2013 Rio LX Sedan - keep or sell?

[etherealfocus]

So my wife drives a 2013 Rio LX (base model), now with 105k miles. Just had it serviced and mechanic told us that at around 120k miles maintenance costs would balloon to around 10k/yr. That seems high but he's been great for us for several years now.

KBB says the car is worth about 6k in good condition, which it is. He's advising we sell it now before dealerships start dumping inventory around February. Concerns: a) 6k seems awfully low for a reliable, well-maintained car only four years old and b) 10k is a huge spike in what's been very low maintenance cost so far.

What do you guys think? I've been weighing a couple options:

1. Replace it with one of the 99-02 Accords we've seen going for around 1200-1500 locally (figure 2k after fixing random issues). Only catch is she can't drive stick and it sounds like the auto transmission on those models needs major work every 80k miles or so. Most complaints I've seen are about the 3.0 V6 and we're fine with the 2.3 I4, but I dunno how much difference that makes.

2. Spend up on something like an 07-09 Camry/Civic/Fit.

3. Considered buying new but that puts us at around $20k minimum and there's really just nothing even in my 95 Civic that I'd pay 20k to fix. And my mechanic seems to be a ninja at keeping old cars running smoothly on the cheap.

We're just looking for a cheap reliable commuter car; performance and features are irrelevant.

 

[pcgeek11]

Did he give some reasoning behind the mysterious 10K a year maintenance that the car will suddenly require? Personally it sounds like BS to me. There is no magic number of miles that a car becomes a maintenance nightmare.

If the car is paid for and does what you want keep it until you are dissatisfied.

 

[Insomniator]

10k/yr is a ton of money for any car, never heard of that before. Sounds completely made up, and makes the mechanic sound like a novice. 10k would probably replace the engine and doors on that car.... its probably impossible to get repeated 10k/yr costs.

$6k however sounds about right for a 4 year old Kia Rio. Isn't that one of the cheapest cars on the road to begin with?

 

[pauldun170]

I'm not a fan of Kias but the mechanic sounds out of touch with limited experience on Kia. At the very least the mechanic is king of hyperbole.
The 1.6 in the Rio had some issues with the timing chain guide (https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2012/SB-10060307-2280.pdf)
that could turn into a big job and some other silliness around sensors and design choices no way will that translate into a money pit.

From a resale value perspective, Rio's are probably a dump it quickly when it's young or ride it out until its junkyard worthy type of car.

1. The legend of the old Accords is well earned right up to the point you are replacing the transmission, dealing with rattles and oil leaks and generally crap that could be expected from any car that is 2 to 3 decades old. Stick to cars that are younger than 10 years.
2. A late 00's Camry with a 2.4 are pretty solid cars. Ultra reliable. Easy to work on and cheap to own. Avoid earlier Camry's with the 2.4.
3. New....$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

[PricklyPete]

Either your mechanic is a blithering idiot, plans to take advantage of you due to your ignorance, or there was some miscommunication between the two of you. I'd bet on the 3rd option. Just keep the car...it has barely been broken in.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Drive it until it dies.

Re: the $10k a year in maintenance? That's absurd, unless he was making a joke about having to replace it with another car.

But that said; https://repairpal.com/estimator/kia/rio/maintenance-schedule

120k mile service is never cheap - everything lines up together. It's also when a lot of things (serpentine belt replacement, coolant and transmission fluid flushes, spark plugs, etc.) are due that, in many cases, you only do once or twice over the life of a car. Tires and/or brake pads may also be due (60k miles is a common life for these parts) and you may be unlucky enough to need brake rotors. But all that stuff is also stuff that you should be comfortable spaceing out over the next 20k miles or so, too. (None of it is likely to be OMGMUSTDOTODAY!!!)

So it can hurt, especially if you were kind of thinking you wanted to get rid of the car anyway.

