Buy a new (used) car or no?

[pete6032]

I have a 2002 Civic with 145k miles on it. I don't drive to work so I only drive once or twice per week plus the occasional multistate trip to visit work offices or family. Annual mileage estimate is under 4k per year, closer to 3k, and I average under 100 miles per month excluding the few cross country trips I make each year. I have kept the car in good shape (no rust concerns) but the past two years its been a huge cost. In 2019 I sunk over $3k into it, and in 2020 I will be at over $1,500 in maintenance costs. I have done the following:

2019: did the timing belt, water pump, new tires, front ball joint, tie rods, bought new battery. At this point I thought it would run another few years with limited maintenance costs.
2020: did the rear shocks after they were squeaking a lot (140k miles is pretty good for rear shocks), AC leak test and recharge AC, works completely fine now, fixed rusted out brake line, also in the shop right now to leak test EVAP system. Likely need to replace a hose or two and total cost will be $400 after all maint completed. Front shocks were done in 2012 around 75k miles.

Anyway the last few months the car has been in the shop a lot and I'm starting to wonder whether it would be most cost effective to buy a new (used) car.

If I bought something it would probably be a used Subaru or anther AWD vehicle like a Hyundai Kona, Honda HRV, etc. I don't anticipate in the next 5 years needing to use the car on a daily basis. I live in the Midwest so looking for something AWD for the snow. What say you ATTG? Should I buy a used car or stick with the Civic?

 

[manly]

What does your mechanic say about future anticipated repair and maintenance costs? If all the expensive work is done and you're back to routine maintenance for the next few years, I'd keep the car. You don't drive a whole lot so unless the Civic is a money pit going forward, almost no used car that you'll get into will be cheaper to operate. Financially, I miss the 2000 Honda Accord that I got rid of 3 years ago.

 

[pauldun170]

I have a 2002 Civic with 145k miles on it. I don't drive to work so I only drive once or twice per week plus the occasional multistate trip to visit work offices or family. Annual mileage estimate is under 4k per year, closer to 3k, and I average under 100 miles per month excluding the few cross country trips I make each year. I have kept the car in good shape (no rust concerns) but the past two years its been a huge cost. In 2019 I sunk over $3k into it, and in 2020 I will be at over $1,500 in maintenance costs. I have done the following:

2019: did the timing belt, water pump, new tires, front ball joint, tie rods, bought new battery. At this point I thought it would run another few years with limited maintenance costs.
2020: did the rear shocks after they were squeaking a lot (140k miles is pretty good for rear shocks), AC leak test and recharge AC, works completely fine now, fixed rusted out brake line, also in the shop right now to leak test EVAP system. Likely need to replace a hose or two and total cost will be $400 after all maint completed. Front shocks were done in 2012 around 75k miles.

Anyway the last few months the car has been in the shop a lot and I'm starting to wonder whether it would be most cost effective to buy a new (used) car.

If I bought something it would probably be a used Subaru or anther AWD vehicle like a Hyundai Kona, Honda HRV, etc. I don't anticipate in the next 5 years needing to use the car on a daily basis. I live in the Midwest so looking for something AWD for the snow. What say you ATTG? Should I buy a used car or stick with the Civic?

If you are thinking in terms of costs, at this point it will be cheaper to keep the Civic and deal with Honda's "naughty phase". Naughty Phase being between 150K and 180K where some age related crap pops up and it seems like the worst thing in the world but in reality the car has about another 200K of life in it after you replace some items.
Nothing you have listed is a big deal.

If you are are simply tired of looking at it and don't want to put any more money into it just get another car.

Cars are an expense no matter what.
It's up to you if you want the money you spend to go to the bank and the insurance company or into maintenance items.
With the Civic, it will be cheaper to put the money into the maintenance items. It's a simple car.

FYI: Don't tell my wife I said any of this.

