Old Car: How to decide on repair vs. replace?

go to the bad part of town and find the old time mechanic who is well know for "saving" cars. Whenever you have a car that's that old with that kind of miles you should be using bargain rate mechanics, not the local guy who makes his money fixing late model cars. Going to these kind of shops will routinely save you at least half off the normal cost of fixing the car and will keep you on the road. Just remember in old cars like that only fix what keeps the car from moving - no extras - because you never know when something big is going to go and you don't want to get caught junking a car with a brand new water pump that really didn't need changing. That's another benefit of the bargain rate mechanic - he'll only fix what is necessary.

This problem interests me too, my old Subaru wagon has started to have things going wrong. In no specific example can we predict longevity but if we start thinking statistically maybe there's a guideline. I suspect the answer is "for a given model year, it's still worth fixing if yours is not the last example running in your neighborhood". Special cases aside - I saw a showroom-looking Yugo the other day - if a population of cars follows the "bathtub" failure curve, the length of the floor of the bathtub is going to be characteristic of the car. Once the wearout part of the bathtub curve starts to be in play, the odds of a failure begin rising - that's where things begin to get expensive. The nice thing about a local population is that it takes into account local conditions like salt on roads, or driving in heavy traffic a lot.

Older cars...and are much cheaper to fix generally I always felt that way about American cars, but never had such luck with foreigns (granted, I've always worked with Germans).

To assume that running costs on a newer car are greater than on an older car is patently absurd. Not at all. Not even close - you obviously have never run an older car (or at least not a reliable one). For just one of the many examples in owning old heaps for the last 15 years (as well as some shiny newer ones) old cars cost next to nothing to run: My current car has cost me around $200 in repairs in the 18 months. Total. That includes all 'servicing' and only excludes an emissions test, insurance and parking permits (as any car would need that). Try and get a yearly service done on a 4 year old Corrolla for anything close to that money. Old cars don't cost as much to run because they don't need maintaining to as high a standard as newer cars because you aren't risking a sizeable investment to do so. You don't need to pay extra for repairs that will last 5 years or more when you have one, because the car won't last that long. So you save your money. You don't have to worry about affecting resale value, or whether something else will break in the long term. There is no long term. If you try and maintain an old car the same as a new one, you risk it costing the same or more. If you maintain it in relation to its age and expected/required life, costs will be much less. As mentioned above by someone else, driving an old banger can significantly reduce even labour costs, as you don't need to go to the best mechanic in town any more. Keeping a car running, as opposed to 'keeping it in sellable condition" are very distant levels of maintenance in terms of cost. I'm assuming that over the first 3-5 years of ownership of the newer car, repair costs on the newer car will be substantially lower. Repair costs, possibly but not definitely. But repair AND servicing costs? No way. There is a greater chance of something expensive breaking on the old car, purely by statistical analysis, but there is also no definite guarantee that anything will break. It's possible nothing expensive will break on that car for another 5 years. Hence my earlier comment about "stay with the old car and buy the newer one if something expensive breaks". Until something expensive does break (a fairly small risk, especially for a Toyota that has been looked after as this one seems to have been) the running costs for the older car will be much less. Insurance, at some point, hits a floor, at which point you can't get any cheaper insurance unless you cut out comprehensive and collision insurance. Granted, newer cars have higher premiums, but as the car ages, and the driver's record gets better, the premiums will fall, making cost of insurance negligible after 2-4 years (depending on a variety of circumstances). My guess is, given the older car's age and mileage, the original poster has already hit the floor with that car. But it will always be more than the old car, it just may eventually hit the same level as now when the newer car gets much older. Insuring newer (comparable) cars is always, always more expensive, and the 'floor' is not lower for new cars - they are worth more, cost more to repair and replace and so will always cost more to insure. Insurance is related to the value of the car and the cost of repair and replacement. Newer cars cost more and they cost more to insure. Suggesting anything other than that is absurd. The older car WILL be lots cheaper to run precisely because you can cut out things like comprehensive coverage. It's only $1000 of car. There's no point spending an extra $300 a year to insure it if it gets stolen. The chances are much higher, and you won't recover the lost $700 (if it happens in heh first year) because of increased premiums, deductibles and other expenses. A car worth that little should get minimal insurance and just write it off if it gets trashed or stolen. It's much cheaper that way. But I think that given the marginal added cost of buying the Corolla (spaced out over 10 years), the value added of safety, reliability, and better fuel consumption, outweigh the absolute savings of keeping the older car. That is fine as an opinion, you may well be right. But don't try and dress it up as being ultimately cheaper. It isn't. Nor, in fact, is the additional cost marginal, when you consider it may be $300 a month or more. The conclusion you present is not at all supported by any of your arguments, most of which are misguided. The only advantage is the fuel, all other costs will be higher.

