2007 Honda Civic, to sell or not to sell?

[khalestorm]

Hi all,
I have a 2007 Honda Civic with 90k miles and no maintenance issues to attend to. I own the car completely, no loans. It's a great car and I've never had a single problem with it.
My question is this, since the car is almost at 100k miles, should I hold onto it or look at buying a newer, 2012 or 2013 car? I can pay cash.
The reason I'm asking this is because I read somewhere that after 5 years the car's value begins to depreciate rapidly. This is more of a thread about when to sell old cars/buy new ones looking at them as a financial asset, if you have the ability to do so. From what I've heard, you can clock in over 250k on Honda Civics with little maintenance needed.

[dbltrbl]

I think you have heard wrong. Cars depreciate lot faster in first 3-5 years. There is not much to depreciate afterwards. Your maintenance costs may go up due to age of car. Back to your question KEEP The CAR. Civics are great cars and if you keep maintaining it 250k is normal. I drive a 2000 Honda Accord with 180k no major issues at all. Invest the money you would put in a new car. You replace the car only if it becomes safety issue or needs too much maintenance like 1500+ year over the routine maintenance. Happy Driving.

[khalestorm]

I think you have heard wrong. Cars depreciate lot faster in first 3-5 years. There is not much to depreciate afterwards. Your maintenance costs may go up due to age of car. Back to your question KEEP The CAR. Civics are great cars and if you keep maintaining it 250k is normal. I drive a 2000 Honda Accord with 180k no major issues at all. Invest the money you would put in a new car. You replace the car only if it becomes safety issue or needs too much maintenance like 1500+ year over the routine maintenance. Happy Driving.

I think I really knew the answer to my own question before posting this thread, but I just wanted to see what BH's said. Thanks a bunch

[keystone]

This is exactly the type of car that I would be looking to buy as I replace my 15 year old Civic soon. From a purely Boglehead standpoint, it is best to keep the car.

[khalestorm]

Seems to me there are a lot of BH's who drive Civics/Accords

[grabiner]

As long as a car is running fine and is a reliable model (which a Civic certainly is), it makes economic sense to keep the car as long as possible. The percentage depreciation increases with time, but the dollar depreciation does not.

I checked kbb.com for Honda Civics in good condition, private party value, LX sedan. (The value varies by region; this search was done in central NJ.) These numbers are presumably only accurate to within a few hundred dollars; the 2006 price looks anomalously high.

2012: $13154
2011: $12062
2010: $11070
2009: $9880
2008: $8838
2007: $7796
2006: $7252
2005: $5986
2004: $4820
2003: $3876
2002: $3131
2001: $2833

So it looks like your car will depreciate about $1000 for every year you keep driving it. When you drive a new car off the showroom floor, it immediately depreciates by much more than that, both because it is used and because the dealer price is higher than the sale price.

Now, this doesn't mean that you should keep the car until it drops. A car is a consumption item, and if the consumption is more valuable (a more reliable new car means less work missed while the car is at the mechanic, the new car has features you want), you may decide that you want that consumption.

I also drive a 2007 Civic, with 75K miles, and I expect I will probably trade it in around 120K.

[stingray5688]

How much do you want for it?

[arthurb999]

keep it until it blows up...

[stan1]

My experience has been that a well-kept, well-running car in the 10-15 year old range maintains a minimum value of about $3500-4000. KBB prices go down below that because many 10+ year old cars have body damage, torn seats, worn carpets, etc. that make them less desirable. There is always a high school/college student looking for clean, cheap, reliable transportation. And there is a group of people who buy cars at this price point to drive them into the ground (by necessity or choice).

[Raymond]

Keep it!

I drive a 2003 Honda Accord with just over 100,000 miles, and I plan to drive it for at least five more years, God willing.

If Teslas came out of nosebleed (for me) territory, I would definitely consider them.

I love the smell of a paid-off car

[Taylor Larimore]

My question is this, since the car is almost at 100k miles, should I hold onto it or look at buying a newer, 2012 or 2013 car? I can pay cash?

Khale:

We never sold a car until it needed expensive repairs or looked poorly.

Result: A comfortable retirement.

