Honda Car Forum

In news:YhO_b.391899$xy6.2203355@attbi_s02,
Crunchy Cookie <LSC400@Yahoo.com> being of bellicose mind posted:
> I thought I'd get a little cost/benefit analysis discussion going.
> I've always thought the best used-car deals were ones between, oh,
> 2 and 8 years old. If it's too new, you might as well buy new,
> but if it's too old, you're just asking for trouble, right?
> What's the average (range of) mileage where cars start konking out
> to a higher expense than their value? Most people seem to
> casually say between 100K and 200K; most consider 200K to be a
> long life. The engine and transmission rebuilds are the only
> really huge items, right? How much does rebuilding those cost?
> Anything else to watch out for?
> And is it me, or do Japanese car alternators die really easily?

Lots depends on where you live. If the used car is 10 yrs old and
rusting, a sound driveline may become immaterial.

WHEN you can get a decent used car REAL CHEAP, then you can put more
money into it. But you better have mechanical skills.

My most satisfactory ownerships have been to buy new .... do as much
as the preventative maintenance as possible (don't over estimate your
skills either!) and then drive it 'til the wheels get wobbly.
--

- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

95 Maxima, 180,000K

I bought it used. It had been banged and repaired and right now the bottom
of the door is rusting. I have decided to fix it and keep it another two
years.

I love the drive and reliability. I have had to do some work, fuel
injectors, battery, discs and calipers, and exhaust. Instead of replacing
the front pipe I had a place replace and weld the flex pipe, it cost $500
and that was 4 years ago, so I am ahead on the game on that repair. The rear
muffler is making noise so I suspect I'll need that and a pipe later this
month.

I kept my For Tempo GLS, bought brand new till 200K. It was feeling tired
from around 140K onwards, so at 200K I figured that it was toast, the floor
had rusted out.

I go for regular oil changes and the tranny stuff as well.

I think as long as the body is good and can be kept looking good and the car
is pleasing to drive, keep it, unless you hanker form soemthing new. I know
I want something newer but it's not in my economic future right now so I'll
have to be content with what I have. I always wanted BMW and I can get an
1991 850 i for $25k right now. It has a 150,000KM on it so and a V12 must
have lots of accelleration to have fun with. A 1999 750iL for $33K with
110,000KM. A 1985 Maserati BiTurbo for $5K, that would be a hell of ride.

I don't know, I think there is no ROI with cars, just a love for what you
want.

You could change out the engine in a car every year for less than a year
of payments in some cases. However, I gave up my 16 year Accord because
it was becomming a safty concern. You also have to factor in if the
lifestyle improvement would be worth the price.

Crunchy Cookie wrote:

> I thought I'd get a little cost/benefit analysis discussion going. I've always
> thought the best used-car deals were ones between, oh, 2 and 8 years old. If
> it's too new, you might as well buy new, but if it's too old, you're just asking
> for trouble, right? What's the average (range of) mileage where cars start
> konking out to a higher expense than their value? Most people seem to casually
> say between 100K and 200K; most consider 200K to be a long life. The engine and
> transmission rebuilds are the only really huge items, right? How much does
> rebuilding those cost? Anything else to watch out for?
> And is it me, or do Japanese car alternators die really easily?
>
>

In article <dDT_b.53926$3A7.295722149@news.nnrp.ca>, tomkinsr@istop.com
says...

> I think as long as the body is good and can be kept looking good and the car
> is pleasing to drive, keep it, unless you hanker form soemthing new. I know
> I want something newer but it's not in my economic future right now so I'll
> have to be content with what I have. I always wanted BMW and I can get an
> 1991 850 i for $25k right now. It has a 150,000KM on it so and a V12 must
> have lots of accelleration to have fun with. A 1999 750iL for $33K with
> 110,000KM. A 1985 Maserati BiTurbo for $5K, that would be a hell of ride.

There's a very good reason why Biturbos are so cheap. They're
notoriously unreliable even by Italian standards, and I say that as
someone whose daily driver used to be an Alfa GTV6. Even better, they're
a major pain in the ass to work on - the guy that used to work on my
Alfa was one of the best Italian-car mechanics in the city, and he would
curse when a Biturbo came into the shop, even though it would almost
invariably mean that the owner was about to drop a big wad of cash. But
they do go like stink when they're running properly.

