Bogleheads

[Bammerman]

Looking for advice or thoughts regarding this classic trade-off: to maintain our present car, or buy a new one. We have a 2000 Mazda 626 with almost 75,000 miles on it. It's been a dependable car requiring few repairs. We've kept up with oil changes, etc. It has mostly new tires on it. It's time to put about $1400 in maintenance in it, including a new engine timing belt. Does it make more economic sense to continue maintaining and driving this 9 year old car, or to buy a new car? The Mazda 626 is paid for and runs well. A new car like a Prius would cost $22,550 - $27,724 -- that would mean car payments again, or a goodly hunk of our non-tax-deferred assets. Is there a rule of thumb about when to get rid of an aging car in favor of a new car? Thanks.

[touchdowntodd]

im not too familiar with the longevity of the 626.. see what sort of miles people are getting out of them..

if this was a toyota corolla I would say keep the car, but IDK about resale value vs future potential

as a side note, weigh out the cost of the Prius vs say a corolla, maybe a Scion, a similar sized toyota... you DONT win with the added cost of the prious unless you wanna sleep well at night.. the fuel savings just dont make up the extra $6-10k price difference..

a $16k new scion or corrolla or yaris can easily go 300k miles if well maintained.. i intend to get that out of both my Echo and my Yaris... dont let public opinion fool you, these like 35+MPG cars can go for freakin EVER!

[medgar]

I think we should start a Click and Clack subject in the Index.

Or maybe these post of "keep the old or buy the new one", is a sign the economy is turning around.

"Car as 75,000 miles, runs great" Just fix it and smile at the money still in the bank. Cars age and need maintaining.

We will know the economy is robust when the post comes titled. Should I get my 3,000 mile oil change on my new car or buy another.

Sorry for the tongue in cheek reply. I just couldn't resist. Seriously, if the car is running good JUST FIX IT>Wish I could say this like the guy of off SNL couple of months ago.)

MEdgar

[schnoodlemom]

There's another recent thread on the same topic. Your $1400 repair would be about 3 months' car payment and higher car insurance. If you drive it for more than 3 months more, you come out ahead. It also gives you more time to shop for the next car so you're not buying under duress and you could save up to pay cash. Our oldest car is a 12 yr old Subaru wagon with over 130,000 miles. We did have the timing belt replaced at 100,000 miles. But that's just us, YMMV.... Amanda

[ResNullius]

Our Subarus seem to last forever, and with a few repairs in the out years they do.

[GRT2BOUTDOORS]

[Triple digit golfer]

Absolute no-brainer. KEEP THE CAR! It's running fine and this is an expected expense. You could get several more years out of it if you take care of it. If you need a new engine or transmission, then I'd say sure, junk it and get a new one. But not for a timing belt and other expected maintenance work.

Enjoy being car payment-free for the next ten years instead!

[kdmusic]

Keep it.


But how would folks solve for y to complete this sentence?

where x = cost per year to maintain car.

When x is greater than y, buy a new car.

kdm

[musbane]

So, this is coming from somebody whose main drive is a 1986 Honda Crx. I love it to pieces and think (as do others here) that you should probably keep your car.
Having said that, as you look at the pros and cons, don't neglect actual technological improvements in new cars. I don't know - side airbags, anti-gravity - I'd be the last to know about what's new and actually valuable. But consider it.

[retcaveman]

Misc thoughts FYI.

The "rule" I was brought up with (1960's) was trade them in every three years OR keep them till they die.

Had a family member who ran a repair station who used to say it is usually cheaper to fix em (exceptions of course).

Had an uncle who replaced his every time his warranty expired. Liked knowing the warranty was there to address any major problems.

In general, I think the cars today - Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, etc are made better and can go longer before they need to be replaced.

Lastly, as others have mentioned, the Corolla is a fairly economical choice for a new car. Purchase price is reasonable $15-18k with great mileage 26/35 and low maintenance costs. I drive a Tacoma PU but my engineer brother-in-law has been driving Corollas for years and swears by them. Good value.
_________________
"The wants of mortals are containers that can never be filled." (Socrates)

[jjg247]

Too funny. I just pondered this same question for a '99 626 with 107k.