 

[Torn Mind]

I have a 2002 Civic with 145k miles on it. I don't drive to work so I only drive once or twice per week plus the occasional multistate trip to visit work offices or family. Annual mileage estimate is under 4k per year, closer to 3k, and I average under 100 miles per month excluding the few cross country trips I make each year. I have kept the car in good shape (no rust concerns) but the past two years its been a huge cost. In 2019 I sunk over $3k into it, and in 2020 I will be at over $1,500 in maintenance costs. I have done the following:

2019: did the timing belt, water pump, new tires, front ball joint, tie rods, bought new battery. At this point I thought it would run another few years with limited maintenance costs.
2020: did the rear shocks after they were squeaking a lot (140k miles is pretty good for rear shocks), AC leak test and recharge AC, works completely fine now, fixed rusted out brake line, also in the shop right now to leak test EVAP system. Likely need to replace a hose or two and total cost will be $400 after all maint completed. Front shocks were done in 2012 around 75k miles.

Anyway the last few months the car has been in the shop a lot and I'm starting to wonder whether it would be most cost effective to buy a new (used) car.

If I bought something it would probably be a used Subaru or anther AWD vehicle like a Hyundai Kona, Honda HRV, etc. I don't anticipate in the next 5 years needing to use the car on a daily basis. I live in the Midwest so looking for something AWD for the snow. What say you ATTG? Should I buy a used car or stick with the Civic?

That year of Civic likely has a transmission issue.

How fresh is the fluid?

Since you use it lightly, you can probably indeed milk it another 5 years.

 

[Torn Mind]

Another potential matter is the head gasket blowing.

I used to work for Dominos and the assistant manager had that gen Civic with maybe 135k or something miles. It died along the way back from Missouri(parents were there) because of that.

Now, maybe because that car was driven like it was stolen by the manager, that might have strained the head gasket more than gentler driving would.

https://honda-tech.com/forums/honda-civic-2001-2005-78/2002-civic-ex-transmission-problems-2942825/page2/

 

[ondma]

For the occasional local trip, the Civic should be fine, unless it has a lot of rust.
However, for the multi state trips, a new(er) car with more driver assistance aids would definitely be more "comfortable", both from a driver fatigue and reliability point of view.

 

[pete6032]

Transmission is in good shape. I am pretty light on the gas and make sure to change fluids regularly. Worst part is probably that I have lots of trips under 10 minutes in extra cold weather so car doesn't get a chance to warm up always.

 

[mindless1]

The larger concern to me would be rust. If you've got snowy winters and rusting out brake lines, rust is bound to be taking its toll elsewhere, structurally.

If rust is getting bad I would sell it now. If not, at least gets some value out of the recent repairs and new tires by driving it a few more years. I would rent a car for the long distance trips.

If you buy an AWD that is not significantly newer, you may find that the repair costs for it go up. That's just how SUVs go past a certain age.

The solution to your short tripping is change the oil on a calendar schedule rather than based on mileage, at least once a year if not twice.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I wouldn't throw away the investment of repair/replacement you've made with the vehicle.

You may not get the money you put into the vehicle by selling it now. Consider that you've made an investment in "use-life", as opposed to an asset you can recover.

Our 100-year-old car-culture has evolved to a point where we think in terms of "new clothing style" and 100K-mile-warranty convenience. Excepting oneself from that culture simply requires thinking of the vehicle as a set of sub-systems with a use-life, and managing your choice of repair shops so that you work with one which saves you money even as you pay them.

So I vote with the rest: Keep the Civic.

I was about to post a thread on my "old" '95 Trooper -- an assessment or analysis of what it has cost me to own a 26-year-old vehicle for its last 19 years. I bought it used with 96K-miles for $8,500. It had a 1995 MSRP of $29,250. Over the 19 years, including the $8.5K purchase price, I have spent $27,000 and change on the vehicle -- about $6,000 in the last three years. I'm gambling on the marvelous EK-350 GM engine at 190,000 miles.

This translates into a monthly car-payment of about $120/mo.

