New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
UnLearnYourself
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:19 pm

New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by UnLearnYourself »

I'm at a bit of a vehicular crossroads, leaning towards buying a new car, but was hoping for some level headed feedback in the process.

I currently own a 2007 Honda Civic EX with 170,000 miles on it. I've been religious with oil changes and routine upkeep so the engine and major components are all in great working order. However, within the past few months the car has suffered a bit of body damage. First I hit a large rock backing out of a driveway and got a nice dent split between the rear driver side door and rear panel. Then about a week ago a lady backed into me and put a little dent on the edge of my hood. Also my AC compressor is shot. Those are the three issues with the car, otherwise its in great shape.

I can replace the AC compressor for about $300-$400 with the help of a friend who can get me a wholesale price on the part.

The dent I put into the car is likely a few thousand dollar repair, so if I fix it I'm looking at my $500 deductable and the increase in my insurance premium, and the first black mark on my auto insurance record.

The dent the lady put into the car would likely yield a replacement of my hood and some molding beneath my license plate, likely a thousand or two dollars for that, so ultimately the lady would pay the $500 deductable, though I'm not sure if that hurts my insurance or just hers.

All in all about $1,300-$1,400 in repairs to get the car back into tip top shape, but that is the price with the involvement of insurance companies to deal with the body damage. If I were to try and sell the car private party the new owner would likely be several thousand dollars deep to fix all this stuff, thus drastically reducing its value as-is. I could probably get $5,000-$6,000 easy if not for the body damage. With the damage I fear I wouldn't get any more than $3,000, maybe less.

So what I'm considering doing is getting some trade-in quotes. Hopefully I'm able to level with the dealership and get a straight quote as-is, and a quote if I were to do the repair work prior to trading in. That said, the benefit of a trade in in my case is those repairs are not nearly as costly for them with the cheap parts and labor they're able to put into it. So I very well may get $3,000-$4,000 trade in, plus the reduction of sales tax on the new vehicle for trading in a car that I already paid the tax on which still holds value. Plus the benefit of not having to hussle a sale for my car amidst a busy schedule.


The new car I'm eying is the Subaru XV Crosstek a nice fuel efficient AWD crossover that provides some SUV like features while still handling like a smaller car. I live in New England so getting an AWD Subaru has been something I've been considering for a while. Then I saw this car and it really fits the bill nicely. The package I'd be looking at is likely to be about $25-$26,000 total, minus whatever trade in and down payment I put into it. I make about $80k per year, no kids, rent is only $750, and I have little to no debt or other significant overhead. My income is likely to rise $10-$20k in the next year, and should sustain right around that level for the forseeable future. Dollar for dollar I can easily handle a payment on approx $20k auto loan at a 2% rate or less (AAA and other lenders).

One last important element to the whole equation. I work out of my car on a daily basis, so I'm on the road all the time, increasing the chances of it being damaged somehow. Also I'm in and out of the car with tools, boxes, ladders, etc. The Subaru would have a rubber guard on the bumper, in the trunk area, on the back of the back seats, which would be positioned down while working, so the majority of heavy work traffic areas will be protected. Still, I am a bit wary of putting a brand new car in that situation.

The logical answer to all this would seem to be rid of the Civic and get a used car with low mileage, but to be quite honest this Crosstek is the first car that has fit the bill just right for me in terms of a smaller suv with AWD, good gas mileage, and a look and feel I'd be happy getting in and out of every day. I could obviously wait a year or two and get a good used one, but I fear that by then I'll have spent a few grand on other repairs for the Civic likely to come as I approach the $200k mark (I've already replaced the battery and starter within the past 6 months), and have the car further depreciate.

So for those of you who are still with me after this long post, do you have any thoughts or advice? Any insight is much appreciated.
Topic Author
UnLearnYourself
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by UnLearnYourself »

OR just repair the Civic and get it to 300,000 miles over the next several years or a point of no return to max out the value of having a car with no car payment?
Dopey
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Dopey »

I'd skip the body work and replace the other parts with parts from a salvage yard.
TheGreyingDuke
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:34 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by TheGreyingDuke »

If the women with whom you had the collision is at fault, as you indicated, no issue with your insurance. Your insurer will go after her for the full amount. You didn't ask but it may be quite expensive to be carrying collision on a car of your Civic's value
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." H.G. Wells
User avatar
mike143
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by mike143 »

Run it into the ground. Keep in the back of your head what you want to replace it with once it doesn't make sense to repair anymore.
Nothing is free, someone pays...You can't spend your way to financial freedom.
Mudpuppy
Posts: 7409
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:26 am
Location: Sunny California

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Mudpuppy »

At the very least, get the damage that the lady did to your car repaired. That should have no impact on your insurance or your pocketbook if she was 100% at fault in the accident. That will also maximize your trade-in value if you do decide to go with the new car. You can also ask the body shop how much they would charge for a cash repair of the damage done by the rock. If reasonable, you can pay cash and just skip mentioning that damage to the insurance company.

Financially speaking, you would be best off paying cash for the new car, or at least making a significant downpayment. I personally would not buy the car until you have at least $12k-13k saved up for it (about 50%), if not more. It might be best to wait until the $10k-20k rise in income actually happens, and you have saved the majority of that raise specifically for the new car, before you purchase the new car.
User avatar
Padlin
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:46 pm
Location: MA

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Padlin »

Sounds like it's not broken down on you leaving you stranded as yet. I'd have it fixed, both the body and the AC, and keep driving it. To me being an 07 it's still pretty new, especially if you'd have to finance a new one.
Regards | Bob
TRC
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by TRC »

If it were me, I'd trade it. Only caution with the new Subaru Crosstek is are you buying the "first year"? Subaru's are nice though. My brother in law drives an Outback and sister in law drives a Forrester.

