace the parts when worn and keep things in like-new condition. I did make one safety upgrade to the brake system by separating the front and rear brakes as separate systems (as a modern car has it). This keeps from rendering the entire brake system useless in the event of a broken brake hose or loss of fluid. I can make up for the inadequacies of the 45 year old design through driving habits. I have been driving the car almost daily for over 10 years, and I am sure a lot of newer cars have crashed because of brake or mechanical failures over that time. The most important thing is to keep everything inspected and in working order , and know the abilities and limitations of your car as it was designed.

[ngauger]

To further combine all the thoughts here... the mechanic may need a car and since he knows how well you've kept this one, he want's to buy it from wherever you trade it in....

I've seen that happen areund here...

My advice is the same.. It's still a "newer Model car, it's not like it's 20 years old.... Keep it - get the tires

[RobertInOntario]

What?..You gonna buy a new car everytime you need new tires?
If you are really worried about it, take it to the Honda dealer..No wait...Bad idea....Take it to a reputable mechanic and have him check it out. I've driven cars with more miles(or kilometers) than that on them(the most being 325,000), and as you can see...I'm still alive. Its easier and cheaper to replace worn parts, than replace the whole car, and even buying a newer, used car might give you more headaches than you're ready for.
The only reason I told you not to take it to the Honda dealer is, he may tell you something is bad with it and can't be fixed..Just to sell you a new car. Especially today.

I pretty much agree. I've also found that our Honda dealer is VERY expensive and finds all sorts of costly nit-picky things wrong with it. However, we do use a reputable, small garage that we've gone to for some 12 years. I already phoned them this morning -- they said they could do a thorough safety inspection for $50, so I'll probably do that first!

There really does come a point when you shouldn't spend any more dollars on a dying car. But I don't think the Honda has reached this yet. The main reason being is that it's given us very little trouble to date -- only normal wear & tear.

Thanks,
Rob

[RobertInOntario]

Thanks, Mikey and Kevin. I've just read your replies as well.

I think I will take it to our trusty local garage then, get them to do a thorough safety inspection & follow their advice. We've used them for about 12 years and have found them to be honest and not expensive.

But if I took it to our Honda dealer, I'm sure they'd find all sorts of expensive things wrong with it! I've saved lots of money by using the small garage instead of the Honda dealer.

The strange thing is, that while our Honda dealer is expensive, I've found just the opposite with two Toronto Subaru dealers. The Subaru dealers usually quote much lower prices than the local garage. hock: :? Maybe it's because the Subaru is so specialized that the little guy can't compete with the parts prices?

Rob

[ngauger]

There really does come a point when you shouldn't spend any more dollars on a dying car. But I don't think the Honda has reached this yet. The main reason being is that it's given us very little trouble to date -- only normal wear & tear.

Thanks,
Rob

i think - - the rule of thumb is when the annual maintenance gets to be about 1/2 the annual "loan or lease" payments for a newer model -
it's time to trade it in...

[RobertInOntario]

There really does come a point when you shouldn't spend any more dollars on a dying car. But I don't think the Honda has reached this yet. The main reason being is that it's given us very little trouble to date -- only normal wear & tear.

Thanks,
Rob

i think - - the rule of thumb is when the annual maintenance gets to be about 1/2 the annual "loan or lease" payments for a newer model -
it's time to trade it in...

Thanks, Mikey. That sounds like a sensible guideline.

My basic plan was to keep the Honda for at least one more year, if not two. Mileage-wise, it should easily be good for that length of time. However, there is some rust around the doors and a few spots here and there that could be a concern.

Cheers,
Rob

[Squidbait]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your neighbour sounds like an idiot (and owner of a a big-3 product) . He probably throws away anything that stops working, rather than getting it repaired. Another example of the throw-away mentality far too many people have today.

A 1998 Honda with less that 200K on it is just getting broken in. Actually, even most non-compact North American cars of that vintage/mileage still have a lot of life left in them.

Is the body still in good shape? Is the interior holding up? As has been mentioned already, you can do a lot of repair work for less than the downpayment on a new car. As Mikey said, only when the repair bills start rivaling the monthly payments for a new one should you consider ditching ol' reliable. I'm guessing this car has long-since been paid off? If the car's still doing the job for you, save your money.

I'm driving a 1995 Civic with 310K on it (and snow tires ). In the last 3 years, the most expensive repair I've had to do was replace the head gasket. Everything else I've done is replace normal wear items (brakes, exhaust). My buddy has the same car, and he's owned it since new. He has 360K on his, and the biggest repair he's had to do is replace the rad. And we both average 45-50 mpg (imperial).

So I could trade in my car, get a thousand credit, and buy a car that, while newer, will be smaller and less fuel efficient. OK, so maybe the exhaust is a little cleaner, but I'm still burning less, so that's a bit of an offset, but I'll stil be out of pocket a few hundred bucks every month for the next 3-5 years.

Keep your '98 if you're happy with the car. Unless you feel a radical need to downsize/upsize, spend a couple of thousand on new brakes, a major tuneup, struts and snowtires. You'll think you've got a new car.