Best wishes.
Taylor

[cyfan]

The BH consensus is exactly what I would expect. Get something you like, take care of it, and drive it to the near end of it's life. To take that one step further, I also prefer to buy new, get exactly what I want, even if I may pay just a bit more for a few extras because by doing that, I will be less inclined to make another transaction sooner than needed. Every transaction has costs associated with it so minimizing those is part of my justification for new. I just got rid of my 2001 Chevrolet Impala (purchased new) with over 200K miles and sold it on Craigs list in 3 days. I expect my new 2013 Accord will easily go 250K and close to 15 years as my commute will disappear sometime in the next 8 years. If you enjoy driving the Civic, there is no financial reason to get rid of it.

[Toons]

keep it until it blows up...

+1

[TheOscarGuy]

At 90K its just breaking in Keep it...

[surfstar]

I believe that when you have a car at 80-100k miles, it is the time to decide if you want to keep it for the long-haul vs replace it. Once you rack up 150k miles, it will not resale for much. However, if you keep it and run it to 200k or more, you will have gotten a great return on it. I think its when you sell it with 120-180k miles is when you could loose the most value/utility out of it (which is also a great time to buy if you know how to perform basic maintenance).

I also just checked and the 2007 Civic uses a timing chain and not a belt. That is a another reason that many people may sell from 80-100k miles - a timing belt job on a 3.5L V6 Honda can cost $1000 easily.

I would be inclined to keep that '07 and run it to twice the mileage you currently have.

[countofmc]

You received some good responses regarding the finances.

I'd also consider which car you'd buy to replace your Civic. If you want to get another Civic, the 2007 generation is probably better than the current car (despite the 2013 "emergency" update the Civic went through).

My opinion (I'm sure shared by many car people) is that that generation of Civic (2006-2011) may be the best compact car ever. It has established a typical Civic-like record of reliability, the design was revolutionary and has aged very well, and it drives very nicely and solidly for a compact. The only thing lacking from that Civic is some of the latest safety features. No VSA, and the newer Civics generally fare better in crash tests (the new one is one of the few compacts to get the highest IIHS rating).

So if you are planning on buying another similar compact car, I'd probably say keep the Civic. If you need/want a larger or more luxurious car, then that's a totally different issue that goes beyond mere finances.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

As long as a car is running fine and is a reliable model (which a Civic certainly is), it makes economic sense to keep the car as long as possible. The percentage depreciation increases with time, but the dollar depreciation does not.

I checked kbb.com for Honda Civics in good condition, private party value, LX sedan. (The value varies by region; this search was done in central NJ.) These numbers are presumably only accurate to within a few hundred dollars; the 2006 price looks anomalously high.

2012: $13154
2011: $12062
2010: $11070
2009: $9880
2008: $8838
2007: $7796
2006: $7252
2005: $5986
2004: $4820
2003: $3876
2002: $3131
2001: $2833

So it looks like your car will depreciate about $1000 for every year you keep driving it. When you drive a new car off the showroom floor, it immediately depreciates by much more than that, both because it is used and because the dealer price is higher than the sale price.

Now, this doesn't mean that you should keep the car until it drops. A car is a consumption item, and if the consumption is more valuable (a more reliable new car means less work missed while the car is at the mechanic, the new car has features you want), you may decide that you want that consumption.

I also drive a 2007 Civic, with 75K miles, and I expect I will probably trade it in around 120K.

KBB is not accurate - my 1996 car was involved in an accident, the adjuster valued the car using market value comparisons for an above average condition car at $6,500 - there is nothing extra special about my Civic, but my valuation blows the numbers you posted up above out of the water. There is a large demand for Honda Civics, they are known for reliability provided you undertake the proper maintainance of the vehicle when required. They will go 150K + provided you don't drive it into the ground.

As an aside the adjuster recommended repairing the car and keeping it for as long as it would run.

[supton]

I'd run it longer, unless if your vehicle needs have changed. I've found that in the 150k though vehicle repairs pick up, and while still cheaper than a payment (or depreciation if you buy using cash) the inconvience of shop time can pile up. Also, after 10 years or so, vehicle advancements mean safer cars, higher mpg, more gizmos which you may like--15 years ago we had dual air bags, today everything has 6+ airbags; bluetooth connectivity, VSC, etc. Which you may or may not care about.