If you traded for another Honda, you might do a little better. Have you thought about an Element? Those are pretty functional vehicles and sounds like it would match your work / driving needs. You can't get them new anymore, but you might be able to find a certified pre-owned.
wander
Posts: 4424
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:10 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by wander »

TRC wrote:If it were me, I'd trade it. Only caution with the new Subaru Crosstek is are you buying the "first year"? Subaru's are nice though. My brother in law drives an Outback and sister in law drives a Forrester.
You won't get much if trade it in. Car dealer makes a lot of money to get cheap trade-in deal and turn around to sell it for premium price.
jbmitt
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:00 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by jbmitt »

XV is essentially an Impreza with some suspension changes and a few body changes. I have a 'first year' 2012 Impreza and I've been happy with it. The XV gets a slightly fewer mpg.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by nisiprius »

2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.

There was a study, unfortunately many years ago, that confirmed what common sense says: the most economical strategy for car ownership is "drive it into the ground."

There were some interesting details. One was that there was actually a midlife crisis--some fairly costly things that tend to happen around five years or so, like a clutch replacement in a stick shift, and that costs actually have a peak and then decline. The second was that, again, as you'd expect, even though the cost of repairs to an older car weren't that high, there was a cost in the form of reduced availability and reliability--the car is spending more time in the shop.

My personal philosophy is "just fix it." I've had some fairly gratifying experiences, spending $3,000 on a five-year old Acura that turned out to be the fountain of youth. And then of course sometimes I've spent a lot on an expensive repair and then something else happens soon afterwards. But I don't think that's predictable. Just because an oldish car needs an expensive repair doesn't automatically mean it's time to trade.

I don't know if youngsters appreciate how much better cars are today than they were thirty years ago. They stay in tune, and they don't rust out. In Ye Olde Days the floor would rust through somewhere (despite the undercoating or rustproofing the dealer had talked you into), and you weren't pretty sure the floormats weren't a good seal if there were an exhaust leak. Or no mechanic could get all the parts and pivots and springs and bimetallic strips in the carburetor to keep working more than two weeks after servicing, and you'd have a car that wouldn't start in winter, or would stall at every red light, or drive beautifully and get 15 mpg. And the engines last! You used to drive into a service station and say "gasandoil" because everyone took it for granted that you would need oil at almost every fill-up.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
bigspender
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:37 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by bigspender »

I would say just fix the Civic. When you buy a new car, you have other costs. Your insurance will be higher, you will have to pay state sales tax on it, sounds like the car you want to replace will have less gas mileage, and you will be out 25,000 dollars. The economy is tough now for people and don't just assume you will always have a job. So for the 2 grand, just fix the civic and be done with it. The drivetrains on those cars are pretty good and should give you 300,000 miles without issue.
User avatar
Hexdump
Posts: 1626
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:28 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Hexdump »

mike143 wrote:Run it into the ground. Keep in the back of your head what you want to replace it with once it doesn't make sense to repair anymore.
+1

I just went through something similar with a 2001 Honda CR-V.
Cost of repairs = 1,800
Trade in value = 3,000
New car = 20,000
Mileage = 130,000

I am keeping it and doing most of the repairs myself.
User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 13484
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by jeffyscott »

You can collect the $1000-2000 from the lady's insurance company for the damage, but you do not have to fix the damage. Same should go for collecting on the damage you did yourself. I'd put the money from that in my pocket and see what you can get for the Civic either as a trade or selling yourself, you might be surprised...people are convinced that no matter the age or miles, if a car says Honda or Toyota on it, it will last forever and cost nothing to keep running, so they overpay (IMO) for used cars of these makes.

You are single and making $80k (so why do you need a loan :wink: ) and spend an awful lot of time in the car, I think I'd just get the car that I want in that situation. The car won't be brand new for long, but you will get over the worrying over every scratch after 6 months or so.

Used car prices are high these days, you may not save much by waiting and buying used. In addition, shopping for used cars is much more of a hassle as each one is different, so you have to spend time going to see each one you might be interested in.
WHL
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:22 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by WHL »

I wouldn't put any money into the aesthetics unless you're driving to visit customers or something similar. If you don't need the AC (not sure where you live) don't replace it.

My 2005 truck has 138k and I don't plan on getting rid of it for quite a while. I'm behind on maintenance right now because I've lived in an apartment for the last 5 years and I will never pay a dealership or other mechanic to do work I can do myself.

Anyways, keep it is my vote.
User avatar
Cautious Optimist
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Cautious Optimist »

I face a similar issue - I drive an old car (1999) with high mileage (135k+) which will likely soon need replacement and/or become repair-cost prohibitive and I'm curious what Boglehead philosophy says about cars. I assume something like "if it isn't broke don't fix it" but am curious whether BH principles would say "never buy new" (depreciation) and/or its views on driving a car into the ground whenever possible. I assume BH principles would value financial pragmatism first and foremost for example over aesthetics...If this is already discussed in a Wiki I apologize in advance...
User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by JupiterJones »

I got some hail damage to my Honda last year. Still haven't fixed it. Probably won't ever.

That's the nice thing about driving a car into the ground... when you don't plan on ever trading it in (except to the junkyard), you don't always have to worry about the dings and scratches. :D

So if I were you, I'd:

1) Get the money from the lady who hit your car, assuming she's 100% at fault.

2) Put it in a sinking fund for your next car, which you then regularly contribute to henceforth.

3) Maybe fix the A/C, but then again, maybe not. Depends on how bad the heat gets where you are (and for how long). I've driven a few cars that had "270 air conditioning" (roll down 2 windows and drive 70 down the highway) and I lived to tell the tale.

