Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 2

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 30 Jan 2014, 10:18 pm
jaynews@verizon.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

I have a 2003 TL that is 11 years old. It has 30K miles. Garage kept. The trade-in value in my area is between 4.5K and 6.5K depending on whetheryou believe Edmunds or KBB. I just had to have over 1.7K worth of work done to the car because a couple of things went. Due to the age of the car,family members are questioning whether it is really worth keeping the car,or as opposed to buying a new one.

The car is in good condition cosmetically and runs fine. I'm just concerned that maybe something else big could go, that may cost closer to what thetrade-in value is, and then it clearly wouldn't be worth continuing to putmoney into it rather than get a new car. If that did happen, then how would I get rid of the existing car, if the car broke down, and brought it toAcura and I decided it wasn't worth repairing...and I wanted to get a new car but not be limited to buying a new Acura rather than shop around?

There are couple of people who tell me the low mileage means nothing and itis time to think about getting a new car given the age. The service repsaid he would would never tell someone with a car that only has 30K miles that they need to get a new one.

What do you think?

Thanks,

J.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 31 Jan 2014, 06:28 am
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
jaynews@verizon.net wrote:

> I have a 2003 TL that is 11 years old. It has 30K miles. Garage kept. The
> trade-in value in my area is between 4.5K and 6.5K depending on whether you
> believe Edmunds or KBB. I just had to have over 1.7K worth of work done to
> the car because a couple of things went.


What went?

That sounds outrageous, frankly.

What did you have to have fixed, who told you it all had to be fixed,
and where did you get it fixed? That's important to know in all of this.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 31 Jan 2014, 06:45 am
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
jaynews@verizon.net wrote:

> There are couple of people who tell me the low mileage means nothing and it
> is time to think about getting a new car given the age. The service rep
> said he would would never tell someone with a car that only has 30K miles
> that they need to get a new one.


Rubber bits and timing belts and some suspension bits will be affected
by age regardless of miles, so yeah, the car will need maintenance no
matter what. My personal philosophy is, overall the car was meant to be
driven, not stored away--and that a car that's driven somewhat is far
better off than one that sits all the time and is never driven.

From a service standpoint, your rep is right. We still have in the
family an '87 Civic, base 4 door with auto trans, that my aunt bought
new and drove max 2000 miles/year for many years. Now someone else has
it, and she also drives very little. I don't think it has 30K miles on
it yet. It still runs great.

But do be aware, not driving it does not mean no maintenance or repairs
at all. Very little driving is worse for the oil, for example, since it
never heats up and never has a chance to get rid of the moisture it's
accumulated. So good practice, you're changing it on a regular time
schedule. Per mile driven, that seems expensive. So be it.

And after five years, tires should be replaced (maybe a bit longer since
you garage it and the tires don't sit in the sunlight). Time takes its
toll on those, too.

So yeah, you'll pay out of pocket for keeping the car. Having a car at
your disposal is not free.

But none of that addresses what the service rep advised you. From a
service standpoint, there's no need to replace the car.

But from a modern throwaway-society I-don't-want-to-deal-with-it
standpoint, where you want to just drive it without doing anything to
it, many people simply roll over to a new car every three years. That
floats their boat. It's the expensive, convenient path to car
ownership. Never worry about tires or repairs, just drive it like an
appliance and get rid of it before you have to think about the
inevitable maintenance items and repairs and paying out of pocket for
all that stuff (those people are very bad at math, by the way).

On the other hand, two things stand out that might make you want a new
car:

* new features. Cars are evolving almost as quickly as smartphones, all
in the effort to attract the audience that is used to that. And if you
want to maximize the integration with your smartphone, you'll need to
keep up with new cars. So you might want a new car with a better
feature set.

* safety. Any new car is safer in an accident than your 11 year old
car. What we know changes all the time, and how the automakers respond
to what we know is pretty quick--much quicker than 11 years. IIHS has
ratings and can show you videos of how cars perform in crash tests, and
how the dummies fared in those tests. Nobody wants to crash, but the
danger is a reality. A situation in which you would walk away in a 2014
car could mean something else in a 2003 car.

And of course 11 years is a long time in terms of engineering overall,
gas mileage, emissions, performance, and so on.

Add it all up, toss it into a blender, and figure out where your head is
at with all of it--and make your choice.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 31 Jan 2014, 10:04 am
dgk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:45:30 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
> jaynews@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> There are couple of people who tell me the low mileage means nothing and it
>> is time to think about getting a new car given the age. The service rep
>> said he would would never tell someone with a car that only has 30K miles
>> that they need to get a new one.