Do you live in the rust belt? I do, and probably will never take a vehicle past 15 years. Even with heavy attention to rust prevention etc it will still suffer. At the moment I'm playing with N+1 vehicles in my fleet, two daily drivers and a backup. My oldest car is getting a lot of miles, and the spare is actually my "good" vehicle, which will be used for weekends and travel. I have high hopes of, in the future, buying used vehicles instead of new, gambling on repair costs / prior owner abuse, since I'll be in a position to "tolerate" repairs.

One nice feature of having an older car: you might care nothing about new scratches and dents, nor about loaning it out.

Also, can you easily rent a vehicle, while yours is in the shop? If so, you may have no need for changing vehicles for years to come.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

I believe that when you have a car at 80-100k miles, it is the time to decide if you want to keep it for the long-haul vs replace it. Once you rack up 150k miles, it will not resale for much. However, if you keep it and run it to 200k or more, you will have gotten a great return on it. I think its when you sell it with 120-180k miles is when you could loose the most value/utility out of it (which is also a great time to buy if you know how to perform basic maintenance).

I also just checked and the 2007 Civic uses a timing chain and not a belt. That is a another reason that many people may sell from 80-100k miles - a timing belt job on a 3.5L V6 Honda can cost $1000 easily.

I would be inclined to keep that '07 and run it to twice the mileage you currently have.

I also just checked and the 2007 Civic uses a timing chain and not a belt. That is a another reason that many people may sell from 80-100k miles - a timing belt job on a 3.5L V6 Honda can cost $1000 easily.

^^ - If you go to the dealer, sure it'll cost you $1K easily, if you buy the OEM parts and take it to a reliable independent mechanic it will run you about $400 in labor. Your choice - pay the dealer or save about $400-500 by doing what I suggested.

[Saluki31]

I drive a 2001 Civic with 225K miles. I plan on keeping it as long as it continues to be reliable.

[tadamsmar]

I think you should consider buying a safer car if you can afford it. A 2007 Civic has about a 50% higher fatality rate attributable to lack of modern safety equipment than does a late model Civic equipped with electronic stability control and other less important safety features.

[ryuns]

My suggestion: With uber-reliable and high-demand cars, depreciation is too linear (obviously tapering off as resale value approaches the low four figures) to try to psychoanalyze the market. Just sell it when you feel like it. The best choice financially is to keep it until it really starts to fall apart, but honestly, that may be a very, very long time. My college Honda ended up with 265k miles when I sold it for $700 (including miles from my older brother and I as we each drove it through high school and college!) and, while it still "ran", it had enough problems that I stopped fixing things and it was getting pretty sad there at the end. At some point, you'll get tired of having an old car. My 2000 Civic only has 126k; almost zero problems. We plan to keep it for at least a few more years, maybe waiting on the Honda Fit reboot or the new Prius liftback or possibly the next-gen of plug in electrics (and then wait another model year for early kinks to get worked out).

At this point though, if the car is running good and you don't think an upgrade would really add much to your life, you might as well hold on to it.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

I think you should consider buying a safer car if you can afford it. A 2007 Civic has about a 50% higher fatality rate attributable to lack of modern safety equipment than does a late model Civic equipped with electronic stability control and other less important safety features.

Modern safety equipment is of little value if the one behind the wheel drives recklessly, undertakes negligent actions including the use of alcohol and drugs and/or the latest in my region - texting or chitchatting while holding a cellphone in hand and trying to drive at the same time. Multi-tasking is not helpful if you want to exit a motor vehicle, alive or in good health. Modern safety equipment will not help you if an opposing vehicle decides to not obey traffic laws and broadsides you at excessive speeds or if you hit a patch of ice or oil slick and causes the car to become an airborne projectile. Statistics can be manipulated to defend or oppose one's point of view.

[SHL]

If you want to keep your cash, then keep your Civic. I have a 2000 Civic EX coupe with 110K miles, and I plan to drive it 'til the wheels fall off!

[tadamsmar]

I think you should consider buying a safer car if you can afford it. A 2007 Civic has about a 50% higher fatality rate attributable to lack of modern safety equipment than does a late model Civic equipped with electronic stability control and other less important safety features.