Dave

In article <YhO_b.391899$xy6.2203355@attbi_s02>,
Crunchy Cookie <LSC400@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>I thought I'd get a little cost/benefit analysis discussion going. I've always
>thought the best used-car deals were ones between, oh, 2 and 8 years old. If
>it's too new, you might as well buy new, but if it's too old, you're just asking
>for trouble, right? What's the average (range of) mileage where cars start
>konking out to a higher expense than their value?

It depends greatly on how well taken care of the car has been. Someone
who does scheduled maintenance can get reliable service for decades and
many hundreds of thousands of miles out of a car. Someone who does not
do scheduled maintenance is probably lucky to get one hundred thousand
miles.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Stephen Bigelow wrote:

> Oh yeah. As long as the cams are already done, right?

That's a cinch to check.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:15:52 GMT, "Crunchy Cookie" <LSC400@Yahoo.com>
scribbled:

>I thought I'd get a little cost/benefit analysis discussion going. I've always
>thought the best used-car deals were ones between, oh, 2 and 8 years old. If
>it's too new, you might as well buy new, but if it's too old, you're just asking
>for trouble, right? What's the average (range of) mileage where cars start
>konking out to a higher expense than their value? Most people seem to casually
>say between 100K and 200K; most consider 200K to be a long life. The engine and
>transmission rebuilds are the only really huge items, right? How much does
>rebuilding those cost? Anything else to watch out for?
>And is it me, or do Japanese car alternators die really easily?
>

I have an '89 Mitsubishi Galant GLX with a 1.8L motor here in New
Zealand. My Galant has 371,000 on the clock. I've just finished
reconditioning the head, and replacing the head gasket. That should
last me another 200,000 or so. As long as you service them well, they
should last for a long time.

I had a 1987 Prelude 2.0Si that went over 310,000mi. I had the
original clutch replaced around 250,000mi. At the same time I had the
tech replace both axles to be safe. The original alternator died soon
after the clutch replacement. I replaced that myself as well as a
couple of water pumps and a couple of brake jobs. Other than that it
was pretty much normal maintanence. The only reason why I got rid of
the car was because of serious rusting. So serious the structure was
rotted out and became unsafe. If it wasn't for all the rust I
probably could have gone to 400,000. It rotted out so fast I couldn't
keep up with the rot. The engine was still strong and burned very
little to no oil between oil changes. The transmission seemed to be
tight still too. It's apparently how you maintain it that will make
it last.




"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<axR_b.6239$Qg7.3891@news04.bloor.is.net.cabl e.rogers.com>...
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:FaR_b.8292$aT1.4230@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> >
> >
> > Crunchy Cookie wrote:
> >
> > > I thought I'd get a little cost/benefit analysis discussion going. I've
> always
> > > thought the best used-car deals were ones between, oh, 2 and 8 years
> old. If
> > > it's too new, you might as well buy new, but if it's too old, you're
> just asking
> > > for trouble, right?
> >
> > That's true for most cars. Some are better, though, and you can double
> > that estimate. I'd have no problems buying a 15 year old Merdedes 500
> > series sedan, for instance.
>
> Oh yeah. As long as the cams are already done, right?

Also depends upon the car. I sold a 1967 Pontiac GTO (purchased new)
in 1972 for $1,200. I have seen them sell for $35,000 and up. I
can't believe I didn't keep that car.


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:53:45 GMT, remove22@sonic.net (Timothy J. Lee)
wrote:

>In article <YhO_b.391899$xy6.2203355@attbi_s02>,
>Crunchy Cookie <LSC400@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I thought I'd get a little cost/benefit analysis discussion going. I've always
>>thought the best used-car deals were ones between, oh, 2 and 8 years old. If
>>it's too new, you might as well buy new, but if it's too old, you're just asking
>>for trouble, right? What's the average (range of) mileage where cars start
>>konking out to a higher expense than their value?
>
>It depends greatly on how well taken care of the car has been. Someone
>who does scheduled maintenance can get reliable service for decades and
>many hundreds of thousands of miles out of a car. Someone who does not
>do scheduled maintenance is probably lucky to get one hundred thousand
>miles.