>
>Rubber bits and timing belts and some suspension bits will be affected
>by age regardless of miles, so yeah, the car will need maintenance no
>matter what. My personal philosophy is, overall the car was meant to be
>driven, not stored away--and that a car that's driven somewhat is far
>better off than one that sits all the time and is never driven.
>
>From a service standpoint, your rep is right. We still have in the
>family an '87 Civic, base 4 door with auto trans, that my aunt bought
>new and drove max 2000 miles/year for many years. Now someone else has
>it, and she also drives very little. I don't think it has 30K miles on
>it yet. It still runs great.
>
>But do be aware, not driving it does not mean no maintenance or repairs
>at all. Very little driving is worse for the oil, for example, since it
>never heats up and never has a chance to get rid of the moisture it's
>accumulated. So good practice, you're changing it on a regular time
>schedule. Per mile driven, that seems expensive. So be it.
>
>And after five years, tires should be replaced (maybe a bit longer since
>you garage it and the tires don't sit in the sunlight). Time takes its
>toll on those, too.
>
>So yeah, you'll pay out of pocket for keeping the car. Having a car at
>your disposal is not free.
>
>But none of that addresses what the service rep advised you. From a
>service standpoint, there's no need to replace the car.
>
>But from a modern throwaway-society I-don't-want-to-deal-with-it
>standpoint, where you want to just drive it without doing anything to
>it, many people simply roll over to a new car every three years. That
>floats their boat. It's the expensive, convenient path to car
>ownership. Never worry about tires or repairs, just drive it like an
>appliance and get rid of it before you have to think about the
>inevitable maintenance items and repairs and paying out of pocket for
>all that stuff (those people are very bad at math, by the way).
>
>On the other hand, two things stand out that might make you want a new
>car:
>
>* new features. Cars are evolving almost as quickly as smartphones, all
>in the effort to attract the audience that is used to that. And if you
>want to maximize the integration with your smartphone, you'll need to
>keep up with new cars. So you might want a new car with a better
>feature set.
>
>* safety. Any new car is safer in an accident than your 11 year old
>car. What we know changes all the time, and how the automakers respond
>to what we know is pretty quick--much quicker than 11 years. IIHS has
>ratings and can show you videos of how cars perform in crash tests, and
>how the dummies fared in those tests. Nobody wants to crash, but the
>danger is a reality. A situation in which you would walk away in a 2014
>car could mean something else in a 2003 car.
>
>And of course 11 years is a long time in terms of engineering overall,
>gas mileage, emissions, performance, and so on.
>
>Add it all up, toss it into a blender, and figure out where your head is
>at with all of it--and make your choice.



I still drive my 91 Accord. It doesn't cost much per year but I would
like having new safety features. I have not been servicing it much the
last few years but I think I need to do a big service (the 60,000 mile
type) just to get all the belts and fluids taken care of. And it
really could use four tires.

I too wonder whether it's better just to get a new used car, but which
one? Eh. I'll probably just run the Accord until it needs a new
transmission or my foot falls through the floorboards. I don't drive
all that much.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 31 Jan 2014, 10:13 am
Jay
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

On Friday, January 31, 2014 6:28:26 AM UTC-5, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
>
> jaywrote:
>
>
>
> > I have a 2003 TL that is 11 years old. It has 30K miles. Garage kept.The

>
> > trade-in value in my area is between 4.5K and 6.5K depending on whether you

>
> > believe Edmunds or KBB. I just had to have over 1.7K worth of work done to

>
> > the car because a couple of things went.

>
>
>
> What went?
>
>
>
> That sounds outrageous, frankly.
>
>
>
> What did you have to have fixed, who told you it all had to be fixed,
>
> and where did you get it fixed? That's important to know in all of this.



When I brought the car in, the engine was surging in a cycle of once per second, when in idle or park, and it would not decelerate properly either, soit definitely needed to be fixed.

The told me that Idle Air Control Valve and EGR (some type of gas regulation valve) both needed replacement and that was like $630 and the radiator was also leaking a little bit fluid at the seam and they wanted to replace it for $662 In addition they also wanted to replace two lower ball joints in the front. They've been talking for a couple years about one of them having a little play, but now claim it's time to replace and they want to replace on both sides so everything is even and that was around $400.

This was my local Acura dealer. The high cost of the repair is making me question whether I want to bother with another Acura when it is time to geta new car. My prior car was an Accord EX and I had that car for 9 or 10 years with at least 45K miles and I was never hit up for a huge repair like that.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 31 Jan 2014, 12:23 pm
Flatlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:13:04 -0800 (PST), Jay <jaynews@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, January 31, 2014 6:28:26 AM UTC-5, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> jaywrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I have a 2003 TL that is 11 years old. It has 30K miles. Garage kept. The

>>
>> > trade-in value in my area is between 4.5K and 6.5K depending on whether you

>>
>> > believe Edmunds or KBB. I just had to have over 1.7K worth of work done to

>>
>> > the car because a couple of things went.

