I've got low miles on my car, around 75,000. It runs great except for paint chipping off front of hood near light and side of windshield. Is there any warrantee for this paint chipping off? I'm the original owner, if that matters.
Also, I haven't made up my mind if I'm going to keep this car but I think within a year I'll need new tires. At one time I put Michelins on them (pleased with them a lot) and they are beginning to show signs of wear after around 50k. I'm thinking of replacing them with less expensive tires of decent quality maybe good for 30k to 40k miles to save money in case I don't keep her (may give her to an inlaw). Any recommendations ?
"Doug" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
No. Those are called "stone chips", and are the sole responsibility of the owner. Corrosion due to stone chips is not covered under the corrosion warranty. It will say this in the warranty booklet that came with your car.
You can buy special touchup paint at most auto parts places, plus the dealer.
Go to Costco. Buy whatever they recommend. With your annual mileage, it won't much matter what you get.
You got me to wondering, if I did a tire change at Sams Club, is it safe to assume I would save money over Discount Tire (in Texas) without checking into details ? In the past, I only went to Discount Tire for tire replacement.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in news:elmop- snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:
yeah,be careful to not follow trucks closely,their tires tend to throw up road debris,like stones. Especially don't closely follow sand/salt trucks in the winter.
paint and new tires is a LOT cheaper than buying a new car,and you already know what shape your present car is in. Plus,your older car will likely weigh much less,have better real world mileage,and also have far less complex systems for which parts and repairs can ONLY come from the dealer/Factory. (I'm thinking of integrated,computerized climate controls/sound system,nav systems,etc.)
the older car will also have fewer air bags. If you do get in a collision,costs for replacing air bags and cover panels will be lower.
I agree in most cases. In my case, I might be doing cross country driving (not sure yet) so I think I'd rather do this with a new car instead. If I don't do this, I'll likely keep the car longer. In my case, I have never gotten tired of my cars but changed them for other reasons.
Not everyone has to make "payments" on their new cars.
That's your preference, and not an unwise one.
In the meantime, my '04 Accord runs great at 81K, but I am considering buying a new car next year. I am wondering if by then I will have to start spending money on repairs and extra maintenance for the '04.... a crapshoot, I know. I can likely put it off to 2014. One thing I do not want to give up is the generous seat depth of my car. I have long legs, and I love the extra thigh support these seats give me. It's a lot more than that in any of the three Civics I previously owned, and it seems in the mid-sized cars like the new Camry and Accord, they may have shortened the depth. I sat in a 2012 Camry and that's how it seemed to me. I will wait to try the 2013 Accord before deciding anything.
Not everyone has to make "payments" on their new cars.
That's your preference, and not an unwise one.
In the meantime, my '04 Accord runs great at 81K, but I am considering buying a new car next year. I am wondering if by then I will have to start spending money on repairs and extra maintenance for the '04.... a crapshoot, I know. I can likely put it off to 2014. One thing I do not want to give up is the generous seat depth of my car. I have long legs, and I love the extra thigh support these seats give me. It's a lot more than that in any of the three Civics I previously owned, and it seems in the mid-sized cars like the new Camry and Accord, they may have shortened the depth. I sat in a 2012 Camry and that's how it seemed to me. I will wait to try the 2013 Accord before deciding anything.
I kept my 06 Accord couple I4 with 95k miles and bought (new) a 2005 S2000 with 32k miles on it for a lot less than a new Civic.
Regardless, buying a new car every few years is hellaciously expensive compared to chilling out and using the car for longer. It doesn't matter whether you finance the car or pay cash, the expense is still there and it's still huge.
i don't know that many vehicles will last that long quite so easily any more. back in the day, you could take a head off a 300k mile honda and find the cylinder bores virtually pristine, with full cross-hatching all the way around and for the full depth. since the mandatory reduction in z.d.d.p. levels in all motor oils [allegedly for catalyst protection, though honda and toyota seemed to manage to last 20 years with it ok before], i've noticed substantial levels of distress on honda cylinder walls and camshafts, even at much lower mileage.
now, this is a relative thing, in that a "worn" honda at 300k is still a good deal less worn than a "normal" frod at 100k, but it's still a noticeable difference. if you use a magnetic drain plug and monitor the difference in fouling between zddp doped oil and off-the-shelf oil, even synthetic, the difference the amount of magnetic residue is noticeable that way too. i think this is why honda went to roller cams - plain cams just don't last without zddp.
anyway, it'll be interesting to see what the future holds - and whether people's expectations of vehicle lifetime adjust. detroit vehicle owners expect their transmissions to go at ~100k and don't seem to have a problem with it. i think the newer generations of honda owners, if there will be such a thing, will have to adjust their vehicle life expectations downwards as well.
personally, i don't mind using a mechanical key. and i can find my way between the house, supermarket and work without a satnav. and i'll take the weight savings of the manual windows too. all in a car that's got seats NOT designed for a fat person like most modern cars. i so hate sloppy seats with wide asses and no lumbar support, i just can't say.
I don't know if you are right or wrong but I did have a 1991 Honda Accord auto trans go out around 92,000 miles or so. I hated to part with the car (it had been the best car I ever owned at that moment) but the repair cost (by others) almost cost what the car was worth then so opted to buy a new 2003 Honda Accord to replace it. I have about 74,000 miles or so now on it and so far so good on the auto trans. . It might be even better than the old one. The newer one is larger and rides smoother but the older one was more nimble. Both were 4 cylinder automatics. And likely despite the competition and ability to buy more expensive car, buy another new Honda Accord when the time comes.
the one thing i will say in favor of the modern automatics, longevity aside, is that their control systems are much superior. smoothness, much valued by most drivers, is much improved.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:
fancy doo-dads are more stuff to break(or steal),and parts for them may not be available once the warranty expires(like electronic stuff). Certainly not if you're hoping to keep the car for a long time and drive it
100's of thousands of miles.
Plus all that extra crap adds weight and lowers mileage.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.