Modern safety equipment is of little value if the one behind the wheel drives recklessly, undertakes negligent actions including the use of alcohol and drugs and/or the latest in my region - texting or chitchatting while holding a cellphone in hand and trying to drive at the same time. Multi-tasking is not helpful if you want to exit a motor vehicle, alive or in good health. Modern safety equipment will not help you if an opposing vehicle decides to not obey traffic laws and broadsides you at excessive speeds or if you hit a patch of ice or oil slick and causes the car to become an airborne projectile. Statistics can be manipulated to defend or oppose one's point of view.

Thanks! It never occurred to me that the NHTSA was manipulating the fatality data. The moon landing photo's are faked too, I guess.

[Leesbro63]

Is a 2014 Civic that much safer than a 2007?

[camaro327]

Is a 2014 Civic that much safer than a 2007?

Probably due to the "stability control", yes. It may also have better crash ratings.

I own a 2009 with VSA, however only a couple models had VSA on them in 2009.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

I think you should consider buying a safer car if you can afford it. A 2007 Civic has about a 50% higher fatality rate attributable to lack of modern safety equipment than does a late model Civic equipped with electronic stability control and other less important safety features.

Modern safety equipment is of little value if the one behind the wheel drives recklessly, undertakes negligent actions including the use of alcohol and drugs and/or the latest in my region - texting or chitchatting while holding a cellphone in hand and trying to drive at the same time. Multi-tasking is not helpful if you want to exit a motor vehicle, alive or in good health. Modern safety equipment will not help you if an opposing vehicle decides to not obey traffic laws and broadsides you at excessive speeds or if you hit a patch of ice or oil slick and causes the car to become an airborne projectile. Statistics can be manipulated to defend or oppose one's point of view.

Thanks! It never occurred to me that the NHTSA was manipulating the fatality data. The moon landing photo's are faked too, I guess.

Research it and let us know.

[tadamsmar]

Is a 2014 Civic that much safer than a 2007?

Probably due to the "stability control", yes. It may also have better crash ratings.

I own a 2009 with VSA, however only a couple models had VSA on them in 2009.

VSA is one of the many product names for electronic stability control (ESC):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic ... duct_names

The 2014 Civic also has standard side air bags which (while being 10 times less important than ESC) add to it's relative safety.

[TSR]

Just to keep things in perspective, your 2007 Civic (assuming 4-door) has a driver fatality rate of 55 per million vehicles registered. In other words, the fatality rate is tiny, and it compares extremely favorably to other cars of its size and, indeed, other cars that are much larger. If a previous poster is correct that you could drop that by 50% with a brand new Civic, I think it's still vitally important to ask yourself what that reduction is worth. To me, that change in percentage (50% less than an already miniscule rate) is worth approximately nothing, though reasonable minds could differ.

I also think it's helpful to remember that we live in a sort of golden age of vehicle safety. While you're much more likely to die in a car accident than most other causes, you are much, much safer in your 2007 Civic than you were in probably any vehicle you drove before that. I wouldn't be too swayed by this safety comparison if I were you.

Good luck in your decision.

[sls239]

To be honest, with a small car, there's two factors that influence the resale price - regular depreciation and the price of gas.

The older the car, the more strongly the value is influenced by the price of gas, and you can't really predict that.

So my suggestion is to just keep the car if it meets your needs, and don't worry about the resale value.

If a previous poster is correct that you could drop that by 50% with a brand new Civic

To be nit-picky, if the 2007 has a 50% higher fatality rate as stated, then going from a 2007 to a 2014 would reduce your chance of fatality by one-third, not 50%. And yes, that is one-third of a very small number. Also, those 2007 numbers probably include a certain proportion of young drivers and those who make performance modifications, as used civics are very popular choices for those demographics.

