3 ms·
This doesn't really fit with my own experience. I've bought 2 brand new Fords and kept them for about 6 years each. In sum total I had about $100 of unscheduled
by cpncrunch 9y ago
This doesn't really fit with my own experience. I've bought 2 brand new Fords and kept them for about 6 years each. In sum total I had about $100 of unscheduled maintenance for both. However older cars always have expensive maintenance: timing belt, suspension, brakes, and other things all start to wear out somewhere around the 7-10 year mark (timing belt will depend on distance).
It also doesn't factor in the 0% financing that Ford has offered for the last 10 years, which is a significant benefit...Ford is essentially paying you about 5% of the value of the car each year (as you can avoid getting a 5% loan, or if you have the cash you can invest it in the stock market for a 5%+ return).
- BeetleB 9y ago>This doesn't really fit with my own experience. I've bought 2 brand new Fords and kept them for about 6 years each. In sum total I had about $100 of unscheduled maintenance for both. However older cars always have expensive maintenance: timing belt, suspension, brakes, and other things all start to wear out somewhere around the 7-10 year mark (timing belt will depend on distance). So, which option is cheaper? Isn't that the ultimate question? In another comment, I showed how a good 8 year old car had depreciated in 6 years (including repairs) as much as a new Forester did in 2 years (no repairs). Even for the 8 year old car, most of the loss was in depreciation, not in repairs. Yes, this included: 1. Change in timing belt + water pump (most expensive) 2. Changing brakes. 3. Changing tires. Everyone seems to want to avoid $200-500 repairs on their car, but few seem to be concerned about avoiding $10K on the price of the car to begin with.
- cpncrunch 9y agoI agree an older car is still cheaper than a new one overall.