4) Think about increasing your deductible to $1,000. Put the insurance savings toward your sinking fund.

But that's me. YMMV.
"Stay on target! Stay on target!"
User avatar
ryuns
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:07 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by ryuns »

jeffyscott wrote:You can collect the $1000-2000 from the lady's insurance company for the damage, but you do not have to fix the damage. Same should go for collecting on the damage you did yourself. I'd put the money from that in my pocket and see what you can get for the Civic either as a trade or selling yourself, you might be surprised...people are convinced that no matter the age or miles, if a car says Honda or Toyota on it, it will last forever and cost nothing to keep running, so they overpay (IMO) for used cars of these makes.

Don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious as to when/how often this is the case. I always hear about this type of thing, but then a neighbor backed in to the side of one of our cars and did some pricey damage, which required a new door, quarter panel, and mirror. It's an old car and we would have loved a check for the amount of the estimate (then spending maybe 25% of that amount for a mirror and dent fixing), but the estimate and repairs were all performed by the same shop that had a relationship to the insurance company and there was never any check involved. On the other hand, a garbage truck clawed my rear bumper, an estimator came by, and they sent me a check in the mail. I "fixed" that dent with a hammer and some house paint and cashed the $700 check. Pretty classy.
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 28859
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Watty »

There are a few considerations since this is a work car;

1) In addition to the costs of any future repairs having to take the car into the shop more often in the future as it ages takes time out of your day each time a repair is needed and you would need a substitute car while it is in the shop. This may cost you to lose billable time or a car breakdown could cause you to miss an appointment which could have all sorts impact including to your reputation. A lot really depends on your type of business.

2) You might be able to deduct some of the new car expenses as business expenses.
User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 13484
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by jeffyscott »

ryuns wrote:...a neighbor backed in to the side of one of our cars and did some pricey damage, which required a new door, quarter panel, and mirror. It's an old car and we would have loved a check for the amount of the estimate (then spending maybe 25% of that amount for a mirror and dent fixing), but the estimate and repairs were all performed by the same shop that had a relationship to the insurance company and there was never any check involved.
I think you could have just told the insurance company to give you a check for in the amount of the estimate? I don't think they can require you to fix the damage or use "their" body shop? All I know is that I have never had a problem just getting a check from either my own or the other party's insurance company, as long as there is not a lien on the car. When I want a check, I have either gotten my own estimate or gone to the insurance company drive through claim center.

I can recall 6 incidents in the last 30 years and in 5 cases we got a check, the other one was a vehicle that was just a month old, so we wanted a full repair.
User avatar
mmmodem
Posts: 2628
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:22 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by mmmodem »

My understanding of Boglehead philosophy is it's about affordability. Driving a car into the ground doesn't make you a Boglehead if you lose work hours and job opportunities due to excessive auto repairs. Similarly, buying a brand new car doesn't make you not a Boglehead if the peace of mind of a new vehicle allows you to sleep well at night and be productive at work.

The way I see it. If you have to make payments on the car, you can't afford it. People call that extreme. Maybe it is. But if you lost your job tomorrow, you'd be glad you were driving a dented Civic with a busted AC that you own outright rather than watch them tow away your brand new Subaru. It's a whole lot easier going to job interviews with confidence that if you don't get the job, you'll get the next one. This is better than reeking of desperation that you better get this job or they will tow the car.
User avatar
Cautious Optimist
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Cautious Optimist »

mmmodem wrote:My understanding of Boglehead philosophy is it's about affordability. Driving a car into the ground doesn't make you a Boglehead if you lose work hours and job opportunities due to excessive auto repairs. Similarly, buying a brand new car doesn't make you not a Boglehead if the peace of mind of a new vehicle allows you to sleep well at night and be productive at work.

The way I see it. If you have to make payments on the car, you can't afford it. People call that extreme. Maybe it is. But if you lost your job tomorrow, you'd be glad you were driving a dented Civic with a busted AC that you own outright rather than watch them tow away your brand new Subaru. It's a whole lot easier going to job interviews with confidence that if you don't get the job, you'll get the next one. This is better than reeking of desperation that you better get this job or they will tow the car.
Thank you for your reply.
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 25625
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Grt2bOutdoors »

Collect on the insurance providing the other parties insurance company pays.
Replace and fix the compressor. Either drive with the dents, see if a body shop will do a semi-decent job and cut you a break or buy a puller and some bondo. If the car is mechanically sound, which it sounds like it is, I'd be inclined to keep driving it. Just continue making the required fluid changes, belt changes, etc.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
TRC
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by TRC »

wander wrote:
TRC wrote:If it were me, I'd trade it. Only caution with the new Subaru Crosstek is are you buying the "first year"? Subaru's are nice though. My brother in law drives an Outback and sister in law drives a Forrester.
You won't get much if trade it in. Car dealer makes a lot of money to get cheap trade-in deal and turn around to sell it for premium price.
Right, that's how they make money and stay in business. My thought was if he traded honda for honda, he might get more for it as they may not "wholesale it" and instead, sell it on their lot. So there's one less time it changes hands for a profit. Trading is a hassle free way to get rid of a problem car. OP could try and sell it, but it sounds like the car has issues that need attention and $$$$.
technovelist
Posts: 3611
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:02 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by technovelist »

mmmodem wrote:My understanding of Boglehead philosophy is it's about affordability. Driving a car into the ground doesn't make you a Boglehead if you lose work hours and job opportunities due to excessive auto repairs. Similarly, buying a brand new car doesn't make you not a Boglehead if the peace of mind of a new vehicle allows you to sleep well at night and be productive at work.

