3 ms·

Now adjust for frustration of sudden issues of an old car. Adjust for the fact that your car is not an average - pretty high probability of getting a piece of s

Now adjust for frustration of sudden issues of an old car. Adjust for the fact that your car is not an average - pretty high probability of getting a piece of shit repaired by electric tape and bubble gum.

blackguardx 9y ago
Or just but a Honda. The main problem with used Hondas is that their reliability is priced in so they cost more than other brands' used cars. Though this helps you a bit when you try to sell, balancing it out somewhat.
- ldargin 9y ago
  Make sure the airbags have been replaced through the Takata recall first before buying a used Honda!!
  - jacobkg 9y ago
    Or pretty much any used car for that matter. My Lexus and my mom's Audi both needed the Takata recall performed (circa 2007). There were supposedly 60 million cars affected
- jnwatson 9y ago
  According to Consumer Reports, Honda quality has dropped off to middle-of-the pack recently.
  - csours 9y ago
    Alternately, the rest of the pack has risen in quality. Just look at the history of Kia's quality numbers.
  - jptman 9y ago
    The CR reliability score I saw recently lumped together the power train reliability with the entertainment system jankiness. I think this makes it not as useful The JD powers rating still rates Honda highly.
falcolas 9y ago
That 10 years means that a car that survived that break-in period and which is still in good condition will probably make it another 5 easily.
BeetleB 9y ago
>Now adjust for frustration of sudden issues of an old car. Everyone keeps saying this, but when I ask, no one answers: How much should I adjust for sudden issues? I once got stuck in the middle of a national park because my starter malfunctioned. People might have laughed at me for buying a used car. But let me ask you: I'll give you two choices: 1. For free, I'll give you a special insurance. If you are ever inconvenienced in a fairly populated national park, I'll pay you $5000. Heck, I'll sweeten the deal - I'll pay you $5000 if you're inconvenienced anywhere because of your car. Heck, I'll sweeten it further. I'll pay you $5000 even if you are never inconvenienced due to the car! 2. You get to not be inconvenienced. This option will give you no money, though. Which would you take? Note that in reality, my special insurance can be worth a lot more than $5000.
- jjnoakes 9y ago
  It all depends on what opportunities you miss because you break down, right? Weighed against the chance of a break-down? Of course even new cars break down, but the chances are probably much lower. I imagine some people may not take your "insurance" deal with a 50% chance of breaking down versus no insurance deal with a 5% chance of breaking down. Folks probably put a large price tag on the time and trouble they'd have to spend waiting for help, getting towed, and dealing with the repair, plus the opportunity cost of losing that time and interrupting or missing outright whatever they were on their way to. There's also the consideration that a small fraction of break-downs may be dangerous (either high speed loss of control, which I'm sure is rare, or even standing at the side of a highway, which I bet is much less rare but also dangerous). What value do you put on that?
  - BeetleB 9y ago
    >I imagine some people may not take your "insurance" deal with a 50% chance of breaking down versus no insurance deal with a 5% chance of breaking down. Not some - many. It's just that few are willing to put an actual number they would pay for that insurance - especially given how under other circumstances, most of them do their best to get the cheapest insurance. On this one type of insurance, they think differently. Perhaps this is a clue that they are not viewing it as insurance. >Folks probably put a large price tag on the time and trouble they'd have to spend waiting for help, getting towed, and dealing with the repair, plus the opportunity cost of losing that time and interrupting or missing outright whatever they were on their way to. Yes, this is how they rationalize it, but always careful to avoid putting a number on it. My $5000 is a low estimate. Realistically, think $10K. For less than a fifth of that, you can have a great vacation for two for a week. You're ruining the experience of one vacation so you can have 5 or more of them. (This particular trip cost me less than $200, so it can be a lot more than just 5 vacations). But instead, people prefer to have fewer such vacations in order to not have a breakdown. For that one experience that you're worried about being ruined, I could have had (and may actually have had) many that you did not take due to lack of money. >There's also the consideration that a small fraction of break-downs may be dangerous (either high speed loss of control, which I'm sure is rare, or even standing at the side of a highway, which I bet is much less rare but also dangerous). What value do you put on that? I'll invert the question back to you, or to whoever is using that argument to justify a much newer car. How low a probability of it occurring would make it not be a consideration for you? If this happens to 0.1% of people who buy used cars, I don't even consider it as a factor. If it happens to 20%, it's definitely a consideration. And I'd compare it with the likelihood of other ways of dying. My point is people will come up with these rationalizations (a fancy word for excuses) without really thinking about them. Very often, people just want a shinier car and use these reasons. Or they're scared to admit how much they'd pay for their insecurities, so they exaggerate the costs (be it in Dollars or in human life) of a used car. Don't get me wrong. One of my cars is a very expensive 2 year old car, which I got primarily for safety reasons. So I am aware of both sides. But I'm not going to try to tell anyone that getting a safer car can, in any way, be a wise decision purely from a financial standpoint.