[supton]

I like ABS, and I like the "feeling" of having six plus airbags. VSC/ESC, meh, small FWD vehicles I think it's oversold. Might it help some, and might it help in some situations. Sure. Is it worth dropping 20k? Not so much. At least to me. When I upgraded the wife's car it was mostly because hers was 10 years old (NH salt fears), largely for extra space, and partially to obtain ABS and side airbags. The VSC is only desirable from the traction control aspect for us (lots of snow driving); my daily driver lacks VSC and her prior one lacked VSC, and we don't feel as if we were left wanting due to that lack.

let's be clear, I'm more worried about getting T-boned these days. It's always the other driver, after all; my wife and I are above average drivers.... (ok, that's a joke, everyone's above average, right?) Seriously, low slung cars that are known for dreadful understeer tend to react predictably in an accident.

My truck OTOH, I'm not so sure. I know I've had the VSC kick in a number of times, but I'm unsure as to if it was even necessary. But it's a tall spindly vehicle, and IMO of all the vehicles out there needing it, this would be one of them. Tall vehicles are much more apt to rollovers, and with a light rear it is definately more apt to oversteer.

[tadamsmar]

If a previous poster is correct that you could drop that by 50% with a brand new Civic

To be nit-picky, if the 2007 has a 50% higher fatality rate as stated, then going from a 2007 to a 2014 would reduce your chance of fatality by one-third, not 50%. And yes, that is one-third of a very small number. Also, those 2007 numbers probably include a certain proportion of young drivers and those who make performance modifications, as used civics are very popular choices for those demographics.

Correct, 1/3 from 2007, and I don't think that's nitpicky. Not sure about the young driver bias, and I am not sure of the OP's specific situation. But, the oldest car is often handed down to the novice driver in the family, so it's not unusual for the kid to be driving a vehicle with a 50% higher fatality rate than the vehicle that the parents are driving these days with ESC coming through the pipe. The only other similar period was during the introduction/stardardization of the collapsible steering column (given that seat belts are retrofittable).

your 2007 Civic (assuming 4-door) has a driver fatality rate of 55 per million vehicles registered

Juries have awarded $100 million in death or injury suits and, of course, the injured party was not a close relative, not a loved one. If you put 3 times that value on the life of a loved one or yourself, then the increased yearly cost to own for a new Civic is justified based on 55 per million per year. And, you don't need to buy a new car to get ESC, so you can get a lower yearly cost to own.

[TSR]

TSR wrote: If a previous poster is correct that you could drop that by 50% with a brand new Civic

To be nit-picky, if the 2007 has a 50% higher fatality rate as stated, then going from a 2007 to a 2014 would reduce your chance of fatality by one-third, not 50%. And yes, that is one-third of a very small number. Also, those 2007 numbers probably include a certain proportion of young drivers and those who make performance modifications, as used civics are very popular choices for those demographics.

I've got to own up to this one. Thanks for the polite correction.

[tadamsmar]

I like ABS, and I like the "feeling" of having six plus airbags. VSC/ESC, meh, small FWD vehicles I think it's oversold. Might it help some, and might it help in some situations. Sure. Is it worth dropping 20k? Not so much. At least to me. When I upgraded the wife's car it was mostly because hers was 10 years old (NH salt fears), largely for extra space, and partially to obtain ABS and side airbags. The VSC is only desirable from the traction control aspect for us (lots of snow driving); my daily driver lacks VSC and her prior one lacked VSC, and we don't feel as if we were left wanting due to that lack.

let's be clear, I'm more worried about getting T-boned these days. It's always the other driver, after all; my wife and I are above average drivers.... (ok, that's a joke, everyone's above average, right?) Seriously, low slung cars that are known for dreadful understeer tend to react predictably in an accident.

My truck OTOH, I'm not so sure. I know I've had the VSC kick in a number of times, but I'm unsure as to if it was even necessary. But it's a tall spindly vehicle, and IMO of all the vehicles out there needing it, this would be one of them. Tall vehicles are much more apt to rollovers, and with a light rear it is definately more apt to oversteer.

ABS is perhaps the biggest auto safety bust in history. The NHTSA kept testing it for decades and it showed uneven results. It appeared to increase fatalities in some studies. The NHTSA never found a justification to make ABS standard on its own merits. A Mercedes study found that 90% of drivers with ABS did not know how use their brakes. One study found that driver who knew they had ABS drove more recklessly. There was speculation that drivers with ABS who could steer while braking chose a path more fatal than if they lost control with their brakes locked. But they finally made it standard in 2012 as a necessary basis for ESC (aka VSC). The NHTSA did continue to study ABS (which was unusual for them, no decision left to make) and their final report did conclude it added some safety, but they did not bother with a cost-benefit analysis which would have been irrelevant.