Older cars also have the benefit of being brain-dead simple. No fancy O2 sensors, no OBDC II at inspection time, and are much cheaper to fix generally (I just put $600 of Oxygen sensors into my 2002 Maxima!) My Camry had was practically spitting raw gas out the exhaust when the wires were bad, and kept on running like a champ. Your going to face the eventual wear of components -- but you know what those are, and should be expecting it. Frequently newer cars (especially new model years) don't have after market parts out -- and you need more dealer specific parts ($$$).

My rule of thumb tends to be... suspension/brakes/tires are standard wear items - and arent very expensive. Any car will need them routinely (every 60k-100k), and it isnt something I would hold against the vehicle. If your car needed a headgasket -- I would be borderline. ($1k) If it needed a transmission - I would probably be looking at a new car. ($1.5k) I can't find the figure, but the average vehicle needs $600 in maintenance a year, and as they get older they need even more. That being said; the Camry seems like its in pretty good running shape? I would find a garage that will do the job for $300 with quality parts (ie, not the cheapest struts available that will crap out in 15k miles) and drive that sucker another 25k miles.

What are you assuming? I'm assuming that over the first 3-5 years of ownership of the newer car, repair costs on the newer car will be substantially lower. The older car has a better chance of requiring a new compressor, condenser, transmission, fuel pump, brake pump, electrical problems, among a myriad of other things that can go wrong on a car. And in the first few years, because the Corolla will have significantly less miles and less years, the costs for repair will be monumentally lower. Over the next few years (aged 5-10 years), costs will increase with wear, mileage, and age, but at a lower rate, because the car is smaller and newer. The older a car gets, the better the likelihood of something going wrong. Running costs of the newer car are more likely to be higher than that of the old one. Cost of ownership may be higher, which I'm clearly not debating, as my model up above clearly shows you have to pay for the Corolla, but running costs will be significantly lower on the newer car. To assume that running costs on a newer car are greater than on an older car is patently absurd. the reduction for years driving will apply to both cars, it is not weighted to age of car in any way). Incorrect. Insurance, at some point, hits a floor, at which point you can't get any cheaper insurance unless you cut out comprehensive and collision insurance. Granted, newer cars have higher premiums, but as the car ages, and the driver's record gets better, the premiums will fall, making cost of insurance negligible after 2-4 years (depending on a variety of circumstances). My guess is, given the older car's age and mileage, the original poster has already hit the floor with that car. Which means that insurance costs on the newer car, while higher now, will only go down (unless the OP racks up a bunch of speeding tickets and accidents). OF COURSE buying a car is more expensive than fixing an old one. But I think that given the marginal added cost of buying the Corolla (spaced out over 10 years), the value added of safety, reliability, and better fuel consumption, outweigh the absolute savings of keeping the older car.

I had my rear struts replaced for $270 last year. Disqualify the ripoff artists who quoted you $1,200.

Obviously repair costs over 10 years will likely save you between $3000-5000 That has no logical basis. What are you assuming? That a newer Corolla won't need servicing? Parts will not necessarily be 'more available' as the existing car is hardly old or rare and there are literally millions of them around, but the newer parts for the newer car are almost guaranteed to cost more and more rigorous servicing will be necessary as the car will be a bigger investment (and hence risk). Running costs of the newer car are more likely to be higher than that of the old one. Old cars can be made to kick along with much less money being spent on them because, at most, you are risking $1000. If the car breaks fatally through cheap-arsed servicing, then you only lose a grand. If you skimp servicing (regular maintenance and following the service schedule for parts replaced - the best path with a newer car) then your new car risks much more because it is worth more. You will save money on servicing costs with the older car - it will, without question, cost less to keep on the road. Servicing to ensure the long term reliability and resale value of the car is simply not necessary with a cheap car near the end of its life. You can just replace the things that are safety issues or that break. With an older car, you can (if the aforementioned transmission fails) get a second hand one from a crashed or scrapped car fitted. This will be a fraction of the cost of a similar failure on a new one. The only saving you will make on the new car will be the fuel. Insurance will be more with the new car (the reduction for years driving will apply to both cars, it is not weighted to age of car in any way). Parts and servicing will be more. Fuel will be less. Added to all this is the cost of the loan. Per month, you will be significantly worse off with the newer car.