The way I see it. If you have to make payments on the car, you can't afford it. People call that extreme. Maybe it is. But if you lost your job tomorrow, you'd be glad you were driving a dented Civic with a busted AC that you own outright rather than watch them tow away your brand new Subaru. It's a whole lot easier going to job interviews with confidence that if you don't get the job, you'll get the next one. This is better than reeking of desperation that you better get this job or they will tow the car.
+1.
In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, they often differ.
User avatar
ryuns
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:07 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by ryuns »

jeffyscott wrote: I think you could have just told the insurance company to give you a check for in the amount of the estimate? I don't think they can require you to fix the damage or use "their" body shop? All I know is that I have never had a problem just getting a check from either my own or the other party's insurance company, as long as there is not a lien on the car. When I want a check, I have either gotten my own estimate or gone to the insurance company drive through claim center.

I can recall 6 incidents in the last 30 years and in 5 cases we got a check, the other one was a vehicle that was just a month old, so we wanted a full repair.
Thanks. I think you're probably right--it was just odd that the whole thing was shuffled through in fairly short order, with their insurance company working directly with the auto shop--essentially asking me if it was okay that I bring it to a certain shop for an estimate, and then asking me to bring the car back to be fixed a couple days after the estimate was done-- and my insurance company not being involved. Oh well.
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
thebogledude
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:40 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by thebogledude »

Hexdump wrote: +1

I just went through something similar with a 2001 Honda CR-V.
Cost of repairs = 1,800
Trade in value = 3,000
New car = 20,000
Mileage = 130,000

I am keeping it and doing most of the repairs myself.
+1 Run it into the ground. Aside from the battery and starter, there's not that much more that can go until next 40-50K. The timing belt would be next on your list (not sure when that goes). brakes?
User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 6906
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by bottlecap »

The smart thing to do financially is have these minor repairs done, to the extent they are important to you, and continue the drive the Civic for as long as you can.
JupiterJones wrote:
So if I were you, I'd:

1) Get the money from the lady who hit your car, assuming she's 100% at fault.

2) Put it in a sinking fund for your next car, which you then regularly contribute to henceforth.

3) Maybe fix the A/C, but then again, maybe not. Depends on how bad the heat gets where you are (and for how long). I've driven a few cars that had "270 air conditioning" (roll down 2 windows and drive 70 down the highway) and I lived to tell the tale.

4) Think about increasing your deductible to $1,000. Put the insurance savings toward your sinking fund.
This is some really good advice, although I would take the settlement check (which will be based on new OE parts), and find a shop to do the repairs with used or non-OE parts. This will get it fixed and leave you some money left over. Make sure the non-OE or OEM parts aren't essential to the cars operation. You might want to go OEM on the compressor.

You'll likely get another 30 or 40k out of the vehicle without another semi-major repair. Cars really do last a long time nowadays.

JT
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Practicalities of driving a car to the ground?

Post by VictoriaF »

My Civic is much older (1997) but has fewer miles. This thread is encouraging for projecting its longevity. However, the concept of "driving a car to the ground" is rather vague. What are objective criteria for deciding when a car has hit the ground? Can it hit the ground running?

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
jlawrence01
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:34 am
Location: Southern AZ

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by jlawrence01 »

I will say one thing on this subject.

I see a lot of friends selling cars that run well in the hopes of avoiding major repairs. They buy a new vehicle that ends up disappointing them. The person they sold the car to ends up driving the car for 50-60k miles with no major issues.

My feeling is that you should drive the car until there is a major failure and THEN make the decision. If your car dies, you can always rent a car from Enterprise or Hertz.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.
Would you call a car that lacks a 17 year-old-safety feature that prevents 1/3 of fatalities reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment? If so, then what would it take for a car to not be reasonably up-to-date?

"New enough" is not a good standard for safety because the rate of advance is highly variable from one period to another. You have to look at something like fatalities per mile.

The 2007 Honda Civic EX does not have electronic stability control (ESC), ESC prevents 1/3 of fatalities, ESC is standard on the 2007 Honda Civic SI, all new cars sold in the US since 2012, and was available on some cars back in 1996.

The only other safety features that have ranked up there with ESC are seat belts and the collapsible steering column. The issue is not if a car is new enough, it's specific important features, particularly when they cannot be retrofitted.

The OP can decide for himself what safety is worth, but he should not be misinformed.
User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 6906
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by bottlecap »

jlawrence01 wrote:I see a lot of friends selling cars that run well in the hopes of avoiding major repairs.
We see this type of thinking here, as well. I think it's normal. Crazy to me, but normal. I sell the stuff that doesn't run well!

JT
jlawrence01
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:34 am
Location: Southern AZ

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by jlawrence01 »

nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.

There was a study, unfortunately many years ago, that confirmed what common sense says: the most economical strategy for car ownership is "drive it into the ground

I would agree with you on the safety equipment. Everyone likes to talk about all the "modern safety equipment" but no one addresses the major cause of most accidents - distracted drivers. I had the opportunity to ride with my wife around Chicagoland yesterday. At least 30% of the drivers were on their cell phones, grooming themselves or doing other things.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

jlawrence01 wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.

There was a study, unfortunately many years ago, that confirmed what common sense says: the most economical strategy for car ownership is "drive it into the ground

I would agree with you on the safety equipment. Everyone likes to talk about all the "modern safety equipment" but no one addresses the major cause of most accidents - distracted drivers. I had the opportunity to ride with my wife around Chicagoland yesterday. At least 30% of the drivers were on their cell phones, grooming themselves or doing other things.
Most accidents are caused by excessive speed and aggressive driver behavior. So, by your logic, everyone should stop talking about both "distracted driving" and "modern safety equipment".
JoeJohnson
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:34 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by JoeJohnson »

tadamsmar wrote:
jlawrence01 wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.

