 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
In article
<b...@z...go
oglegroups.com>,
Bhoot Nath <d...@y...com> wrote:
> The car is probbaly worth 3500 due to mileage + usual wear and tear
> after 14 years (& some dings), but no mechanical problem. We would
> like to keep this car (we are not itching for a new car smell), but
> does it make sense to put $3000 into a $3500 car? How critical is to
> replace timing belt and water pump stuff every 90K?
I am on my 8th Ford Ranger. I have always traded every 2-1/2 years
as the vehicle hits 75,000 miles. That has been expensive, but I
wanted to keep a nice newer truck to drive.
On my last trade in, the Ranger #7 was in near perfect condition,
but I felt I gave it away in the trade. That left a bad feeling,
so when Ranger #8 was due for trade in, I started doing some math.
I came up with, even in a worst case, scenario, I could never
outspend on maintenance what a new Ranger would cost.
Ranger #8 now has 230,000. It just passed the mark where it did
the work of 3 trucks, and now is in the area of the 4th vehicle
that I would have needed if I had kept to the plan of trading in
at 75K.
While I haven't run the numbers recently, last time I updated my
spreadsheet model, I was ahead by something like $20,000 over
where I would be if I had traded. Not only that, but by doing
all the maintenance, and replacing some key chassis bushings
(little rubber bumpers), the Ranger still looks, drives, and
handles essentially like a new vehicle.
I wouldn't hesitate to drop $3,000 into an older car. But
I think that there is some criteria that you have to consider.
The car has to be basically sound, it should have modern safety
equipment (airbags), and both the engine and transmission need
to be sound.
As far as the timing belt and water pump go, don't skip it.
In this car, the timing belt drives the water pump. The water
pump will run about 100K. If it seizes up, it will ruin the
timing belt. If the timing belt breaks, the engine will quit.
When it quits, the valves will be in a open configuration, and
then the pistons will come up to top dead center, and one by
one, bend each valve, and destroy you engine. This is called
an interference style engine, and a water pump or timing belt
issue is fatal to the engine.
BTW, don't let anyone scare you with stories about getting
stranded or stuck on a bridge. That can happen to any car.
In fact, and older car might be less likely to do this since
it has a proven track record.
-john-
--
====================================================
==================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 j...@j...com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================
==================
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
"Bhoot Nath" <d...@y...com> wrote
Re replacing a 1996 Civic, 180k miles, original and sole
owner:
> Now the civic paint is peeling, and a cheap repainting at
> Maaco is
> estimated at $800. The car will hit 180K miles in a few
> weeks, and is
> due for the major maintenance + the timing belt + water
> pump stuff
> that is done at every 90K miles. All of this is estimated
> to be about
> $1500.
Hi, original and only owner of a 91 Civic here, 204k miles.
Runs like a top, but except for alignments, I personally
maintain it with TLC. I recommend posting your query to
rec.autos.makers.honda and alt.autos.honda. I read and post
at these groups regularly. The regulars are very helpful and
have great experience. For now: The $1500 estimate above is
quite a bit on the high side high. Was this a Honda
dealership estimate? Have the shop that did this estimate
break it down for you by parts and labor. Then get an
estimate from a non-dealer import repair shop for the same
work.
> I estimate tires and brakes also, probably within a year,
> for
> another $700 or more. So, within a year, it will add up to
> $800+1500+700 = about $3000.
>
> The car is probbaly worth 3500
I have been shopping for an older Honda for a friend.
Everyone selling and with any smarts uses www.kbb.com. It is
your best online resource for pricing used cars.
www.edmunds.com prices cars much lower, for some reason.
Craigs List and newspaper ad prices are consistent with
KBB.Com
You know this car well and have a maintenance history on it.
What I am finding with used cars is that, unless one buys
from a dealership (paying more!), it is usual for used cars
for sale to have multiple owners, flawed titles, and no
maintenance history to turn over. E.g. odometer tampering,
accidents, filthy inside and out, etc. Gosh knows how they
have been maintained. If the choice is between getting a
lower mileage, newer used car and keeping this one, from
what I know of Hondas (read: religious belief in their
reliability) I think you are far better off keeping this
one.