But, if you do all that, it's probably not more than $2k, and the car will be mostly good to go for another 120k. If you're strapped for cash, consider doing some of these things yourself with cheap hand tools. (Spark plugs are surprisingly easy in most 4-cylinder cars. Brake pads are easy too, provided you don't have rust issues. Coolant is easy to drain, flush, and refill, but make sure the antifreeze goes to water treatment - down a utility sink, not down a sewer!)

 

[Viper GTS]

Maybe the mechanic doesn't know what a K is? That's the only logical assumption as nobody in their right mind would believe $10k annual costs on a car worth so little.

Viper GTS

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Maybe the mechanic doesn't know what a K is? That's the only logical assumption as nobody in their right mind would believe $10k annual costs on a car worth so little.

Viper GTS

Or he's using Hong Kong dollars. (Those are about 8:1 so it'd be about right.)

Where does OP live?

 

[tsupersonic]

He might have added a zero to that (even that sounds high)? $10k/yr sounds ridiculous.

 

[etherealfocus]

I might've misunderstood something... 10k/yr does sound pretty crazy and I'm not seeing any huge pileup of issues on Google to justify that kind of cost. Mechanic is definitely no idiot and if he's taking advantage he's a ninja at it... like I said he's kept both our cars (2013 Rio and 95 Civic) running for several years for minimal cost. Never had an issue with his work.

I'm in the North Dallas area lol, no HK dollars here.

This isn't a cash-poor thing; we make plenty of money. We just live cheap and prefer to dump our money in investments, travel, etc rather than wasting it on luxury goods we don't care about.

If we do buy new I'm on good terms with a dealer and can probably just offer to pay cash and get a good price, but even with a big discount it still doesn't make financial sense to me. The Rio was 13k new, so losing more than 50% of value in 4 years makes any new purchase a terrible investment by just about any metric I can think of.

EDIT: Also, TTL on a new car probably wipes out whatever sort of cash discount I'd get.

Also also, how on earth are new cars so bad on gas? My 95 Civic gets ~43mpg with about 60% freeway miles. And yet new 2017 Civics, Accords, etc are all sitting around 28-32mpg? I know EPA tests are a bit different now, but I'm comparing to my mpg measured at the pump. And I'm not seeing any new Civic owners saying they're beating the EPA numbers by any significant margin.

 

[PricklyPete]

Honestly, I'd be surprised if that Rio averages more than $1k a year maintenance over the next 5 years. There will probably be a big maintenance at 120k (timing belt, whatever) and then the car will probably sing for another 100k without any major issues. If you want to live cheaply...that's the game plan I would take.

 

[pauldun170]

I might've misunderstood something... 10k/yr does sound pretty crazy and I'm not seeing any huge pileup of issues on Google to justify that kind of cost. Mechanic is definitely no idiot and if he's taking advantage he's a ninja at it... like I said he's kept both our cars (2013 Rio and 95 Civic) running for several years for minimal cost. Never had an issue with his work.

I'm in the North Dallas area lol, no HK dollars here.

This isn't a cash-poor thing; we make plenty of money. We just live cheap and prefer to dump our money in investments, travel, etc rather than wasting it on luxury goods we don't care about.

If we do buy new I'm on good terms with a dealer and can probably just offer to pay cash and get a good price, but even with a big discount it still doesn't make financial sense to me. The Rio was 13k new, so losing more than 50% of value in 4 years makes any new purchase a terrible investment by just about any metric I can think of.

EDIT: Also, TTL on a new car probably wipes out whatever sort of cash discount I'd get.

Also also, how on earth are new cars so bad on gas? My 95 Civic gets ~43mpg with about 60% freeway miles. And yet new 2017 Civics, Accords, etc are all sitting around 28-32mpg? I know EPA tests are a bit different now, but I'm comparing to my mpg measured at the pump. And I'm not seeing any new Civic owners saying they're beating the EPA numbers by any significant margin.

It shouldn't take much to keep a 4 year Rio running aside form gas and oil.
A drunken teenager with braces can keep a 95 Civic on the road.