There was a study, unfortunately many years ago, that confirmed what common sense says: the most economical strategy for car ownership is "drive it into the ground

I would agree with you on the safety equipment. Everyone likes to talk about all the "modern safety equipment" but no one addresses the major cause of most accidents - distracted drivers. I had the opportunity to ride with my wife around Chicagoland yesterday. At least 30% of the drivers were on their cell phones, grooming themselves or doing other things.
Most accidents are caused by excessive speed and aggressive driver behavior. So, by your logic, everyone should stop talking about both "distracted driving" and "modern safety equipment".
Link to statistics?
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

JoeJohnson wrote:
tadamsmar wrote:
jlawrence01 wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.

There was a study, unfortunately many years ago, that confirmed what common sense says: the most economical strategy for car ownership is "drive it into the ground

I would agree with you on the safety equipment. Everyone likes to talk about all the "modern safety equipment" but no one addresses the major cause of most accidents - distracted drivers. I had the opportunity to ride with my wife around Chicagoland yesterday. At least 30% of the drivers were on their cell phones, grooming themselves or doing other things.
Most accidents are caused by excessive speed and aggressive driver behavior. So, by your logic, everyone should stop talking about both "distracted driving" and "modern safety equipment".
Link to statistics?
"Most are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior."

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-an ... dents.html

My point is that: the existence of a leading risk is not a reason for ignoring all other risks.
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Rodc »

tadamsmar wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.
Would you call a car that lacks a 17 year-old-safety feature that prevents 1/3 of fatalities reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment? If so, then what would it take for a car to not be reasonably up-to-date?

"New enough" is not a good standard for safety because the rate of advance is highly variable from one period to another. You have to look at something like fatalities per mile.

The 2007 Honda Civic EX does not have electronic stability control (ESC), ESC prevents 1/3 of fatalities, ESC is standard on the 2007 Honda Civic SI, all new cars sold in the US since 2012, and was available on some cars back in 1996.

The only other safety features that have ranked up there with ESC are seat belts and the collapsible steering column. The issue is not if a car is new enough, it's specific important features, particularly when they cannot be retrofitted.

The OP can decide for himself what safety is worth, but he should not be misinformed.
If you had a one year old car and a decent new safety feature came out would you sell your car to buy the new one?

What if the safety feature only came on a fully loaded luxury brand?

You can't always have the latest greatest safety features unless you are willing and able to spend a great deal of money. There has to be a sense of good enough, though different people will draw the line in different places.

It has crossed my mind that electronic stability control is an honest benefit from replacing my 04 Accord, but not a sufficient one.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Rodc »

Take the insurance money, fix the air conditioning if you live in a place where AC is important.

When cars get to this place I stop doing non-critical repairs and keep an eye out for a replacement (which may be a year or two into the future). But be prepared.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

Rodc wrote:
tadamsmar wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.
Would you call a car that lacks a 17 year-old-safety feature that prevents 1/3 of fatalities reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment? If so, then what would it take for a car to not be reasonably up-to-date?

"New enough" is not a good standard for safety because the rate of advance is highly variable from one period to another. You have to look at something like fatalities per mile.

The 2007 Honda Civic EX does not have electronic stability control (ESC), ESC prevents 1/3 of fatalities, ESC is standard on the 2007 Honda Civic SI, all new cars sold in the US since 2012, and was available on some cars back in 1996.

The only other safety features that have ranked up there with ESC are seat belts and the collapsible steering column. The issue is not if a car is new enough, it's specific important features, particularly when they cannot be retrofitted.

The OP can decide for himself what safety is worth, but he should not be misinformed.
If you had a one year old car and a decent new safety feature came out would you sell your car to buy the new one?

What if the safety feature only came on a fully loaded luxury brand?

You can't always have the latest greatest safety features unless you are willing and able to spend a great deal of money. There has to be a sense of good enough, though different people will draw the line in different places.

It has crossed my mind that electronic stability control is an honest benefit from replacing my 04 Accord, but not a sufficient one.
Would I always get a car with a safety feature that prevented 1/3 of fatalities if I could afford it?

The answer is "no". As a matter of fact, I own an 2000 Honda CRV that I don't plan to replace any time soon and I can afford to upgrade, I could probably do it for <$5000. It's our second car and I drive it very little, <3000 miles per year, maybe as little a 300 miles per year because I drive a vanpool to work.

But that's not the point. If someone claimed that a 2000 Honda CRV had reasonably up-to-date safety features, I would point out that a car with up-to-date safety features would have roughly half the fatality rate.

I am not against driving a car without up-to-date safety features. I am against people lying to themselves.

If you have to lie to yourself to justify this, if you can't handle the truth, then you probably should upgrade your vehicle if you can afford it.
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Rodc »

tadamsmar wrote:
Rodc wrote:
tadamsmar wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.
Would you call a car that lacks a 17 year-old-safety feature that prevents 1/3 of fatalities reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment? If so, then what would it take for a car to not be reasonably up-to-date?

"New enough" is not a good standard for safety because the rate of advance is highly variable from one period to another. You have to look at something like fatalities per mile.

The 2007 Honda Civic EX does not have electronic stability control (ESC), ESC prevents 1/3 of fatalities, ESC is standard on the 2007 Honda Civic SI, all new cars sold in the US since 2012, and was available on some cars back in 1996.

The only other safety features that have ranked up there with ESC are seat belts and the collapsible steering column. The issue is not if a car is new enough, it's specific important features, particularly when they cannot be retrofitted.

