Keep 2003 TL w/ 30,000 miles on it, or buy new car?

What went?

That sounds outrageous, frankly.

What did you have to have fixed, who told you it all had to be fixed, and where did you get it fixed? That's important to know in all of this.

Rubber bits and timing belts and some suspension bits will be affected by age regardless of miles, so yeah, the car will need maintenance no matter what. My personal philosophy is, overall the car was meant to be driven, not stored away--and that a car that's driven somewhat is far better off than one that sits all the time and is never driven.

From a service standpoint, your rep is right. We still have in the family an '87 Civic, base 4 door with auto trans, that my aunt bought new and drove max 2000 miles/year for many years. Now someone else has it, and she also drives very little. I don't think it has 30K miles on it yet. It still runs great.

But do be aware, not driving it does not mean no maintenance or repairs at all. Very little driving is worse for the oil, for example, since it never heats up and never has a chance to get rid of the moisture it's accumulated. So good practice, you're changing it on a regular time schedule. Per mile driven, that seems expensive. So be it.

And after five years, tires should be replaced (maybe a bit longer since you garage it and the tires don't sit in the sunlight). Time takes its toll on those, too.

So yeah, you'll pay out of pocket for keeping the car. Having a car at your disposal is not free.

But none of that addresses what the service rep advised you. From a service standpoint, there's no need to replace the car.

But from a modern throwaway-society I-don't-want-to-deal-with-it standpoint, where you want to just drive it without doing anything to it, many people simply roll over to a new car every three years. That floats their boat. It's the expensive, convenient path to car ownership. Never worry about tires or repairs, just drive it like an appliance and get rid of it before you have to think about the inevitable maintenance items and repairs and paying out of pocket for all that stuff (those people are very bad at math, by the way).

On the other hand, two things stand out that might make you want a new car:

• new features. Cars are evolving almost as quickly as smartphones, all in the effort to attract the audience that is used to that. And if you want to maximize the integration with your smartphone, you'll need to keep up with new cars. So you might want a new car with a better feature set.

• safety. Any new car is safer in an accident than your 11 year old car. What we know changes all the time, and how the automakers respond to what we know is pretty quick--much quicker than 11 years. IIHS has ratings and can show you videos of how cars perform in crash tests, and how the dummies fared in those tests. Nobody wants to crash, but the danger is a reality. A situation in which you would walk away in a 2014 car could mean something else in a 2003 car.

And of course 11 years is a long time in terms of engineering overall, gas mileage, emissions, performance, and so on.

Add it all up, toss it into a blender, and figure out where your head is at with all of it--and make your choice.

I still drive my 91 Accord. It doesn't cost much per year but I would like having new safety features. I have not been servicing it much the last few years but I think I need to do a big service (the 60,000 mile type) just to get all the belts and fluids taken care of. And it really could use four tires.

I too wonder whether it's better just to get a new used car, but which one? Eh. I'll probably just run the Accord until it needs a new transmission or my foot falls through the floorboards. I don't drive all that much.

When I brought the car in, the engine was surging in a cycle of once per se cond, when in idle or park, and it would not decelerate properly either, so it definitely needed to be fixed.

The told me that Idle Air Control Valve and EGR (some type of gas regulati on valve) both needed replacement and that was like $630 and the radiator w as also leaking a little bit fluid at the seam and they wanted to replace i t for $662 In addition they also wanted to replace two lower ball joints in the front. They've been talking for a couple years about one of them h aving a little play, but now claim it's time to replace and they want to re place on both sides so everything is even and that was around $400.

This was my local Acura dealer. The high cost of the repair is making me question whether I want to bother with another Acura when it is time to get a new car. My prior car was an Accord EX and I had that car for 9 or 10 y ears with at least 45K miles and I was never hit up for a huge repair like that.

If you could find an independent shop that knew what they were doing and was reliable, that would save some money. However, it sounds like there's enough little crap going bad that this is going to nag at you quite often. Might be better to cut your losses and get something newer.

not outrageous. IAC for me a few years ago in my Odyssey was quoted at $300 or so; add in that time has passed and everything goes up in price, plus the "but we're Acura, if you can't afford the service you can't afford the car" tax, and yeah, maybe those two added up to that at the dealer.

I didn't pay it, though; I pushed back, and Honda paid. I was a few months past the 36 month warranty, but still inside the 36K miles.

One wonders what an independent shop would have charged, though.

Huh. Really.

I think you're on the right track. Why would you pay the Honda tax at all if the car you're going to get will go through lower ball joints at

30K miles?