It includes some expenses which can be separated to see an "ideal" cumulative expense that only reflects the vehicle and its subsystem life-spans:

--- [My] owner negligence -- a $2,800 transmission replacement in 2004 that could have been avoided.
--- WANTS versus NEED -- $2,800 in a 2018 complete suspension overhaul, because I merely "wanted" a smoother ride
--- Discretionary choices (more "WANTS") -- Calmini Bull-Bar/Grill-guard and RIGID fog-lights; and audio system overhaul with a 12-CD-Changer replacement (new for $80), Bluetooth receivers, USB QC-charger, an $80 android tablet -- semi-permanent to the dashboard, Wi-Fi backup camera ($85) and new Polk-Audio speakers -- all totaling about $1,000

I just recently replaced the harmonic-balancer on the engine, which was only beginning to show wear (a tear or separation) on the stiff braided rubber bond to the pulley wheel. That cost me about $600 parts and labor.

These recent expenses figure into the $120/month average over 19 years, but assuming I can get another 30K miles (10 years, given my retired-life driving needs) from the V-6 engine and continue to get stellar smog-test passes, the remaining life of the various sub-systems that have been renewed would add that 10 years to the expected lifespan. So it is likely to mean as equivalent a monthly expense of $77/month over 29 years.

The engine doesn't leak or burn oil. One or more sticky valve-lifters had been making a "tsk-tsk-tsk. . . . . tsk-tsk-tsk" sound since 2004, but the sound disappears after adding an extra 16 oz of oil above the "full" mark. Smog-test results today are nearly identical to what they were in 2004.

People may say "$27,000?!!? On an old car like that?! You must be crazy!!" But that's what the car cost me over 19 years, to defer any problems for the next 10 years.

One thing I didn't mention is the saving in insurance premiums over 19 years: approximately $15,000.

In capital-budgeting or its government-equivalent of "cost-benefit" analysis, you would translate all costs and benefits into "Present-Values" by using a compounding formula and a discount-rate, with an exponent to (1+d) of the number of years for any given item. Looking at it in nominal dollar terms, that sort of transformation would make all my repair outlays smaller in PV terms compared to the 1995 MSRP. So using nominal dollars in my numbers is an equally useful exercise.

Consider this: If I'd bought the car in 1995 for something less than the MSRP, I would have spent an additional $12,000 (at least) in the repair/renewal expenses to keep it for the full 26 years. If I'd simply bought a new car in 2002 to trade in after six years for another new car -- through a third iteration and for vehicles with MSRP of $30,000, I would've spent at least $60,000 over 18 years. That assumes a six-year-old resale or Edmunds/Kelly market-value of about $10,000. I would have about $10,000 remaining in an asset at end of the third 6-year period.

 

[ondma]

I wouldn't throw away the investment of repair/replacement you've made with the vehicle.

You may not get the money you put into the vehicle by selling it now. Consider that you've made an investment in "use-life", as opposed to an asset you can recover.

Our 100-year-old car-culture has evolved to a point where we think in terms of "new clothing style" and 100K-mile-warranty convenience. Excepting oneself from that culture simply requires thinking of the vehicle as a set of sub-systems with a use-life, and managing your choice of repair shops so that you work with one which saves you money even as you pay them.

So I vote with the rest: Keep the Civic.

I was about to post a thread on my "old" '95 Trooper -- an assessment or analysis of what it has cost me to own a 26-year-old vehicle for its last 19 years. I bought it used with 96K-miles for $8,500. It had a 1995 MSRP of $29,250. Over the 19 years, including the $8.5K purchase price, I have spent $27,000 and change on the vehicle -- about $6,000 in the last three years. I'm gambling on the marvelous EK-350 GM engine at 190,000 miles.

This translates into a monthly car-payment of about $120/mo.

It includes some expenses which can be separated to see an "ideal" cumulative expense that only reflects the vehicle and its subsystem life-spans:

--- [My] owner negligence -- a $2,800 transmission replacement in 2004 that could have been avoided.
--- WANTS versus NEED -- $2,800 in a 2018 complete suspension overhaul, because I merely "wanted" a smoother ride
--- Discretionary choices (more "WANTS") -- Calmini Bull-Bar/Grill-guard and RIGID fog-lights; and audio system overhaul with a 12-CD-Change replacement (new for $80), Bluetooth receivers, USB QC-charger, and new Polk-Audio speakers -- all totaling about $1,000

I just recently replaced the harmonic-balancer on the engine, which was only recently showing wear on the stiff braided rubber bond to the pulley wheel. That cost me about $600 parts and labor.