Dealer said I needed a whole new exhaust. I took it to a neighborhood mechanic and he welded the old one for $50. He said it will buy me another year or so. Much better than the $500 the dealer quoted.

[Judsen]

FWIW if anything. I drove my 87 Mazda 626 12 years and 247k miles before selling it to my bro-in-law for 10 bucks.
_________________
Be the change you want to see in the world

[fsrph]

[Latecomer]

I've had my '98 Honda Civic for 11 years now...I remember the relief when I sent the last payment. It is much cheaper to maintain it than to buy a new car!

When this one falls apart, the next car will be paid for cash. I hate those car payments!!!!!

Best of luck

[Gekko]

only 75K miles? are you sure you need a new timing belt? IMO consider waiting until 100K+ to replace if it's a non-interference engine.

[auntie]

Your need for reliability should count for a lot. I've been keeping cars for about 10 years, because that's when I begin to think they have a chance of leaving me stranded.

Now that I'm 65 I've decided to let my present car go sooner than that, probably 6 or 7 years. The older I get the less able I am to change tires or hike out. Of course now I have my cellphone so if I get in trouble I can call for help.

For me it's more about how much I trust a car than how much the repair costs. If I don't trust it I won't keep it.

[MnD]

I sold the 97 Subaru when the latest emissions test indicated an uptick in emmisions (hinting that a catalytic converter failure was coming up) and I noticed a slight oily film and slight oil smell in the radiator overflow probably indicating the early start of a head gasket failure.

Regular maintenance is cheap, the trick is to know your old car and closely monitor it and sell it when it starts giving subtle signs of impending major problems.

[gotherelate]

[snowman9000]

My experience is that once you hit 100K miles, you should plan on keeping it for a long time. 75K is a good decision point, IMO. 80-90, grey area, the decision window is closing. 100+, keep it till it dies because it soon won't be worth much to anyone.

I wouldn't put a bunch of money into a car at 75-99K if I wasn't planning on keeping it 2-3 years or more.

[Polaris]

[catchup]

I seem to remember Consumer Reports doing an article about those who keep their cars 15 years or 125000 miles. Probably arbitrary, but the article seemed to imply that the frugal consumer will hit these numbers.

My concern remains safety. My wife's old 2000 GMC Sonoma runs, and we don't owe payments, but it is not nearly as safe as any new car we would buy today.

[vshun]

I am surprised how all responses seem to focus on money consideration.
So to add some different prospective, I would ask how concerned are you about safety, how much is it worth to you and your passengers?
2010 Prius you are considering is IIHS top safety pick, while your old car probably would not do as well in an accident. As a bonus, it drives much better as well.

[OAG]

[MnD]

[ralphjones]

[wander]

Bring it to a local shop and have the timing belt change for a few hundreds. $1400 for a timing belt is too much. My car is 13 years old, running well. I replaced timing belt 3 times already. 75000 miles is considered "new" to me.

[Polaris]

[jeremy]

Avoidable accidents are much more common than unavoidable accidents like the one in your example. This is why small cars cause the same or fewer fatalities per driver than so-called "safer" large SUVs. They handle better and allow you to actually avoid those accidents that are unavoidable.

I understand that safety features are important and they are often far superior in newer cars, but don't completely discount MnD's theory that knowing how your old car handles significantly improves safety.

[Polaris]

[vshun]

Safety is not just about side aigbags, but how the car has been engineered to withstand impact. And modern cars that are iihs safety picks (including Prius) are much better engineered with impact zones in mind than older Mazda.
If we are not arguing here about the need for life insurance (using same logic one can say if I have not died since 2006 I do not need to carry it), or house/umbrella insurance, then car safety in my mind falls into the same category.
You will be safer and save fuel in Prius, no question about it. Whether it is worth 25K - your trade in is a personal decision.

I drove my Corolla for 15 years and probably could drive it for another 15, it would be very economical/frugal/diehard way, but safety is a concern for me as I probably dragged it too much anyway...

Vadim.

[epilnk]

[boffalora]

Curiously, I am in nearly the same boat.