Hondas (that includes Acuras) have been built more and more cheaply, and Honda is riding on their reputation to keep the prices up. They're hoping like hell that you never step foot inside a Hyundai or Kia dealership--but their business model of "build 'em cheap, keep the price high, sell on reputation, and otherwise stick our heads in the sand with regard to Hyundai/Kia" hasn't worked out as well as they'd have liked.

Your repair story makes me wonder, though. Yeah, you had the IAC repair. But Honda had an EGR campaign for the 2002-2003 model years; you possibly paid for a repair you didn't have to. In addition, did you have any evidence yourself of a leaking radiator? Fluid on your garage floor? Did they show you under the car at all?

The reason I ask is, I know of one dealership tech who blatantly rips off ignorant people--and management looks the other way.

A 10 year old car, you don't *have* to go to the dealer. There are plenty of independent shops that can work on your car, that is essentially an Accord in a tuxedo. You most certainly could have gotten a second opinion, and a $1700 quote on ANY 30K mile Honda, even though it's 10 years old, deserves one.

I agree. Maybe--MAYBE--give it one more chance. Maybe see if this was a fluke and you'll go another 10 years with only a few bucks in maintenance. But be prepared to cut his losses if another round of this kind of thing pops up.

I'm still shocked that any 30K mile Honda would do this. I have a 93K mile Odyssey, 12 years old, that isn't leaking and hasn't blown through ball joints.

(But based on my transmission story alone, I would tell him to get the hell rid of that car NOW.)

You know, I wonder if the n*****ts (or evil) tech who replaced the IAC didn't spill some coolant in the process, then see it and "deduce" that the radiator must be leaking...

03 TL? V6? Automatic transmission?

Get rid of it. NOW. While it still has a smidgen of value.

See, the transmissions on those cars will grenade. Every one of them. Without fail. Honda built not one, but TWO automatic transmissions for their V6 vehicles between 1998 and 2004 model years, and those two transmissions were so screwed up, they all failed.

They failed so badly that eventually Honda threw in the towel and stopped replacing them under their famed goodwill warranty.

I could go on for a long time on this, but you tell me why an 8 year old, 73K mile Honda van that mom drove around town with the kids in it lost the transmission.

Google is your friend. For a long time Honda held their heads in shame and replaced these transmissions. Then the economy tanked and Honda, to preserve profit, pulled back on their famed goodwill warranty process--right in the middle of these horrible transmissions failing left and right.

Google is your friend.

If you try to sell the car independently, you will face two questions: have you replaced the timing belt (that's a function of time as much as miles), and have you replaced the transmission. NOBODY wants a Honda of your vintage that still has the original transmission.

Sell it to an Acura dealer, take what they give you (they'll give you cash--all car dealers buy used cars for cash), and move on with your life.

This kind of thing, plus hearing about your ball joints, is what has given Honda the reputation of being just another GM or Chrysler. Not only are the vehicles shitty, so is the factory backing. "Give us your money, we'll give you something in return, but no promises and never call us again" is their motto.

Good point.

J.

Go do a little shopping, test drive stuff built since the millenium, the total engineering is just way smoother since then.

Which newer safety features? If you mean like the collision warning and all, at least in Hondaland those are pretty recent. Also they're more like coming-attractions than really useful.

J.

Stop going to that dealer.

I guess you could keep driving it for now, but if it so much as hiccups, dump it and go with something new.

J.

All? Doubt it....mine is still going strong 10 years later.

I see a lot of people saying to dump this car. So 11 years and finally facing a first repair of a supposedly few minor issues (question if everything is truly needed going to the dealer) is time to get rid of a car with 30k miles on it?

I'd say the $1500 $2000 over 11 years for repair of a car with 30k miles is quite reasonable. No one here except for the owner has actually seen it or driven it. To spend +$30k and take on years of payments to avoid spending a few dollars is silly unless the vehicle has actually had a history needing various repairs/breakdowns. Also, to say every 6 cyl by Honda from '97 to '04 is ready to fail (earlier in the thread) is a fallacy as well. My '04 accord has 140k miles on it, and I've had no issues.

Unless it's a real lemon, there is no reason why it won't last another

11 years (or more). It would take a little bit more than a few hiccups to truly warrant dumping this vehicle, IMO.

Not necessarily, but there are a lot of moving parts in making that choice. The goal is to make an *informed* decision.