These recent expenses figure into the $120/month average over 19 years, but assuming I can get another 30K miles (10 years, given my retired-life driving needs) from the V-6 engine and continue to get stellar smog-test passes, the remaining life of the various sub-systems that have been renewed would add that 10 years to the expected lifespan. So it is likely to mean as equivalent a monthly expense of $77/month over 29 years.

The engine doesn't leak or burn oil. One or more sticky valve-lifters had been making a "tsk-tsk-tsk. . . . . tsk-tsk-tsk" sound since 2004, but the sound disappears after adding an extra 16 oz of oil above the "full" mark. Smog-test results today are nearly identical to what they were in 2004.

People may say "$27,000?!!? On an old car like that?! You must be crazy!!" But that's what the car cost me over 19 years, to defer any problems for the next 10 years.

One thing I didn't mention is the saving in insurance premiums over 19 years: approximately $15,000.

In capital-budgeting or its government-equivalent of "cost-benefit" analysis, you would translate all costs and benefits into "Present-Values" by using a compounding formula and a discount-rate, with an exponent to (1+d) of the number of years for any given item. Looking at it in nominal dollar terms, that sort of transformation would make all my repair outlays smaller in PV terms compared to the 1995 MSRP. So using nominal dollars in my numbers is an equally useful exercise.

Of course from strictly monetary point of view I cant disagree. OTOH, you also have the time/inconvenience of the repairs, the importance of which would vary depending on if you had other vehicles available, and if you, for instance, had to reliably get to work every day. There are also a lot of additional safety features available on newer cars.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Safety features -- yes! One of which I have added myself with the Wi-Fi camera. In response to your observation of "can't disagree" in monetary terms, certainly those inconveniences you mention are things that new-car buyers can and do avoid. On the matter of "reliably getting to work every day", that may be a matter of perception and convenience again, if you can use public transportation, carpool with someone else -- or as you say -- have a spare in the garage. Certainly, the spare vehicle would also be another used vehicle.

That's why I had a fleet of variously three or four 1979 Honda Civics (1200, CVCC and wagon) between 1979 (a new car) and 1999(when I sold the CVCC and relocated to the West coast. Mostly, they all had interchangeable parts, and -- mostly -- two of them would be drive-able while at least one was incapacitated. Total cost of vehicle ownership over those twenty years counting insurance premiums as another separate matter -- was less than $15,000, or $62/month. Per vehicle, it was maybe $20/month.

Of course, your residence may limit your options. A condominium or apartment with a common parking lot may curtail the number of vehicles you can keep, and make it more difficult to do your own oil changes, valve-clearance adjustments and other things.

While my Trooper is not apparently at its "End-of-Life", I may be, myself. At 73, I have pre-existing conditions but am still reasonably healthy. I could die in 5 years, 10 years . . . 15 years. I could be unable to get my license renewed in ten years.

So I have to weigh the pleasures of having a new vehicle in the last several years before I finally punch my ticket, against the DIY and other pleasures of having an old vehicle and punching out without experiencing the pleasure of having a new one.

Would you rather have pride in "conspicuous consumption" to show your higher income or wealth, or pride in avoiding . . . all that . . . sheee-it?

As my threads would show and my friends would tell you, I've been "getting off" on my Trooper ownership for about as long as I've owned it. It's been fun -- including the hours I've poured over the factory shop manual PDF on my computer, or time spent on the recent DIY projects. Since I'm not out and about trying to get rich, I can spend my time on . . . my vehicles. But I'm not really spending a lot of money. I'm not keeping it in order to resell it -- that's my argument about the harmonic balancer's $600 versus the current market value of <= $1,000. I'm keeping the car so I can drive it . . .