Side air bag are 10 times less important than ESC according to the actual fatality data.

Getting T-boned is becoming a bigger and bigger relative risk as cars get safer because you just can't put a big crumple zone on the side of a car. Short of a self-driven car, the best solution may be more roundabouts in the US. Roundabouts result in a 90% reduction in fatalities, 76% reduction in injuries, 35% reduction in all crashes:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection ... wasa08006/

Pay attention to local decisions about intersection upgrades and get involved. The Cary NC town council recently decided against a roundabout in part because they thought we Caryites were too dumb to use one. And, the study of options estimated that the roundabout was the option that provided the most throughput and lowest wait time.

Getting a SUV where the passengers ride higher is also a way to make getting T-Boned less fatal, but of course its a competitive safety feature in this context.

[AdamFist]

My opinion is to continue driving a vehicle if it safely and reliably meets your needs.

[dimdum]

The only reason you would buy a new car is due to safely reasons. Few years back I replaced my older accord with min-SUV.
The older accord has had two airbags in front, newer one came with 6 airbags in front (3 each side) plus 2 for back seat (side airbag activated during roll-over).
It had better crash rating even with roll-over and tons of new features, assisted braking, stability control, backup camera etc. Also 4x4 which provide better traction with wet roads.

Agreed its not a fair comparison replacing sedan with Mini-suv but newer cars do come equipped with many safely features and better collision rating.

PS: you don't have to go brand new, you can get two years old one's, which will be better value.

[tadamsmar]

ESC has perhaps made SUVs safer than sedans in the same weight class. At least, IIHS has been publishing studies to that effect. The rollover difference is either eliminated or greatly mitigated and the passenger height difference is still working in favor of SUVs.

[Dave76]

I think you should consider buying a safer car if you can afford it. A 2007 Civic has about a 50% higher fatality rate attributable to lack of modern safety equipment than does a late model Civic equipped with electronic stability control and other less important safety features.

Modern safety equipment is of little value if the one behind the wheel drives recklessly, undertakes negligent actions including the use of alcohol and drugs and/or the latest in my region - texting or chitchatting while holding a cellphone in hand and trying to drive at the same time. Multi-tasking is not helpful if you want to exit a motor vehicle, alive or in good health. Modern safety equipment will not help you if an opposing vehicle decides to not obey traffic laws and broadsides you at excessive speeds or if you hit a patch of ice or oil slick and causes the car to become an airborne projectile. Statistics can be manipulated to defend or oppose one's point of view.

Thanks! It never occurred to me that the NHTSA was manipulating the fatality data. The moon landing photo's are faked too, I guess.

Statistics is voodoo math. The results of these studies can be easily manipulated, and probably are. They want to get old cars off the road, and will use poorly substantiated, politically motivated theories and falsified 'data' to do it. They take the American consumer for a chump.

[LadyGeek]

This thread is now in the Personal Consumer Issues forum (car). We're now discussing reliability and safety.

[lillypie]

I drive a 2001 Civic with 225K miles. I plan on keeping it as long as it continues to be reliable.

This makes me happy! 2002 at 155K and the plan is to keep going past 200. I just replaced what I believe to be the original battery. Bought the car used 8 years ago with 95K already on it. Any major (or minor?) repairs to get to 225K?

With that said...Keep the car! Also remember.....lower insurance...registration, etc. on the older car.

[6miths]

I would keep it if economics is the main consideration. I drive a 2007 Acura CSX Type S which was a made for Canada only Acura entry level car which is essentially a dressed up Civic. I bought it as a demo and haven't had any problems with it at all now with 130k miles. I bought it rather than the Civic Si because the the Acura model did have VSA-ESC whereas the Civic at that time didn't. I would hang onto it but the kids aren't interested in learning to drive a manual which is a shame in my opinion but what are you going to do. So likely sell it and get an automatic. Hondas are fabulous cars.