The OP can decide for himself what safety is worth, but he should not be misinformed.
If you had a one year old car and a decent new safety feature came out would you sell your car to buy the new one?

What if the safety feature only came on a fully loaded luxury brand?

You can't always have the latest greatest safety features unless you are willing and able to spend a great deal of money. There has to be a sense of good enough, though different people will draw the line in different places.

It has crossed my mind that electronic stability control is an honest benefit from replacing my 04 Accord, but not a sufficient one.
Would I always get a car with a safety feature that prevented 1/3 of fatalities if I could afford it?

The answer is "no". As a matter of fact, I own an 2000 Honda CRV that I don't plan to replace any time soon and I can afford to upgrade, I could probably do it for <$5000. It's our second car and I drive it very little, <3000 miles per year, maybe as little a 300 miles per year because I drive a vanpool to work.

But that's not the point. If someone claimed that a 2000 Honda CRV had reasonably up-to-date safety features, I would point out that a car with up-to-date safety features would have roughly half the fatality rate.

I am not against driving a car without up-to-date safety features. I am against people lying to themselves.

If you have to lie to yourself to justify this, then you probably should upgrade your vehicle if you can afford it.
Three things.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure the "1/3" entirely captures things. Is that 1/3 of a huge number or 1/3 of a small number? The risk of death due to a car accident is not trivial to be sure, but is small enough (even before ESC) that virtually everyone hopped into a car for a drive without concern. I would require ESC in my next car. The cost is no longer that high (now). The benefit is measurable. But it is not some miracle that makes something significantly unsafe into something safe, IMHO.

Seems to me "up-to-date" has significant ambiguity and room for opinion that I would not call someone a liar for feeling a 6 year old car is "reasonably up-to-date". He did not say "fully" up-to-date or on the" cutting edge" of up-to-date. "Reasonably" up-to-date, as in up-to-date "enough". Seems from your choices you at least agree with this last wording. "Liar" seems a little over the top, IMHO.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

Rodc wrote:
tadamsmar wrote:
Rodc wrote:
tadamsmar wrote:
nisiprius wrote:2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment.
Would you call a car that lacks a 17 year-old-safety feature that prevents 1/3 of fatalities reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment? If so, then what would it take for a car to not be reasonably up-to-date?

"New enough" is not a good standard for safety because the rate of advance is highly variable from one period to another. You have to look at something like fatalities per mile.

The 2007 Honda Civic EX does not have electronic stability control (ESC), ESC prevents 1/3 of fatalities, ESC is standard on the 2007 Honda Civic SI, all new cars sold in the US since 2012, and was available on some cars back in 1996.

The only other safety features that have ranked up there with ESC are seat belts and the collapsible steering column. The issue is not if a car is new enough, it's specific important features, particularly when they cannot be retrofitted.

The OP can decide for himself what safety is worth, but he should not be misinformed.
If you had a one year old car and a decent new safety feature came out would you sell your car to buy the new one?

What if the safety feature only came on a fully loaded luxury brand?

You can't always have the latest greatest safety features unless you are willing and able to spend a great deal of money. There has to be a sense of good enough, though different people will draw the line in different places.

It has crossed my mind that electronic stability control is an honest benefit from replacing my 04 Accord, but not a sufficient one.
Would I always get a car with a safety feature that prevented 1/3 of fatalities if I could afford it?

The answer is "no". As a matter of fact, I own an 2000 Honda CRV that I don't plan to replace any time soon and I can afford to upgrade, I could probably do it for <$5000. It's our second car and I drive it very little, <3000 miles per year, maybe as little a 300 miles per year because I drive a vanpool to work.

But that's not the point. If someone claimed that a 2000 Honda CRV had reasonably up-to-date safety features, I would point out that a car with up-to-date safety features would have roughly half the fatality rate.

I am not against driving a car without up-to-date safety features. I am against people lying to themselves.

If you have to lie to yourself to justify this, then you probably should upgrade your vehicle if you can afford it.
Three things.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure the "1/3" entirely captures things. Is that 1/3 of a huge number or 1/3 of a small number? The risk of death due to a car accident is not trivial to be sure, but is small enough (even before ESC) that virtually everyone hopped into a car for a drive without concern. I would require ESC in my next car. The cost is no longer that high (now). The benefit is measurable. But it is not some miracle that makes something significantly unsafe into something safe, IMHO.

Seems to me "up-to-date" has significant ambiguity and room for opinion that I would not call someone a liar for feeling a 6 year old car is "reasonably up-to-date". He did not say "fully" up-to-date or on the" cutting edge" of up-to-date. "Reasonably" up-to-date, as in up-to-date "enough". Seems from your choices you at least agree with this last wording. "Liar" seems a little over the top, IMHO.
For every 1700 Bogleheads who have chosen to buy a new car without ESC and drive it into the ground as a family car, there will be one fatality in one of these Boglehead's families on average.

Is that a small risk?

I pointed this out to one of my stepsons and he traded his car within weeks. It does not have to cost much in terms of net sunk capital to trade one's car for another used one.
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Rodc »

I pointed this out to one of my stepsons and he traded his car within weeks.
Lots of people make irrational financial decisions. Many also use any plausible excuse to spend money they already want to spend.

Like speeding across town (large increase in risk) to get to whole foods to buy organic foods (low decrease in risk). Not rational but you see these things all the time. Several popular books on the subject of just how bad humans are at making rational decisions about risk.

If this is so important, what are you doing driving a 2000 without ESC, when you admit you easily could afford a safer car? Your own actions do not match your words. Note that many serious accidents occur near home so low mileage does not get you off scott free.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by VictoriaF »

tadamsmar wrote:For every 1700 Bogleheads who have chosen to buy a new car without ESC and drive it into the ground as a family car, there will be one fatality in one of these Boglehead's families on average.