 

[ondma]

Safety features -- yes! One of which I have added myself with the Wi-Fi camera. In response to your observation of "can't disagree" in monetary terms, certainly those inconveniences you mention are things that new-car buyers can and do avoid. On the matter of "reliably getting to work every day", that may be a matter of perception and convenience again, if you can use public transportation, carpool with someone else -- or as you say -- have a spare in the garage. Certainly, the spare vehicle would also be another used vehicle.

That's why I had a fleet of variously three or four 1979 Honda Civics (1200, CVCC and wagon) between 1979 (a new car) and 1999(when I sold the CVCC and relocated to the West coast. Mostly, they all had interchangeable parts, and -- mostly -- two of them would be drive-able while at least one was incapacitated. Total cost of vehicle ownership over those twenty years counting insurance premiums as another separate matter -- was less than $15,000, or $62/month. Per vehicle, it was maybe $20/month.

Of course, your residence may limit your options. A condominium or apartment with a common parking lot may curtail the number of vehicles you can keep, and make it more difficult to do your own oil changes, valve-clearance adjustments and other things.

While my Trooper is not apparently at its "End-of-Life", I may be, myself. At 73, I have pre-existing conditions but am still reasonably healthy. I could die in 5 years, 10 years . . . 15 years. I could be unable to get my license renewed in ten years.

So I have to weigh the pleasures of having a new vehicle in the last several years before I finally punch my ticket, against the DIY and other pleasures of having an old vehicle and punching out without experiencing the pleasure of having a new one.

Would you rather have pride in "conspicuous consumption" to show your higher income or wealth, or pride in avoiding . . . all that . . . sheee-it?

As my threads would show and my friends would tell you, I've been "getting off" on my Trooper ownership for about as long as I've owned it. It's been fun -- including the hours I've poured over the factory shop manual PDF on my computer, or time spent on the recent DIY projects. Since I'm not out and about trying to get rich, I can spend my time on . . . my vehicles. But I'm not really spending a lot of money. I'm not keeping it in order to resell it -- that's my argument about the harmonic balancer's $600 versus the current market value of <= $1,000. I'm keeping the car so I can drive it . . .

2 or 3 years ago, I was working on a research project that had strictly set protocols that must be performed on a certain date, or it would jeopardize the entire two year study. I had only one car, no one close to me to car pool with, and public transportation was very inconvenient, especially in near zero winter weather. In a situation like that, it was essential to have a reliable vehicle. Now I have retired, and it is not nearly so essential.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

2 or 3 years ago, I was working on a research project that had strictly set protocols that must be performed on a certain date, or it would jeopardize the entire two year study. I had only one car, no one close to me to car pool with, and public transportation was very inconvenient, especially in near zero winter weather. In a situation like that, it was essential to have a reliable vehicle. Now I have retired, and it is not nearly so essential.

I understand perfectly. Even so, there is always a tincture of uncertainty in everything. If I look at my 19-year spreadsheet on the Trooper, examining all the components replaced and the various odometer-miles of use on them, I cannot imagine any "down time" for the vehicle over the next five years. But then, those five years may only mean 15,000 miles.

Generally, the new-car-buyer-becoming-used-car-owner can settle into complacency about maintenance and repair. Or -- someone who buys a pre-owned with 50K miles on the odometer may not pay attention to something like a timing-belt replacement schedule -- I can imagine many things, because I've experienced my own ignorance or stupidity firsthand.

But again, as you said, and to quote Doc Holiday's script-line from "Tombstone" when the outlaw tells him "You're drunk" -- "I got two guns, one for each one of ya!" Your run-of-the-mill middle-class family often has two cars -- maybe three. So you juggle the balls.

Afterthought: My brother's car-ownership strategy favors "buy a new(used) car". Buy a beater, drive it into the ground, buy another beater . . . etc. etc. But that just increases uncertainty, because every replacement used car may not come with a spreadsheet history -- you can't be sure what you're getting. I can say -- at the very least -- I know about everything I've replaced, and everything that hasn't been replaced.