Should I buy newer and repair or older and repair?

I am thinking of buying a Chevy Astro, GMC or Chrysler or something like it (don't care which minivan acutally, but I know I cannot afford the foreign ones).

My question is if you think I should buy an older one with a V6 and fix it when it breaks or buy a newer one with a 4 Cyl. or maybe V6 and fix it when it eventually breaks.

I figured since they are both gonna break why not get the older one and fix it. At least I would not have already spent my repair money on the car. I know a guy who paid $1500 for a Chevy Astro with 129,000 miles on it. He said it only leaks oil a little when it sits and a little "puff of white smoke" when he starts it up. I don't know how bad that is.

I thought this might be the kind of vehicle that as long as you liked the inside of it you can fix it forever....thoughts please. Thank you for any insight.

Reply to
needin4mation
Loading thread data ...

The answer is "it depends." :)

What I found was that if you buy a car and hold onto it for 5 years and dispose of it, the TOTAL cost is about the same for old vs new.

This makes an assumption you're comparing equivalent cars - you can't compare a 95 Cavalier to a 2005 Dodge Ram and expect useful data... It also assumes typical condition for an old car - we're not talking collector car here - we're talking a 10 year old car in average condition.

Old car -> cheaper upfront cost. New car -> usually gets better fuel economy. Old car -> usually cheaper for insurance. The wildcard is repairs and maintenance - new car parts are often expensive and the old car can get parts from the junkyard, but you'll need more of them.

Do you fix your own cars? If not, old cars can nickel and dime you pretty hard if you're paying a mechanic to fix it.

Do you do smog tests and/or safety tests? Old cars can get very hard to pass these tests without a few bucks as stuff starts to wear out...

Having owned a lot of old cars and a couple of newer ones (and one new one) I can tell that my system works for me...

There are things that don't show up in a simple mathematical anaysis: Old cars have a tendancy to break in the dead of winter. New cars attract attention - not always good. Who cares about a door ding on a 10 year old car? Style, comfort, driveability. Newer isn't _always_ better.

I strongly suggest you do the math on old vs new and figure out how much downtime you can afford on an old car.... I have a fleet of cars so I usually have at least one running... :)

Lastly, RUST is evil. I'd pick a car with a blown motor and a nice body over one with any body cancer. Always be suspicious of new paint on an old car. Engines are cheaper and easier than good body work and paint.

Ray

76 Camaro Dirt Track Stock Car 80 Trans Am Project Car 86 S-15 Jimmy 4x4 90 Beretta (wife's car - I don't do FWD) 01 Trans Am ... and the new addition - a 90 Chevy 1/2 ton 4x4
Reply to
ray

I'm a firm believe in buying used but buy the best used vehicle you can afford. Personally I buy full sized GM products that are about ten years old and around 40k miles (I live in FL, the land of the granny mobile).

The 4.3 in the GM van is a very good engine. Trans is about as good as anything American. The real difference in an older vehicle will be in the maintenance history. If you can find one with all the maintenance records you will be miles ahead of the game.

Buying the cheaper but older or more mile van sounds like a good idea up front but often bites you in the end. The older they get the more silly little things that break. You end up spending twice as much money and using up all your free time.

Steve B.

Reply to
Steve B.

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.