>>
>>
>>
>> What went?
>>
>>
>>
>> That sounds outrageous, frankly.
>>
>>
>>
>> What did you have to have fixed, who told you it all had to be fixed,
>>
>> and where did you get it fixed? That's important to know in all of this.

>
>
>When I brought the car in, the engine was surging in a cycle of once per second, when in idle or park, and it would not decelerate properly either, so it definitely needed to be fixed.
>
>The told me that Idle Air Control Valve and EGR (some type of gas regulation valve) both needed replacement and that was like $630 and the radiator was also leaking a little bit fluid at the seam and they wanted to replace it for $662 In addition they also wanted to replace two lower ball joints in the front. They've been talking for a couple years about one of them having a little play, but now claim it's time to replace and they want to replace on both sides so everything is even and that was around $400.
>
>This was my local Acura dealer. The high cost of the repair is making me question whether I want to bother with another Acura when it is time to get a new car. My prior car was an Accord EX and I had that car for 9 or 10 years with at least 45K miles and I was never hit up for a huge repair like that.


If you could find an independent shop that knew what they were doing
and was reliable, that would save some money. However, it sounds like
there's enough little crap going bad that this is going to nag at you
quite often. Might be better to cut your losses and get something
newer.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01 Feb 2014, 06:38 am
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

In article <4da43db8-0f10-4180-b970-50a5a350be76@googlegroups.com>,
Jay <jaynews@verizon.net> wrote:

> When I brought the car in, the engine was surging in a cycle of once per
> second, when in idle or park, and it would not decelerate properly either, so
> it definitely needed to be fixed.
>
> The told me that Idle Air Control Valve and EGR (some type of gas regulation
> valve) both needed replacement and that was like $630


not outrageous. IAC for me a few years ago in my Odyssey was quoted at
$300 or so; add in that time has passed and everything goes up in price,
plus the "but we're Acura, if you can't afford the service you can't
afford the car" tax, and yeah, maybe those two added up to that at the
dealer.

I didn't pay it, though; I pushed back, and Honda paid. I was a few
months past the 36 month warranty, but still inside the 36K miles.

One wonders what an independent shop would have charged, though.


> and the radiator was
> also leaking a little bit fluid at the seam and they wanted to replace it for
> $662 In addition they also wanted to replace two lower ball joints in the
> front. They've been talking for a couple years about one of them having a
> little play, but now claim it's time to replace and they want to replace on
> both sides so everything is even and that was around $400.


Huh. Really.



>
> This was my local Acura dealer. The high cost of the repair is making me
> question whether I want to bother with another Acura when it is time to get a
> new car. My prior car was an Accord EX and I had that car for 9 or 10 years
> with at least 45K miles and I was never hit up for a huge repair like that.


I think you're on the right track. Why would you pay the Honda tax at
all if the car you're going to get will go through lower ball joints at
30K miles?

Hondas (that includes Acuras) have been built more and more cheaply, and
Honda is riding on their reputation to keep the prices up. They're
hoping like hell that you never step foot inside a Hyundai or Kia
dealership--but their business model of "build 'em cheap, keep the price
high, sell on reputation, and otherwise stick our heads in the sand with
regard to Hyundai/Kia" hasn't worked out as well as they'd have liked.

Your repair story makes me wonder, though. Yeah, you had the IAC
repair. But Honda had an EGR campaign for the 2002-2003 model years;
you possibly paid for a repair you didn't have to. In addition, did you
have any evidence yourself of a leaking radiator? Fluid on your garage
floor? Did they show you under the car at all?

The reason I ask is, I know of one dealership tech who blatantly rips
off ignorant people--and management looks the other way.

A 10 year old car, you don't *have* to go to the dealer. There are
plenty of independent shops that can work on your car, that is
essentially an Accord in a tuxedo. You most certainly could have gotten
a second opinion, and a $1700 quote on ANY 30K mile Honda, even though
it's 10 years old, deserves one.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01 Feb 2014, 06:42 am
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

In article <gtmne9h41hs2t07hhj9o30lflfv980be47@4ax.com>,
Flatlander <flatlander47@cox.net> wrote:

> If you could find an independent shop that knew what they were doing
> and was reliable, that would save some money. However, it sounds like
> there's enough little crap going bad that this is going to nag at you
> quite often. Might be better to cut your losses and get something
> newer.


