"Mark Bole" <m...@p...net> wrote
> I'm still claiming there must be *some* point when repair
> costs accelerate for an older car. Since older cars
> (excluding collectibles) are cheaper, then there would be
> a strong inverse correlation between the value of the car
> and annual repair costs.

When a car is over around 150k miles, one is looking at
periodic "lump" repair costs. Only four areas come to mind
as possibly economically justifying giving up an older car:
needs new suspension, new transmission, new engine, or new
steering system. If these four items appear to be holding up
fine, then insofar as "getting the most bang for your buck"
is concerned, the car is likely still worth continuing to
drive. What I think the frugal person should await is when
one of these four systems is unbearable (in the case of an
old suspension, lousy ride) or flat-out broken (tranny,
engine, steering). Then they should ask the question this
gentleman is asking. Other old car costs (new oil pan
gasket; various seals in and about the engine) are not that
great.

Anyone saying they want to replacing his/her Honda because
it needs a new timing belt is not telling the whole story.
More likely they want a snazzier* car, or they really want
air bags. Other safety features (like ABS) are highly
questionable.

*Not to begrudge anyone wanting this. I have increased what
I am willing to spend for a used car because the really old
ones are usually buckets as far as the suspension is
concerned.

--------------------------------------
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.