Is that a small risk?
Some drivers are calm, other drivers are nervous. Nervous drivers probably have more and more serious accidents than calm ones do. Assuming that as a group the Bogleheads are more calm, their fatality statistics should be lower than the average.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

VictoriaF wrote:
tadamsmar wrote:For every 1700 Bogleheads who have chosen to buy a new car without ESC and drive it into the ground as a family car, there will be one fatality in one of these Boglehead's families on average.

Is that a small risk?
Some drivers are calm, other drivers are nervous. Nervous drivers probably have more and more serious accidents than calm ones do. Assuming that as a group the Bogleheads are more calm, their fatality statistics should be lower than the average.

Victoria
Well, drivers over 65 or so have increased fatality rates per mile traveled (not per capita). Young drivers have increased fatality rates. It's common practice for a family to give the new teenage driver the oldest car in the family fleet. With ESC (and other less significant safety features) coming through the pipeline, it's not uncommon these days that the parents ends up driving cars that are 50% safer than the teenager is driving, safer in terms of the fatalities that can be imputed to safety features by (mostly) NHTSA, EU, and IIHS research. And I am not talking about proving ground research, I am talking about measurements of the actual cars that are on the road, "field data" as I have been calling it. (5O% being the flip side of a 1/3 reduction in fatalities)
Last edited by tadamsmar on Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

Rodc wrote:
I pointed this out to one of my stepsons and he traded his car within weeks.
Lots of people make irrational financial decisions. Many also use any plausible excuse to spend money they already want to spend.

Like speeding across town (large increase in risk) to get to whole foods to buy organic foods (low decrease in risk). Not rational but you see these things all the time. Several popular books on the subject of just how bad humans are at making rational decisions about risk.

If this is so important, what are you doing driving a 2000 without ESC, when you admit you easily could afford a safer car? Your own actions do not match your words. Note that many serious accidents occur near home so low mileage does not get you off scott free.
So which is correct, my actions or my words?

What if nisiprius had avoided the vague and essentially meaningless statement "2007 is new enough to be reasonably up-to-date on safety equipment." for a quantitative roughly equivalent statement and like: "We can reasonably assume that the our lives and the lives of or love ones are each not worth more than 10 million and that justifies not dropping a few thousand on a safer car."?
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Rodc »

So which is correct, my actions or my words?
Correct in which context?

As at least two old sayings go, paraphrased, if you want to know what someone believes look at their actions, not their words. So I'd say your actual belief is that ESC is not universally an overwhelming safety factor. If it were, since you could just write a check to buy a newer car with ESC, you would. Perhaps you do believe it is an overwhelming factor in certain specific situations, but I have no way to know that.

If nothing else the mismatch between word and deed shows you believe there is a gray area, making your claims that nisi and like-minded people are lying to themselves, in effect self-delusional, simply because they might draw the line somewhere other than where you would draw the line a little hypocritical, or at least not well thought out.

At any rate, I think I've beaten a now dead horse hard enough. In the context of the OP with a 7 year old car the lack of ESC is not in itself a universal reason to sell the car. If the OP likes to drive at high speed in the rain, lives where it snows a lot, or likes to tailgate and may therefore have an above average need to swerve at high speed, the lack of ESC may well be a good reason to upgrade. If the OP is a "reasonably" cautious defensive driver, his car which presumably has most modern safety features (good tires, power anti-lock brakes, some airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, maybe some others), his car is "reasonably" up to date safety-wise, in the sense of "good enough", though not cutting edge. IMHO.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by tadamsmar »

Rodc wrote:
So which is correct, my actions or my words?
Correct in which context?
The correct balancing of car safety vs car costs.
As at least two old sayings go, paraphrased, if you want to know what someone believes look at their actions, not their words. So I'd say your actual belief is that ESC is not universally an overwhelming safety factor. If it were, since you could just write a check to buy a newer car with ESC, you would. Perhaps you do believe it is an overwhelming factor in certain specific situations, but I have no way to know that.

If nothing else the mismatch between word and deed shows you believe there is a gray area, making your claims that nisi and like-minded people are lying to themselves, in effect self-delusional, simply because they might draw the line somewhere other than where you would draw the line a little hypocritical, or at least not well thought out.
I will grant all you say. My actions indicate that I am lying about my true beliefs. I am a hypocrite. Just to get it out of the way,I will further stipulate the truth of anything more you might want to say about me.

However, I never said that nisi's conclusion was incorrect. Just claimed that he provided no grounds for it. The only other like-minded person claimed: Distracted drivers exists, therefore we must not speak of modern safety equipment. Mr. Like-Minded provided no grounds either (and this is so obvious that I am truly embarrassed for anyone who needs this to be pointed out).
At any rate, I think I've beaten a now dead horse hard enough. In the context of the OP with a 7 year old car the lack of ESC is not in itself a universal reason to sell the car. If the OP likes to drive at high speed in the rain, lives where it snows a lot, or likes to tailgate and may therefore have an above average need to swerve at high speed, the lack of ESC may well be a good reason to upgrade. If the OP is a "reasonably" cautious defensive driver, his car which presumably has most modern safety features (good tires, power anti-lock brakes, some airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, maybe some others), his car is "reasonably" up to date safety-wise, in the sense of "good enough", though not cutting edge. IMHO.
So, you think my actions are correct? Thanks, but I am still not convinced. Bogleheads are willing to reduce their stock allocation to reduce financial risk and when they do this, their expected reduction in return over a lifetime could (in some cases) buy many luxury cars. Even a small reduction in portfolio risk would represent a reduction in expected return that could pay for trading an old car when the mandated safety features on new cars make them 50% safer, since that rarely happens. So, they are willing to give up lots of expected return for a reduction in portfolio risk but are reluctant to pay a modest amount for a reduction in traffic fatality risk.