A 95 Civic weighs as much as a family of 5 from Tennessee and has none of the burdens of modern safety equipment or sound deadening or anything.. It can get great MPG because it doesn't take much to get up to speed. A modern Civic is MUCH bigger than your Civic

Newer cars are heavier and much bigger

 

[dave_the_nerd]

The Rio was 13k new, so losing more than 50% of value in 4 years makes any new purchase a terrible investment by just about any metric I can think of.

Um, yeah, buying a new car is a terrible investment. That's why real cheapskates buy 3-4 year old used cars (best bang for the buck) and drive them until they disintegrate. Suckers like you pay full price and eat the depreciation. Thanks for that, by the way.

You can get a totally kickass used car for $13k that will be better than a brand new Kia in every possible way. It's called a 4-cylinder Honda Accord. Chevy Volts are also possible.

 

[etherealfocus]

I'd be fine spending 13k again if TCO was somehow competitive, but a Volt? a) I live in an apartment that doesn't have charging facilities so it'd mostly just be an expensive gas car, and b) don't the batteries start degrading around 100k miles?

Any big difference between more recent Accords/Civics/Camrys? I test drove a Corolla a few years ago and it was just too small to be comfortable. I'm 6'2 and I like my legroom.

As to weight, according to Google the curb weight of my 95 Civic 4dr MT is 2300 lbs. A 2017 Fit MT is 2500 lbs. You'd think 22 years of technology advancement could compensate for an extra 200 lbs, but the Fit gets a combined 37 mpg vs my 43ish (let's call it 42 since I do more than 50% freeway). Is there a heavier load on the alternator or something?

Um, yeah, buying a new car is a terrible investment. That's why real cheapskates buy 3-4 year old used cars (best bang for the buck) and drive them until they disintegrate. Suckers like you pay full price and eat the depreciation. Thanks for that, by the way.

Yeah I know lol, wife had bought it before we got married. Neither of us is a car person so it just seemed like a cheap way into something reliable. We've both been burned by used cars in the past and didn't have time to do a ton of research. I'm making these quotes to keep it from happening again.

My parents did the drive-it-till-it-dies thing too. That always seemed like a bad idea to me both for the higher risk of safety problems toward EOL and because selling it with a year or two of life means you get at least a downpayment toward the new car.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'd be fine spending 13k again if TCO was somehow competitive, but a Volt? a) I live in an apartment that doesn't have charging facilities so it'd mostly just be an expensive gas car, and b) don't the batteries start degrading around 100k miles?

As an expensive gas car, they still get really good mileage, and the electric assist will charge itself from regenerative braking. Basically works like a Prius, but the used ones are a bit cheaper than comparable Priuses.

The battery longevity question is mostly FUD at this point - we've got million-mile Priuses running around. My parents' '06 has 80-something % "battery health" at 300k. The batteries in the Volt should be similar.

Any big difference between more recent Accords/Civics/Camrys? I test drove a Corolla a few years ago and it was just too small to be comfortable. I'm 6'2 and I like my legroom.

Corolla/Civic is compact. Accord/Camry is midsize. Midsize is the car for you, I think.

As to weight, according to Google the curb weight of my 95 Civic 4dr MT is 2300 lbs. A 2017 Fit MT is 2500 lbs. You'd think 22 years of technology advancement could compensate for an extra 200 lbs, but the Fit gets a combined 37 mpg vs my 43ish (let's call it 42 since I do more than 50% freeway). Is there a heavier load on the alternator or something?

If you can't fit in a Corolla, I can't imagine you'd be comfy in a Fit.

That said, the advances have been in terms of power and overall efficiency. The Fit produces 130hp, the old Civic would have been well under 100hp. (As low as 70, depending on the model.) If the engines were equally efficient, they've be getting 20mpg.

If you look at the midsize sedans, it's more pronounced. And Accord is around 3500 pounds, but the hybrid will still get 40mpg on a good day.

Yeah I know lol, wife had bought it before we got married. Neither of us is a car person so it just seemed like a cheap way into something reliable. We've both been burned by used cars in the past and didn't have time to do a ton of research. I'm making these quotes to keep it from happening again.