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aFR_b.8309$aT1.8294@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> 1.
> Here's an interesting way to help decide when to buy a new car: Put together a
> spreadsheet for your car's costs. Every month, record the dollars you pay for
> car parts, car repairs, and car maintenance. Maintain a running total of $
paid
> in another column. The running total must include the initial purchase price
of
> the car. Every month, divide the *total* you have paid for the car and its
care
> (over its lifetime) by the total months you have driven it. You may also
compute
> the $/mile, too. Initially, the dollars/month is very high, because the
initial
> cost of the car dominates. But then naturally the $/month immediately declines
> for at least several years, as the initial cost is naturally "amortized" over
> the car's life. Also the costs of parts, repairs, and maintenance in the early
> years are minimal. Eventually, the $/month will flatten or even start to rise.
> This is about when you know you should start shopping for a new car. Of
course,
> if you get sick of running the car to the shop all the time, this is another
> good reason to get rid of the old car. If you have poor records, you could
still
> start the calculation today. The cost still should be declining every month,
or
> else you're due for a new car. (This approach is courtesy of a senior citizen
> acquaintance of mine. I'm still mulling over its usefulness given the time it
> takes, but so far it seems sound.)
>
> 2.
> I disagree with your statement that one might as well buy a new car if one is
> considering a fairly new used car. Car's depreciate very quickly (like the
> instant you drive it off the lot, to use a hackneyed phrase). If one is not
> going to keep the car for at least about ten years, he more economic choice
> between a new car and a recently manufactured used car is the used car. If one
> is going to keep the car for over ten years, buy new, so you know the car's
> history well. If one is going to keep a car ten years or more, the difference
in
> price between new and used tends to be trivial.

Right. I like to switch every few years, which is why I was asking the normal
lifespans of auto transmissions and engines, as well as how much rebuilds cost,
and if there are any other huge common expenses besides those two items. My
casual policy is to buy a 4-year old car, use it for 4 years, and sell at 8
years. For someone who only drives a car 4 years, that instinctively strikes me
as the best bang for the buck point, considering the risk of having the
engine/tranny die while it's in MY driveway.
I guess my question should've been: what's the oldest car that's still a safe
bet?

> 3.
> Certain Toyota and Honda models that are properly maintained will easily go
over
> 200k miles and ten years in many climates. Other manufacturers' cars are now
> lasting this long, but Toyota and Honda are still ahead of them, from what
I've
> read.

Sometimes I wonder how much of a myth that is. From all the reliability reports
I've been staring at over the past ten years, almost ALL Japanese cars that are
handled from concept, through design, to assembly 100% by its parent (with no
Ford or Chrysler intervension) are equally reliable. Aren't there thousands of
people whose Miatas, Proteges, Mirages, and Maximas last as long as you guys'
apparently numerous 300K Accords? Consumer Reports data supports this, as there
are only 6 models of the recent past that didn't achieve consistently
above-average reliability. Their names are Mazda 626, Mazda MX-6, Mitsubishi
Galant, Mitsubishi Eclipse, Nissan Quest, Isuzu Rodeo.
My friend swears Nissans are crappier than Hondas or Toyotas, with their fuel
injectors dying a guaranteed death at some point shortly after 100K. Don't know
whether to believe him. (As a 95 200SX SE-R owner about to cross 100K, I don't
want to.)

> 4.
> As another poster said, a lot of the cost analysis depends on how much work
you
> do on the car yourself. Also, if one does a lot of one's own car repairs, I
> think the spreadsheet approach above isn't very useful. My senior citizen
friend
> said I could consider converting my hours of car labor to $ and run the
numbers
> this way. This is an idea, but I also think it's pretty obvious when one who
> does one's own maintenance is having to do more than they want.
>
> 5.
> I'm on my second alternator for my 1991 Honda Civic, 150k miles, bought new. I
> think the first died around 106k miles and 8 years, with mostly Northern
climate
> driving (which I think wears the battery and thus charging system more). Maybe
> check Consumer Reports April car issue for whether electrical problems are
worse
> on Japanese cars. But I'm almost positive they're no worse on Honda and Toyota
> than on other makes of cars, as it would be something I'd have noticed in my
car
> buying studies by now.