Why do you never talk in terms of the actual effectiveness of the safety features in question, doesn't that matter? Why do you think the age of the used car matters?
Last edited by tadamsmar on Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by Rodc »

This got me interested.

I found this: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1139.pdf

See table 2 to derive these numbers.

For cars (this thread is about a car) the

fatal accident rate per car per year without ESC is 1.38e-4
fatal accident rate per car per year with ESC is 8.62e-5

Therefore ESC saves 5.15e-5 lives per car per year. Note this is a slightly higher percentage savings than the 33% referenced in posts above. Note also this is one life per year per 19,428 cars (or about 1 in 20,000 in round number with proper respect for significant digits.)

If you were going to buy a new car anyway, and ESC was a $600 option (or was included and the hidden increase in cost was $600), and you would keep the car for 10 years so $60/yr, the breakeven value for your life in a cost-benefit analysis would be about $1.17 million. I noted in my search something about ESC being a $600 option on some car. Use whatever figure you want if you don't like $600. Seems like a decent but not spectacular cost-benefit win. I carry about that much life insurance so I guess it makes sense from a purely cost-benefit analysis to get ESC when I replace my Accord (which will happen in the next year or two if all goes well). Though I note that like tadamsmar, I drive rather less than the average driver, so maybe I should estimate my personal breakeven life value at 2 or 3 times that value, in which case a pure cost-benefit decision would be to skip it. Other factors like the possibility of it becoming my wife's car and driving it longer distances and the likelihood of teens learning to drive on it in a few years would push it back into the buy column.

If on the other hand you were going to get rid of another-wise ok car just to get ESC, the cost per year is far higher. Depending on the car purchased you will have incurred significant additional depreciation and perhaps higher insurance costs to gain ESC. If you were to say buy a modest new car two years earlier than you otherwise would have, the cost would likely be more than a couple of thousand dollars per each of those two years. The breakeven cost of a life is then pushing $40 million dollars. I'd like to think I'm worth something approaching infinity dollars to my family, but note in fact all in (current accounts and life insurance), my estate if I die tomorrow is something less than $40 million (sorry to say!). Of course you incidentally will likely get more than just ESC, such as a nicer ride, maybe a better sound system, etc so you might not want to count the entire cost against ESC, so as they say your mileage might vary.

So while ESC is certainly a nice to have, it is not a rational driver in deciding to buy a new car in and of itself. A corollary is that someone who thinks a 2007 car is reasonably close in safety to a new car is not irrational, lying to themselves or delusional. IMHO.

Of course there are examples in between or higher, so the range of breakeven life values vary between something like $1M and tens of millions of dollars. There is also the fact that to someone who can pay cash for a car the cost may hardly be noticeable, but to someone struggling, even a $600 cost might have to be traded against food, shelter or medical care.

If you read this and think about it a little and come to some conclusion as part of that thinking as to how much your life is worth for applying the above calculations, it might be good to consider if your life insurance is in line with this belief, and increase it to be consistent if needed.
Last edited by Rodc on Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by letsgobobby »

a bunch of non-connected observations adding up to who knows what:

1. Why do people claim "boglehead philsophy" has anything to do with cars, or consumer expenses in general? Bogleheadism, if it has an agreed upon definition, is about investing.

2. Of course it's usually cheapest to keep an old thing. True for cars, sweaters, and stale bread. But these are consumer expenses - buy a new (or new used) one when you're done with the old. If you like eating stale bread, eat it. If you like fresh bread, buy it. If you like your old Civic, keep it. if you want the new Subaru, buy it. Just make sure you can afford what you buy.

3. Your decision is a little harder because there's a disconnect between the young age of your car (6 years) and its high mileage (170,000). You're putting on almost 30,000 miles per year. If I had a 'normal' 6 year old car with 75,000 miles on it and the problems you described I'd definitely fix them. If I had an old car of 15 years with 170,000 miles and the problems you described I'd definitely trade it in. You're somewhere in the middle.

4. You can't live your life hoarding money because you might lose your job tomorrow. Only a few obsessive compulsive personality types live that way (massively over-represented on Bogleheads and FatWallet, among other websites); no offense, as I count myself among this group. Most normal people should save 15-25% of their income, pay off their debts, and move on with their lives.

In 2006 my 13 year old Accord with 210,000 miles lost a water pump. Could I fix it for $500? Sure. But it was time. Donated it for a $900 tax deduction, bought a new 2006 RAV4 for $23,000, and have happily put 102,800 miles on it thus far.

Last fall my 16 year old Camry with 215,000 miles needed new tires, leaked a little oil, had numerous dings and scratches, etc. Sure I could have fixed it up for $1000-$2000. Instead I more or less gave it away to a coworker who needed a car (sold far below KBB value) and bought a new 2012 Prius for $26,000. My wife loves it and we have saved $2000 putting 25,000 miles on it in the first year.

These are consumer expenditures, not investments. Try to strike a balance between overspending and oversaving.

If you care, here's the similar thread I started last year at this time:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 11&t=94379
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: New Car or Drive My Civic to the Ground?

Post by VictoriaF »

letsgobobby wrote:1. Why do people claim "boglehead philsophy" has anything to do with cars, or consumer expenses in general? Bogleheadism, if it has an agreed upon definition, is about investing.
Extreme frugality permeates the Personal Consumer Issues discussions. People need to have enough leftover income for making Bogleheads-like investments, but many take savings too far and equate them with Bogleheadism.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
Post Reply