My parents did the drive-it-till-it-dies thing too. That always seemed like a bad idea to me both for the higher risk of safety problems toward EOL

That's not really a thing, unless you're letting major problems "go" because you don't want to pay to get them fixed on an "old" car. The wubwub of doom means "replace your wheel bearing", it doesn't mean "turn the stereo up." (And so on.)

and because selling it with a year or two of life means you get at least a downpayment toward the new car.

It's the last year or two of life that are the cheapest transportation. Sure, okay, you might get $1000 for a trade-in with 150k miles vs. $500 for a trade-in with 200k miles, but that's the cheapest mileage you're gonna get out of that car. (A penny a mile, vs. the $0.07/mile depreciation you've seen from your Rio. It's even worse with more expensive cars. The guy who owned my car before I did ate $20k in depreciation over 5 years and drove it 21k miles.)

Put even half the depreciation difference (3 cents per mile) in a savings account and you'll have plenty of money for a down payment when the older car finally bites it.

 

[etherealfocus]

As an expensive gas car, they still get really good mileage, and the electric assist will charge itself from regenerative braking. Basically works like a Prius, but the used ones are a bit cheaper than comparable Priuses.

The battery longevity question is mostly FUD at this point - we've got million-mile Priuses running around. My parents' '06 has 80-something % "battery health" at 300k. The batteries in the Volt should be similar.

Good to know esp about batteries... at that point it sounds like they're unlikely to be replaced before the car dies anyway. That said, if I have a choice between dropping 13k to hit 40mpg or dropping 2k and living without some creature features... yeah, 11k in the bank is sounding pretty nice.

Corolla/Civic is compact. Accord/Camry is midsize. Midsize is the car for you, I think. If you can't fit in a Corolla, I can't imagine you'd be comfy in a Fit.

That said, the advances have been in terms of power and overall efficiency. The Fit produces 130hp, the old Civic would have been well under 100hp. (As low as 70, depending on the model.) If the engines were equally efficient, they've be getting 20mpg.

If you look at the midsize sedans, it's more pronounced. And Accord is around 3500 pounds, but the hybrid will still get 40mpg on a good day.

Oddly my current Civic is very comfortable for me (except when working the clutch continuously in Dallas traffic jams, which is tempting me to get an automatic). Corolla seats felt like they just wouldn't go back far enough. I haven't driven a Fit in a long time; I'll test drive one when I've got time and see how it feels.

So what you're saying is that efficiency gains have been largely spent on extra weight and performance rather than mpg boosts. I can kinda see that; my Civic is definitely a bit on the sluggish side. I wouldn't complain about a little extra power for merging and passing... and really, I drive around 15k miles a year so the difference between 30mpg and 40mpg at $2/gallon gas is only $250/yr. That's gonna take a lot of years to justify paying a significant premium for fuel efficiency.

That's not really a thing, unless you're letting major problems "go" because you don't want to pay to get them fixed on an "old" car. The wubwub of doom means "replace your wheel bearing", it doesn't mean "turn the stereo up." (And so on.)

In my parents' case it's because they live in rural Minnesota and finding a good mechanic has been an epic struggle for them. They've been screwed by dealers and mechanics since I was in high school and I'm pushing 35 now. Bad enough that they finally gave up and got almost-new vehicles... but I have plenty of memories of cars giving out on the road or developing serious mechanical problems midway through a road trip despite regular maintenance.

It's the last year or two of life that are the cheapest transportation. Sure, okay, you might get $1000 for a trade-in with 150k miles vs. $500 for a trade-in with 200k miles, but that's the cheapest mileage you're gonna get out of that car. (A penny a mile, vs. the $0.07/mile depreciation you've seen from your Rio. It's even worse with more expensive cars. The guy who owned my car before I did ate $20k in depreciation over 5 years and drove it 21k miles.)

Put even half the depreciation difference (3 cents per mile) in a savings account and you'll have plenty of money for a down payment when the older car finally bites it.

Ouch, hadn't done the numbers on that. Point taken.

Sounds like keeping both cars until they stop feeling safe or repair bills don't make economic sense is the way to go.