No, not those repairs. I do know that in 2002-2003 Honda and their junk parts created IAC repairs (I had two of them), and they even did a campaign on the EGR repair. Weak, weak, weak pieces of engineering and manufacturing all went into the 1998-2004 Hondas.

Throw in the transmission troubles, and what does it add up to.

And you know, it's not the transmission troubles themselves; what counts is how Honda responded to them. Initially it was all wine and roses, but when the economy crashed Honda told everyone who brought this to their attention to "f*ck off, we're not giving shit to you, it's your problem, we need to protect our profits".

And his car is right in the sweet (sour?) spot of bad Honda products.

The engineering of those cars is well known to be problematic over a decent range of items, not the least (expensive) of which is the transmission.

Like I said, he has to make an informed decision--not a blind one. And there's lots of information that, when taken together, might incline one to get rid of the car and gets something with modern safety and end user features.

The statistics say you'll lose on that bet every time. That you so far have won, is an anomaly.

According to the statistics. But then again, math is hard and statistics sometimes go against "common sense" and people love to stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality.

You're talking about a vehicle that consensus now values at less than $7k. Why do you think that is? Because the ratio of care to service it requires is that much higher than a newer vehicle.

Now, if you're an expert driver and can pick up the first tick of a problem and nurse it home and do a lot of repairs yourself and get a warm and fuzzy feeling from it all, then that's a win-win. OTOH if this is grandma's car and you don't want to get a call that she's at the mall and all these lights are on the dash and the car won't move, then you might want to go another way.

I drove one Honda for eleven years and got good value out of it, but then decided to try it the other way and have just leased since then. For what seems to me a very small premium there are no maintenance issues at all, no reliability issues at all, and so many strange new toys to play with I seldom try them all out before trade-in time.

J.

So what exactly is the percent of transmission failures for 6 cyl Honda vehicles from '97 to '04 that makes my experiences an "anomaly"? I'd bet money without even looking at the data that more have won than have lost.

Or people thump their chest after prophesizing a false reality. Either way, there is a very good chance that the vehicle is still worth keeping. Advice to dump it *without any other information* over what has already been discussed could end up having someone pay $30-$40k for a new vehicle when $1500 (or even $6k or so even if one wanted to put in a new transmission) is poor advice for a vehicle that only has 30k miles.

Buy a new one and drive it off the lot and you lose $7k in the first year. 30k miles leaves a lot of life left in the original vehicle.

The transmission failure rate may have been high, but what does that mean? What is high? 10% failure rate is obscenely high, but it still leaves a 90% probability of not having an issue. It wasn't even mentioned if this vehicle was even brought in for the recall fix? How many failed after the fix vs. those that failed without it (I believe there were 2 fixes that were used, depending on the mileage of the vehicle)?

No one has supplied any data to offer the OP as to what are his real chances of having an issue with this vehicle, only subjective opinions (which in a way, he got what he asked for), with at least one of them from someone that openly has admitted that they have a bone to pick with the manufacturer.

I'd have to say that before making a huge commitment for a number of years in the form of car payments, I'd want more objective information on why I should give up on one that I haven't even gotten my moneys worth out of it after 11 years.

Just my opinion to present the other side of the coin (again, what was asked for). That and 8 bits won't even get you a good cup of java these days, so the OP can take it for what it's worth.

a) how many miles do you drive

b) have you done the math? I'm curious what that "very small premium" is in the real world. If it's in fact very small, that's interesting.

Oh, I've marched through this at least once, I think twice, on this newsgroup over the last few years.

It works best if I drive a standard 12k miles/year plus or minus ten percent, I've had pretty good luck getting allowances for unused miles and waivers on minor damage.

What does it cost? Well, I typically pay like $2,400 cash to get the new car off the lot, so that's $67/month. I went all bonkers and got the EXL4 this time around for a payment with taxes of $360/month. And maybe it costs another $50/month to insure a more expensive vehicle, so that's $477/month. Call it $500/month including higher registration fees.

But I'm never out of pocket for the entire purchase price AT ALL!

And what appears as cash flow here is about half depreciation, and the rest interest on the principle - very low interest, these days.

$500/month to be eternally driving a new car, is pretty cheap. Let's say $100/month is for status, and another $100/month is real value for operating under factory warranty. So, for about $6/day, I drive a new car and never worry about a thing. And of course chicks dig it.

If I wanted to buy and hold on a budget of $300/month for about ten years, I'd have a budget of $36k. Let's say half of that would be to buy a "bargain" used car for $18k, and budget $150/month maintenance over the long run, including tires and hoses and (timing belt?). I think this is about ball park.