[supton]

ABS is perhaps the biggest auto safety bust in history. The NHTSA kept testing it for decades and it showed uneven results. It appeared to increase fatalities in some studies. The NHTSA never found a justification to make ABS standard on its own merits. A Mercedes study found that 90% of drivers with ABS did not know how use their brakes. One study found that driver who knew they had ABS drove more recklessly. There was speculation that drivers with ABS who could steer while braking chose a path more fatal than if they lost control with their brakes locked. But they finally made it standard in 2012 as a necessary basis for ESC (aka VSC). The NHTSA did continue to study ABS (which was unusual for them, no decision left to make) and their final report did conclude it added some safety, but they did not bother with a cost-benefit analysis which would have been irrelevant.

Side air bag are 10 times less important than ESC according to the actual fatality data.

Getting T-boned is becoming a bigger and bigger relative risk as cars get safer because you just can't put a big crumple zone on the side of a car. Short of a self-driven car, the best solution may be more roundabouts in the US. Roundabouts result in a 90% reduction in fatalities, 76% reduction in injuries, 35% reduction in all crashes:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection ... wasa08006/

Pay attention to local decisions about intersection upgrades and get involved. The Cary NC town council recently decided against a roundabout in part because they thought we Caryites were too dumb to use one. And, the study of options estimated that the roundabout was the option that provided the most throughput and lowest wait time.

Getting a SUV where the passengers ride higher is also a way to make getting T-Boned less fatal, but of course its a competitive safety feature in this context.

I will have to look into what you said. I do know the only accidents I've had thus far involve me swapping ends--once I lose control, I hit the brakes, and things "happen". Would ABS help or hurt? Dunno, haven't swapped ends since the last time; after that I started buying snow tires *and* have a car with ABS and a more neutral weight balance. [The truck is recent, and hasn't been in snow yet, and may completely undo that.]

A higher riding SUV may offer protection in the event of T bone, but it comes at a higher risk of a rollover. At the moment I need to do some searching; I used to know of a plot that showed risk of injury to self vs injury to others, relative to vehicle being driven. In short, SUV's come at a higher risk to self and others. But that chart was from a few years ago, so perhaps its data is out of date now... I do drive my truck vastly less aggressively than my car, since I know it handles far worse.

Speaking of roundabouts, they put one in locally. I didn't catch what it was going in, as I don't drive that way often. The first time I drove through it, it was at night, and I darn near drove through it! Major sudden change to a 4 way intersection; it had been a blinking yellow for the direction I've always used, hence the confusion (I thought it was still that sort of intersection). There is another roundabout which was poorly implimented IMO, in that no one seems to use the lanes as indicated. It's too small to have two lanes around it, traffic does not have enough time to change lanes as necessary. I'm glad I never have to hit that in rush hour. At the moment I'm somewhat unsold on roundabouts; they may well be safer but IMO they can be easily done poorly; will see what the future holds.

[EternalOptimist]

Keep it....in all likelihood it will last for quite a while. I've had Hondas for upwards of 150,000 miles.

[tadamsmar]

I will have to look into what you said. I do know the only accidents I've had thus far involve me swapping ends--once I lose control, I hit the brakes, and things "happen". Would ABS help or hurt? Dunno, haven't swapped ends since the last time; after that I started buying snow tires *and* have a car with ABS and a more neutral weight balance. [The truck is recent, and hasn't been in snow yet, and may completely undo that.]

ABS has sensors that detect the brakes locking (going into a static skid). ESC has sensors that detect when a vehicle is going into oversteer or understeer. That is, when the vehicle is starting to point in a direction what is not the direction in which is is being steered. In both cases the 4 wheels are independently braked to correct the loss of control if that is possible.

A higher riding SUV may offer protection in the event of T bone, but it comes at a higher risk of a rollover. At the moment I need to do some searching; I used to know of a plot that showed risk of injury to self vs injury to others, relative to vehicle being driven. In short, SUV's come at a higher risk to self and others. But that chart was from a few years ago, so perhaps its data is out of date now... I do drive my truck vastly less aggressively than my car, since I know it handles far worse.