blackguardx 9y ago

Or just but a Honda. The main problem with used Hondas is that their reliability is priced in so they cost more than other brands' used cars. Though this helps you a bit when you try to sell, balancing it out somewhat.

ldargin 9y ago
Make sure the airbags have been replaced through the Takata recall first before buying a used Honda!!
- jacobkg 9y ago
  Or pretty much any used car for that matter. My Lexus and my mom's Audi both needed the Takata recall performed (circa 2007). There were supposedly 60 million cars affected
jnwatson 9y ago
According to Consumer Reports, Honda quality has dropped off to middle-of-the pack recently.
- csours 9y ago
  Alternately, the rest of the pack has risen in quality. Just look at the history of Kia's quality numbers.
- jptman 9y ago
  The CR reliability score I saw recently lumped together the power train reliability with the entertainment system jankiness. I think this makes it not as useful The JD powers rating still rates Honda highly.

falcolas 9y ago

That 10 years means that a car that survived that break-in period and which is still in good condition will probably make it another 5 easily.

BeetleB 9y ago

>Now adjust for frustration of sudden issues of an old car. Everyone keeps saying this, but when I ask, no one answers: How much should I adjust for sudden issues? I once got stuck in the middle of a national park because my starter malfunctioned. People might have laughed at me for buying a used car. But let me ask you: I'll give you two choices: 1. For free, I'll give you a special insurance. If you are ever inconvenienced in a fairly populated national park, I'll pay you $5000. Heck, I'll sweeten the deal - I'll pay you $5000 if you're inconvenienced anywhere because of your car. Heck, I'll sweeten it further. I'll pay you $5000 even if you are never inconvenienced due to the car! 2. You get to not be inconvenienced. This option will give you no money, though. Which would you take? Note that in reality, my special insurance can be worth a lot more than $5000.

jjnoakes 9y ago
It all depends on what opportunities you miss because you break down, right? Weighed against the chance of a break-down? Of course even new cars break down, but the chances are probably much lower. I imagine some people may not take your "insurance" deal with a 50% chance of breaking down versus no insurance deal with a 5% chance of breaking down. Folks probably put a large price tag on the time and trouble they'd have to spend waiting for help, getting towed, and dealing with the repair, plus the opportunity cost of losing that time and interrupting or missing outright whatever they were on their way to. There's also the consideration that a small fraction of break-downs may be dangerous (either high speed loss of control, which I'm sure is rare, or even standing at the side of a highway, which I bet is much less rare but also dangerous). What value do you put on that?
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >I imagine some people may not take your "insurance" deal with a 50% chance of breaking down versus no insurance deal with a 5% chance of breaking down. Not some - many. It's just that few are willing to put an actual number they would pay for that insurance - especially given how under other circumstances, most of them do their best to get the cheapest insurance. On this one type of insurance, they think differently. Perhaps this is a clue that they are not viewing it as insurance. >Folks probably put a large price tag on the time and trouble they'd have to spend waiting for help, getting towed, and dealing with the repair, plus the opportunity cost of losing that time and interrupting or missing outright whatever they were on their way to. Yes, this is how they rationalize it, but always careful to avoid putting a number on it. My $5000 is a low estimate. Realistically, think $10K. For less than a fifth of that, you can have a great vacation for two for a week. You're ruining the experience of one vacation so you can have 5 or more of them. (This particular trip cost me less than $200, so it can be a lot more than just 5 vacations). But instead, people prefer to have fewer such vacations in order to not have a breakdown. For that one experience that you're worried about being ruined, I could have had (and may actually have had) many that you did not take due to lack of money. >There's also the consideration that a small fraction of break-downs may be dangerous (either high speed loss of control, which I'm sure is rare, or even standing at the side of a highway, which I bet is much less rare but also dangerous). What value do you put on that? I'll invert the question back to you, or to whoever is using that argument to justify a much newer car. How low a probability of it occurring would make it not be a consideration for you? If this happens to 0.1% of people who buy used cars, I don't even consider it as a factor. If it happens to 20%, it's definitely a consideration. And I'd compare it with the likelihood of other ways of dying. My point is people will come up with these rationalizations (a fancy word for excuses) without really thinking about them. Very often, people just want a shinier car and use these reasons. Or they're scared to admit how much they'd pay for their insecurities, so they exaggerate the costs (be it in Dollars or in human life) of a used car. Don't get me wrong. One of my cars is a very expensive 2 year old car, which I got primarily for safety reasons. So I am aware of both sides. But I'm not going to try to tell anyone that getting a safer car can, in any way, be a wise decision purely from a financial standpoint.