I agree. Maybe--MAYBE--give it one more chance. Maybe see if this was
a fluke and you'll go another 10 years with only a few bucks in
maintenance. But be prepared to cut his losses if another round of this
kind of thing pops up.

I'm still shocked that any 30K mile Honda would do this. I have a 93K
mile Odyssey, 12 years old, that isn't leaking and hasn't blown through
ball joints.

(But based on my transmission story alone, I would tell him to get the
hell rid of that car NOW.)

You know, I wonder if the numbnuts (or evil) tech who replaced the IAC
didn't spill some coolant in the process, then see it and "deduce" that
the radiator must be leaking...
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01 Feb 2014, 06:49 am
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
jaynews@verizon.net wrote:

> I have a 2003 TL that is 11 years old. It has 30K miles. Garage kept. The
> trade-in value in my area is between 4.5K and 6.5K depending on whether you
> believe Edmunds or KBB. I just had to have over 1.7K worth of work done to
> the car because a couple of things went. Due to the age of the car, family
> members are questioning whether it is really worth keeping the car, or as
> opposed to buying a new one.
>
> The car is in good condition cosmetically and runs fine. I'm just concerned
> that maybe something else big could go, that may cost closer to what the
> trade-in value is, and then it clearly wouldn't be worth continuing to put
> money into it rather than get a new car.


03 TL? V6? Automatic transmission?

Get rid of it. NOW. While it still has a smidgen of value.

See, the transmissions on those cars will grenade. Every one of them.
Without fail. Honda built not one, but TWO automatic transmissions for
their V6 vehicles between 1998 and 2004 model years, and those two
transmissions were so screwed up, they all failed.

They failed so badly that eventually Honda threw in the towel and
stopped replacing them under their famed goodwill warranty.

I could go on for a long time on this, but you tell me why an 8 year
old, 73K mile Honda van that mom drove around town with the kids in it
lost the transmission.

Google is your friend. For a long time Honda held their heads in shame
and replaced these transmissions. Then the economy tanked and Honda, to
preserve profit, pulled back on their famed goodwill warranty
process--right in the middle of these horrible transmissions failing
left and right.

Google is your friend.

If you try to sell the car independently, you will face two questions:
have you replaced the timing belt (that's a function of time as much as
miles), and have you replaced the transmission. NOBODY wants a Honda of
your vintage that still has the original transmission.

Sell it to an Acura dealer, take what they give you (they'll give you
cash--all car dealers buy used cars for cash), and move on with your
life.

This kind of thing, plus hearing about your ball joints, is what has
given Honda the reputation of being just another GM or Chrysler. Not
only are the vehicles shitty, so is the factory backing. "Give us your
money, we'll give you something in return, but no promises and never
call us again" is their motto.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01 Feb 2014, 02:46 pm
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 06:49:37 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <ba4c757f-8cf4-402c-ae5c-be528fdb1c3f@googlegroups.com>,
> jaynews@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> I have a 2003 TL that is 11 years old. It has 30K miles. Garage kept. The
>> trade-in value in my area is between 4.5K and 6.5K depending on whether you
>> believe Edmunds or KBB. I just had to have over 1.7K worth of work done to
>> the car because a couple of things went. Due to the age of the car, family
>> members are questioning whether it is really worth keeping the car, or as
>> opposed to buying a new one.
>>
>> The car is in good condition cosmetically and runs fine. I'm just concerned
>> that maybe something else big could go, that may cost closer to what the
>> trade-in value is, and then it clearly wouldn't be worth continuing to put
>> money into it rather than get a new car.

>
>03 TL? V6? Automatic transmission?
>
>Get rid of it. NOW. While it still has a smidgen of value.
>
>See, the transmissions on those cars will grenade. Every one of them.
>Without fail. Honda built not one, but TWO automatic transmissions for
>their V6 vehicles between 1998 and 2004 model years, and those two
>transmissions were so screwed up, they all failed.


Good point.

J.



Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Keep 2003 TL with 30K miles or get a new car.... Jay Acura 2 01 Feb 2014 06:52 am
2003 Honda accord with 180000 miles majority highway miles. $3500 is it worth it? greg m Honda Technical 3 14 Jul 2010 09:56 am
2003 Acura MDX with 101,000 miles on it..? Mormor07 Acura Technical 3 16 Nov 2009 11:31 am
How much is a 2004 Jetta with 65K miles or a 2003 Honda Civic with 100K miles worth? Jay Karr Honda Technical 3 26 Jan 2009 07:16 pm
Is 76000 miles a lot for a 2003 acura tl? tre Acura Technical 6 17 Jun 2008 09:46 pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.