A few other things you want to consider before making this
decision: Does the car handle well? Specifically, does the
suspension seem sound? If driven on salty roads etc. in
winter, what people generally see is that the suspension
needs rebuilding, especially replacing bushings and ball
joints. Now this could add up. If not driven on salty roads
and it drives well, I would not be concerned about this.
Economics wise, unless you simply like driving a newer
better looking car, I would rule out looking for a used car,
do the maintenance on this one, and figure it will last you
5-10 more years pretty easily.
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
On Jul 6, 9:36 am, Douglas Johnson <p...@c...com> wrote:
> Mark Bole <m...@p...net> wrote:
> >Let's not go to extremes. Unless you are on financial life support, buy
> >a newer used car when the annual cost of repairs to the old car exceeds
> >50% or more of the car's resale value. And don't forget to drop
> >collision insurance well before that time.
>
> Let me suggest that the resale value of the car is relevant only if you are
> going to resell it. If you are going to keep driving it, then the issue is the
> cost of repairs vs. the net cost of buying another car.
If your car is totaled, the insurance will only pay approximately the
resale value. Collision insurance is reduced for older cars, so it
makes sense to keep it.
--
Ron
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
Ron Peterson <r...@s...core.com> wrote:
> Douglas Johnson <p...@c...com> wrote:
> > Mark Bole <m...@p...net> wrote:
> > > Let's not go to extremes. Unless you are on financial life
> > > support, buy a newer used car when the annual cost of repairs
> > > to the old car exceeds 50% or more of the car's resale value.
> > > And don't forget to drop collision insurance well before that
> > > time.
> >
> > Let me suggest that the resale value of the car is relevant only
> > if you are going to resell it. If you are going to keep driving
> > it, then the issue is the cost of repairs vs. the net cost of
> > buying another car.
>
> If your car is totaled, the insurance will only pay approximately
> the resale value. Collision insurance is reduced for older cars, so
> it makes sense to keep it.
And if your car is never totaled (which is *far* more likely,) then that
insurance has been an albatross on your finances for years.
The OP has made it clear that he would not be financially devastated if
this car disappeared tomorrow, so insurance (beyond what is legally
required,) is a waste of money for it.
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
Ron Peterson <r...@s...core.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 9:36 am, Douglas Johnson <p...@c...com> wrote:
>> Mark Bole <m...@p...net> wrote:
>> >Let's not go to extremes. Unless you are on financial life support, buy
>> >a newer used car when the annual cost of repairs to the old car exceeds
>> >50% or more of the car's resale value. And don't forget to drop
>> >collision insurance well before that time.
>>
>> Let me suggest that the resale value of the car is relevant only if you are
>> going to resell it. If you are going to keep driving it, then the issue is the
>> cost of repairs vs. the net cost of buying another car.
>
>If your car is totaled, the insurance will only pay approximately the
>resale value. Collision insurance is reduced for older cars, so it
>makes sense to keep it.
Sorry, I should have snipped a little more. I was suggesting the resale value
of the car is irrelevant as to whether you should repair it or not. That
decision should be based on the cost of repairing vs. the net cost of buying
another car. Yes, likelihood of further repairs, reliability, and safety play
into the decision as well. But those are often used as rationalizations for
wanting a new toy.
But since you bring it up, I tend to drop collision on a car when I can afford
to write it off. Don't forget. If the car is totaled, the insurance company
will only pay the blue book (retail, usually), less the deductible. For an
older car, that might be only a few hundred dollars.
-- Doug
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Mark Bole <m...@p...net> wrote:
[...]
>> plus the image of reliability and sensibility you project to
>> your neighbors and co-workers (unless you are lucky enough not to have any!)
>
> Or lucky enough to have neighbors and co-workers that don't judge people by
> their cars. "Those that matter don't mind, those that mind don't matter."