I own a 2001 Mazda Tribute with 71000 miles. I'm the original owner and have kept up with all maintenance needs. At 55000 we took a lengthy trip so I had the serpentine belt and fuel filter replaced. Front brakes at 45000. Otherwise, new battery every 4 years rather than waiting for it to die on the road, and new tires about every 35000 miles. My Mazda V6 has a timing chain instead of a belt, and I'm told it should last 150000 miles.

However, I've had other cars in the past on which I replaced the timing belt and water pump at 75000 miles and just kept going. Then, the decision to keep going beyond 100000 miles was not fraught with major maintenance decisions. Some of these cars I sold at 90000 miles; the fact that I had still kept up with maintenance even at that advanced mileage made the car more attractive to a buyer and enabled me to get my price. Some I sold at 120000 miles. Naturally, by then the maintenance was 45000 miles old and had long ago paid off.

I agree. It's a no brainer. Get the work done. Again, I recommend replacing the water pump along with the timing belt. You'll save a lot in labor costs by not waiting until the water pump fails.

[Gaviota]

Keeping the old ones is even more attractive in states with crushing tax and registration loads. Buying cars in California adds thousands to even the cheapest of new cars. I do regular oil changes and run them all into the ground. 275k on a '98 Civic still going strong. Finally junked the '81 Civic a couple years ago after several hundred thousand, never did replace the timing belt. Recently junked an '87 626 hand me down with a couple hundred thousand. My newest is an 06 Corolla hardly even broken in at 100k miles. I can squeeze 40mpg out of it driving conservatively. You can drop collision coverage as your car depreciates. And don't forget car rentals.

Another big tip for savers - you can often rent cars for trips over 100 miles cheaper than you can drive your own.

[Bammerman]

We ended up paying to have all the garage's recommended repairs / replacement belts, etc. made. We trust this garage and think we got good value for money. I think we did the intelligent thing from a purely economic point of view, but I am sorry not to have the pleasure of driving a new car again! Mainly I thought of buying a Prius because I'm just so impressed with the technology (technolust is a weakness of mine). I'd been reading about them when I was overseas and really wanted to buy one when we came back to the US in 2000, but there were none to be had in my area and I had to get some car right away. The Mazda has been a good car for us. And we do have the USAA roadside assistance plan. Thanks to everybody for their comments.
BTW: my first job was in a used car lot, prepping the traded-in cars for resale. After vacuuming, washing, etc., we'd spray the interior with a can of "new car smell" (God knows what awful chemicals were in that can!) and paint the tires with black (or white, if it had white sidewalls) rubber paint. This was in the mid-'60's; I wonder if they still do that!

[boffalora]

bammerman, today detail shops prepping used cars for sale prefer to use a strongly fragrant detergent to scrub the interior...Pine Sol in its various fragrances or one of the lavender cleaners so popular in Mexico. These leave the interior with a fresh aroma and are non-toxic.

Being retired, I detail my own cars and help my friends detail theirs. I generally recommend the orange/citrus version of Pine-Sol for interior cleaning.

As for the tires, detail shops tend to use tire sprays that leave a shiny finish, anywhere from a moderate shine to a high gloss. I don't like that sticky stuff nor its wild cherry Life Savers fragrance. I miss the black tire paint you mentioned, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

[arthurdawg]

[plannerman]

I agree with wander. $1400 sounds way too high for a timing belt replacement. A couple of years ago, I took my 4-Runner with 100k miles on it to my local garage and asked them to replace everything that needed replacement. This included the timing belt, water pump, all the drive belts, heater hoses, radiator hoses, thermostat, spark plugs, anti freeze, oil, and the fuel, oil and air filters . They also rebuilt the starter motor (which was starting to fail) all for $800 bucks and change. Moreover, they used genuine Toyota parts.

We are fortunate in that we currently live in the heart of NASCAR country and have excellent independent automotive repair locations on almost every corner. But I have found compentent local garages in every part of the country we have lived in. Shop around before you fork out $1400 bucks.

Steve

[Sam2]

I have a Toyota with 160K, no issues and runs great. My friend's Toyota has 350K and no issues.

Sam

[MarkNYC]

My 2001 Civic was "recalled" last month to fix a faulty airbag. The guy at the dealership said the timing belt should be replaced, with the car now 7 years old. I held off and later checked the manual which did indicate to change at 100K miles or 84 months. But since the car only has 51K miles I'm not sure of the urgency. I'll probably keep the car a while.