And next time your neighbour tells you to buy new, ask him how deep he's into the bank for his new wheels

[RobertInOntario]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your neighbour sounds like an idiot (and owner of a a big-3 product) . He probably throws away anything that stops working, rather than getting it repaired. Another example of the throw-away mentality far too many people have today.
A 1998 Honda with less that 200K on it is just getting broken in. Actually, even most non-compact North American cars of that vintage/mileage still have a lot of life left in them.
Is the body still in good shape? Is the interior holding up? As has been mentioned already, you can do a lot of repair work for less than the downpayment on a new car. As Mikey said, only when the repair bills start rivaling the monthly payments for a new one should you consider ditching ol' reliable. I'm guessing this car has long-since been paid off? If the car's still doing the job for you, save your money.
I'm driving a 1995 Civic with 310K on it (and snow tires ). In the last 3 years, the most expensive repair I've had to do was replace the head gasket. Everything else I've done is replace normal wear items (brakes, exhaust). My buddy has the same car, and he's owned it since new. He has 360K on his, and the biggest repair he's had to do is replace the rad. And we both average 45-50 mpg (imperial).
So I could trade in my car, get a thousand credit, and buy a car that, while newer, will be smaller and less fuel efficient. OK, so maybe the exhaust is a little cleaner, but I'm still burning less, so that's a bit of an offset, but I'll stil be out of pocket a few hundred bucks every month for the next 3-5 years.
Keep your '98 if you're happy with the car. Unless you feel a radical need to downsize/upsize, spend a couple of thousand on new brakes, a major tuneup, struts and snowtires. You'll think you've got a new car.
And next time your neighbour tells you to buy new, ask him how deep he's into the bank for his new wheels

Thanks, Squid. I think our neighbour's way of "looking out for us" ... they have two cars, one of which is a Nissan but I can't remember if the other is a Big-3 though.

But I still agree with the advice given here. Yes, our Civic was paid off 8 or 9 years ago -- since then, we've had brake repairs, a new clutch (which cost $1,000 or so) and just general wear & tear. I was thinking that I could try to get 220-240K on it but -- as you say -- we could probably get a lot more. AFAIK, it's in good mechanical shape and we've certainly maintained it mechanically. We haven't had it undercoated or "Ziebarted" much and there is some rust at the bottom of the driver's door and a few very small spots on the body. Like you, we average 45-50 mpg (Imperial) on the highway and around 30-35 in the city. So I think we will seriously consider keeping it going for awhile -- but, at its next servicing -- I might get the garage to check its brakes and suspension.

One of our other neighbours is an avid car enthusiast. He owns 5 vehicles, the most interesting being a '65 Cobra that can go from 50 mph to 100 mph in just seconds ! (He took me for a ride in it a couple years ago -- I'll never forget it!) At any rate, he basically echoed the advice given here as well.

Cheers, Rob

[Russ Bellinis]

Normally, here in the Southwest, you would only trade the car in for 2 reason. #1 Most people just want a "new car." #2 The car needs a major component rebuilt like the engine or transmission and if you can't do it yourself, the cost of having it done professionally is more than the car is worth. In the Northeast you also need to deal with rust. My son in law is from Chicago and had a Suzuki. He needed tires for it, so I jacked it up to replace the tires, and when I turned my back, it was back on the ground. I checked my hydraulic jack and it was not leaking down, the car's subframe was so rusted that the front suspension mount was bending under the weight of the car! Modern cars are usually of the unit body or as the Europeans call it monocoque construction which uses thin sheet metal welded up into structural shapes for strength. If the sheet metal structure gets badly rusted, the structural integrity is compromized. Your mechanic should be able to tell whether there is excessive rust in the under carriage or not. If the car is structurally sound, and the engine and trans are still in good shape, it is cheaper to repair or replace suspension components, brakes, etc. than it is to buy a new car.

[Sumpter250]

My 1994 Shadow, with 216,6xx miles on it is experiencing some of the same "structural weaknesses", due to "road salt poisoning". We're looking for replacement frame pieces, and not having much luck. My biggest problem is that there are no "car payments" in my retirement income, and walking everywhere will only extend my life, making my retirement income....."insufficient for the extended duration". Kind of a "Catch 22, _____ if I do _____ if I don't" moment.
I do have a repair shop that can fabricate the necessary "fix", if parts are truly unavailable, and for a reasonable* price.



* reasonable price; N, meaning "less than the bluebook value of the car"

[MasonJar]

Thanks, Squid. I think our neighbour's way of "looking out for us" ...

Perhaps this is the point then - not that older cars cause fatal accidents, just that newer cars are safer. There have been tremendous improvements in safety in the last ten years, so maybe he is just looking out for you.

Andrew

[TrainNut]

...newer cars are safer. There have been tremendous improvements in safety in the last ten years, so maybe he is just looking out for you.

I dunno about that one either... air bags? Anti lock brakes? Anti skid control? Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em.

[doctorwayne]

...newer cars are safer. There have been tremendous improvements in safety in the last ten years, so maybe he is just looking out for you.

I dunno about that one either... air bags? Anti lock brakes? Anti skid control? Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em.

Me too. The idea of driving around with an explosion waiting to go off in my face is unnerving and skid control just makes poor drivers think that they're not. Anti-lock brakes work okay, but when they don't, they're more expensive to fix. A lot of so-called safety features simply lull people into thinking that they're more competent behind the wheel than they really are, leading them to do stupid stuff, resulting in accidents. Fortunately for them, many of those other safety features allow them to survive, but unfortunately for the rest of us, these features negate the old rule of "survival of the fittest (most capable)", and our civilisation becomes less capable with each passing day. Counting on car drivers to cull themselves from the gene pool may become a thing of the past, and we'll have to rely on the druggies, gang members and snowmobilers to carry on with that task.

I could also do with a lot less of those so-called creature comforts they keep loading onto cars these days - power locks, power windows, sun roofs (powered, of course), etc., etc. My Mazda 3 weighs almost two tons, and while it handles great, it could be so much more if it lost about a ton of excess baggage.

Oh, and one other thing - who on earth cursed us with those damned remote entry devices - now you not only have to carry the key, but also lug around a device that serves no useful purpose. I don't use mine.

Wayne