True enough, at least for the high-cost status cars. I'm talking about
the other extreme, the automobile equivalent of dirty jeans with holes
and a threadbare t-shirt with something mildly obscene on it.
His 14-year old car has peeling paint, some major overdue engine
maintenance, we don't know about the interior condition or whether the
windshield is cracked but can guess.
Now, he said he only drives 4K miles/year and has another family car, so
maybe this is just the beater for weekend errands, in which case I would
recommend keeping it. Otherwise, I still recommend the "replace when
repairs are 50% of value" rule, it's easy to follow and pretty much
guarantees cash-flow payback in two years.
Speaking of clothes, I wonder how the financial advice would fall
regarding the economics of buying new clothes regularly vs. wearing used
ones well beyond when the edges start to get a tiny bit frayed. For
example, are there financial planning lessons to be learned from "What
Not To Wear" (cable TV show)? Do they clearly demonstrate a pay-off
from the $5K or so spent on clothes in each episode?
-Mark Bole
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
Mark Bole <m...@p...net> wrote:
> Otherwise, I still recommend the "replace when
>repairs are 50% of value" rule, it's easy to follow and pretty much
>guarantees cash-flow payback in two years.
Could you show me the arithmetic on this? I still don't see how the resale
value of the car relates to the fix or replace decision.
I drive a 1995 Ford Explorer worth maybe $1500. It is very dependable and has
been averaging about $300 a year in repairs. A new replacement would be about
$26,000. Why should a $750 repair bill make me trade it?
-- Doug
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Mark Bole <m...@p...net> wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, I still recommend the "replace when
>> repairs are 50% of value" rule, it's easy to follow and pretty much
>> guarantees cash-flow payback in two years.
>
> Could you show me the arithmetic on this? I still don't see how the resale
> value of the car relates to the fix or replace decision.
>
> I drive a 1995 Ford Explorer worth maybe $1500. It is very dependable and has
> been averaging about $300 a year in repairs. A new replacement would be about
> $26,000. Why should a $750 repair bill make me trade it?
Who said anything about a "new" replacement? Not me.
How many miles do you put on it? Do you rely on it for your livelihood?
Can you afford to leave it in the shop at any old unexpected time, and
be without a vehicle for a day or two?
If I am spending $750/year cash for repairs to a $1,500 car, and I
replace it with a $5,000 car and reduce my repair bills by two-thirds
for the next seven years, then I am even or ahead.
(Incidentally, I don't think your example or my sample numbers above are
anywhere close to reality for the vast majority of drivers, but I don't
have any studies to back it up. There will always be the extreme
example of the miracle car that still runs like new twenty years later.)
Let's put it in analytic terms -- if repair cost and depreciation are
strictly straight-line functions of time, then it really doesn't make
any difference how long we keep the car. But everyone seems to agree
that the rate of depreciation is high up front and then slows, and I
would argue that repair cost is the converse -- more growth on the back
end than the front end. Therefore there must be a point of diminishing
returns where the ever-decreasing benefit of holding on to the car
longer finally becomes less than the ever-increasing cost.
If you agree, where do you think the point is? I think it's a lot
closer to ten years than fifteen.
-Mark Bole
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
Mark Bole wrote:
I'm talking about
> the other extreme, the automobile equivalent of dirty jeans with holes
> and a threadbare t-shirt with something mildly obscene on it.
>
>
Veeerrrrry close to my daily attire now that I am retired.
Chip
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
On Jul 6, 6:30 am, Pete <s...@n...com> wrote:
>
> Another reason I heard recently for hanging on to an old car, or buying a
> *used* one, is that it takes the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gas/petrol
> to make a new car.
Which means absolutely nothing. The energy used to build it might
have come from solar or wind plants and it would still be equivalent
to 1000gals. of gas.
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Model Portfolio of beaten up stocks
FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-pl an
pls,suggest me for corporate valuation method
One possible reason for market instability (in general)
Bond Broker Who Will Advertise My Offer?
vanguard target retirement fund vs. fidelity freedom fund
FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-pl an
Pension Plan - Single Life Annuity (Divorced)
Up