Advice welcome.

[boffalora]

Mark, even with your car's relatively low mileage, 7 years is a ripe old age for a rubber timing belt. If it breaks, you may be looking at some significant engine damage.

In this particular case, it might be worth replacing the timing belt and serpentine belt but waiting on the water pump, especially if you've flushed the cooling system regularly. The water pump probably has several more years of life in it.

[ruralavalon]

[EmergDoc]

[Doug1]

I've read estimates of how long a car lasts range from 145000-170000 miles. As for years, 15 is what I've read. Conventional wisdom is that almost any well maintained car should last 100000 miles, and 200000 is not unreasonable.

There are several schools of thought on how long to keep a car. One is to get a new car when you start needing frequent repairs. Another is to get a new car when the repair costs more than the car is worth. A third is to only get a new car when your existing car becomes unsafe.

When you drive a new car off the dealership lot, its value goes down 20%. This is in favor of keeping your present car. However, there are disadvantages to having a high mileage car. If reliable transportation is critical to you, a high mileage car is not a good option. Finally, one must factor in the cost not only of repairs, but of the owner's time when it comes to dealing with the repairs.

On a more personal note, I took my 13 year old 159000 mile car to the junkyard yesterday and got a new car. It needed a new engine, and Saturn said the engine wasn't being made anymore. I spent a significant amount of money on repairs in the last year. From a financial point of view, it would have made sense to trade it in one year ago.

[arthurdawg]

[jasonp99]

I'll also recommend fixing the car. I've got a '99 4Runner with 111000 miles on it (bought used at 90K in '05). Over the 4 years I've had it the total maintainence/tires/repair costs have been about $1000/yr, not too bad.

Also after owning this Toyota and paying for recent repairs on my wife's '98 Honda Civic (she bought new) I'm not convinced that Toyota/Honda make a substantially better car than GM/Chrysler. I owned an '88 Cherokee (bare-bones model) for 7 years before selling it in '05 (at 170000 miles) and I still own a '97 Firebird TA (104000 miles) that runs well (though has run about $1300/yr for the last 6 years in total upkeep). Sadly after many fun years of driving the best bang/buck Detroit ever produced I find I no longer need the car so it'll be for sale as soon as I fix a recalcitrant headlamp motor.

Cheers.

[mikec]

I'll chime in too since everyone else has. There's only two financial reasons to sell your old car:

TOO HIGH REPAIR COST: If the immediate repair bill is worth more then the car's worth, then obviously you have to sell or dispose of it. But your car according to Edmonds is worth $3000 and your repairs are about half of that. Generally, for any serious repairs to be higher then the car's value, the car will have to be over 10 yr old with over 120K mi.

CAR IS UNRELIABLE: For most people, the car has to be totally reliable. Not only is there a concern of being stranded on a rural highway in a blizzard but also most people have obligations such as work so that they can't afford to have a car die on them. I have owned a lot of high mileage cars. I've had a few cars die on me but not before 150K mi. But to be safe, I think that most cars can make 120K before you have to worry about a shut down failure. This doesn't mean that there couldn't be serious maintenance before 120K, just that the problem wouldn't stop you from doing essential tasks.

Most people think that when a old car starts to cost more then the depreciation of a new car, then it's time to switch. However, maintenance on an old car cannot be predicted. I had $3000 worth of service on my car with 180K mi this year, but it was in 5 different problems that cropped up individually over the last 12 months. The last, as an example of the second point above, was a fuel pump failure which stopped the car dead. But before this year, I had 3 years of almost no maintenance cost. I intend to drive the drive the car to at least 250K mi, so this years cost is just a bump in the road

[Stonebr]

It's always cheaper to maintain and keep a car. One thing that you might want to consider is that the 2000 Mazda has safety features that are almost 10 years old. And they were mediocre when the car was new.

see www.crashtest.com

[chrisjul]

I agree....this is a "No Brainer" from a purely financial standpoint. It is (in my humble opinion) almost always cheaper to keep your paid for car maintained and repaired compared to buying a new one. The exception being a rusted vehicle that becomes unsafe.

Good luck with your decision, whichever you choose.