The SUV rollover issue is very much mitigated if not eliminated by ESC. A lot of the rollovers start with the SUV going into a sideways skid and tripping over its tires. And Ford (and perhaps some others, not sure) add an extra MEMS gyroscope to detect vehicle tipping and some throttle control to provide even more rollover resistance.

[tadamsmar]

Statistics is voodoo math. The results of these studies can be easily manipulated, and probably are. They want to get old cars off the road, and will use poorly substantiated, politically motivated theories and falsified 'data' to do it. They take the American consumer for a chump.

The NHTSA will not succeed in getting those old cars off the road with their falsified 'data', voodoo safety statistics, and politically motivated theories. They will just shift the ownership of those old cars from chumps like me to savvy consumers like you who know what's what. Then they will have to add more falsified 'data' about the relatively higher fatality and injury rates among these savvy consumers and their families to keep the ruse going.

[MGBGTV8]

I kept a running depreciation curve on my Volvo 960-

I would plan on losing 15-20% of your car's value each year until you hit the "minimum value" for a good running car ($2000). Then you're at the sweet spot- driving a car with no depreciation cost. I was driving depreciation free for the past 4 years. That's the part that you want to extend as long as possible.

My Volvo details follow:
It was a 1995, I bought it certified preowned for roughly half of its original MSRP. It had 39,539 miles on it when I took over in 1999. The car had 177,000 miles on it when I drove it to the junkyard (they gave me $400 for it). It was unsaleable due to necessary repairs, but it was good beater car but for the lack of AC in the summer. Arrival of our 2nd kid made it "not worth it" to fix a car with too few seats. Also, it was rear wheel drive, so my wife perceived it as "bad in snow." It made a difference only 2 days per year in MD. New wagon is also a used low mileage euro car, this time with AWD!

I drove a big safe euro luxury car for basically 26c per mile plus gas. In today's money, at 20 mpg and $4/gal, that's an operating cost 46c per mile, not bad for an expensive car, considering the IRS allows 55c per mile.

[harrychan]

Those who repeatedly post about owning and running cars until it falls apart are utterly irresponsible. My friend had a Toyota Rav4 that he should've got rid of but decided to "run it to the ground". One evening, he was on the freeway going uphill when the car went completely dead without any warning. He couldn't make it to the shoulder and there he was on the 2nd lane with cars zooming past him at 70-80mph in the dark. He was bracing himself expecting to be rear ended. It's only a car and from what I read, many of you can easily afford a better car.

[supton]

Those who repeatedly post about owning and running cars until it falls apart are utterly irresponsible. My friend had a Toyota Rav4 that he should've got rid of but decided to "run it to the ground". One evening, he was on the freeway going uphill when the car went completely dead without any warning. He couldn't make it to the shoulder and there he was on the 2nd lane with cars zooming past him at 70-80mph in the dark. He was bracing himself expecting to be rear ended. It's only a car and from what I read, many of you can easily afford a better car.

Cars rarely die like that. Generally they give adequate warning. Few things can kill a vehicle faster than either driving with no oil in the sump or neglecting a timing belt change; most everything else will just keep going slower and slower as it dies faster and faster. Perhaps your friend was genuinely unlucky, maybe it was a bum fuel pump; but 250kmiles these days isn't that many miles anymore--only if it wasn't taken care of.

I've had my car die on the highway twice. The first time wasn't a true death: the turbo went, and I limped it for a ways, then quit when it started making a racket and I surmised at what the power loss truly was. [It was a calculated risk, driving after the power loss; I didn't think it was the turbo at first, but rather some other failure.] The second time was fuel pump, and that did truly take out the car. $350 later, it was running just fine. Cheap money (at least compared to the clutch and turbo job I had just done prior). Still driving said vehicle a year later, and it's as safe as it ever was.

***

I think my Jetta is dipping below 20c/m in running costs. The Camry is slated to run around 23c/m, assuming no big repairs between now and 250kmiles. My truck, eh, not so good--about 2x that.

[wander]

My friend used to own a Honda Civic, he could make 250k miles easily; however, when he got it to around 180k, it lost power badly especially when climbing steep hills. For normal driving, he wanted to have the option to accelerate anytime he needed to exit the highway, so he sold it although it was running just fine.

When a car's performance starts to bother you, then it's time to let it go.