Car Fix/Replace Decision

[TromboneAl]

I'm wondering what could possibly make someone even consider (2).

In a brainstorming way, I considered it (although it's not my decision). When it comes to a biggish economic decision, I like to think about things even though they are considered a slam-dunk.

Here's the thinking -- please see this as just thinking out loud:

If (big if) the repair can be made successfully, and that part of the car is as good as new, then she writes a check for $3,000 and is done. She doesn't have to spend any time and money shopping for a new car. The car (which she likes a lot) lasts another 100,000 miles.

If she buys a used car, she will spend at least $6,000 and maybe more. She would have to spend time researching cars, having them inspected, negotiating, doing paperwork, and visiting the DMV. The used car could have problems of its own.

So, economically, the repair option would possibly represent a savings of $2,200 and no additional investment of time. More risky, of course.

I also recommended a second opinion, but she trusts the body shop (they know that she probably wouldn't spend the money on this car), and a second opinion would involve towing.

She's reading this thread, and I'm sure she will get a new car.

Too nebulous to comprehend. A "somewhat buckled frame part that makes it dangerous to drive"? What part? The last cars sold in the US that had frames were the Mercury Grand Marquis and the Lincoln Town Car. Unless she's driving an old Crown Vic cop car

So I have to assume that this was spoken of very generically... very. So what happened three years ago? And what happened now, that this was discovered? A roving band of gypsy body repairers crawling under cars in the grocery store lot (hey lady, I'll fix yer car for ya if ya gimme 3 grand, it's really bad, it'll kill ya the way it is!)

Right. I tried to include only the basic idea to keep it short and simple. Also, my info was third hand (mechanic to Jenny to me).

I called it a frame part just as a shorthand. I don't remember what part it was, but I understood that the safety issue was something about crumple zones.

She had had a minor accident that involved parts in that general area. She went to a junk yard and got the parts and delivered them to the body shop. The cost of the repair would have been $2,100. But then they noticed this buckled part. She saw it and it was clearly bent (plus rusted, indicating that it was there when she bought the car three years ago). So that fix added $900 to the bill.

I was there when she bought the car, and she had it inspected, but this damage was not detected, nor showed up on the carfax report. The car had been vandalized, and the hood replaced. It had been purchased at auction by the person from whom she bought the car.

Note that if these had been two separate incidents, the buy/replace decision would be different ("Do I spend $900 to fix a $3,300 car?").

 

[FUEGO]

I think you have used the car for its useful life and it is time to acquire the best new (used) car that fits your desires. Or your daughter's desires.

Without doing the actual research, I would think there are plenty of decent cars in the $6000 price range that will be reliable, dependable and have most or all of the latest safety features. Better to spend the net $2200 and upgrade.

I have one of those $3300 cars (2000 Honda Civic) that I bought new 12 years ago and have maintained it very well mechanically (manufacturer recommended services all the way for the most part). Low mileage (under 100k). Just did the timing belt and related services. Never been damaged or been in a wreck. It is in perfect mechanical condition (to the best of my knowledge) and has been a great car.

But if I had to drop another $3000 to keep my car running, I would write it off, take it to a junk yard and get my $800, and look for cars probably in the $6000-8000 range (for me).

 

[W2R]

I was there when she bought the car, and she had it inspected, but this damage was not detected, nor showed up on the carfax report. The car had been vandalized, and the hood replaced. It had been purchased at auction by the person from whom she bought the car.

I wonder if there is another question lurking in the back of your mind. Namely, "If this very vital almost-frame part could have been damaged when we bought the car used, and it was not detected, then who is to say that the same thing or worse won't be the case if we junk it and buy a $6000 used car?"

I don't know the answer to that. You could buy a new car, I suppose, but that would cost a lot more and may not be within your budget.

 

[Midpack]

I was viewing this as a what would I do, but on review my answer probably doesn't fit. Cars have to be replaced eventually, and I would not put $3K in a $3.3K car. But I would replace it with a new or late model used car planning to keep it for 10 years or so, I wouldn't consider a $6K car for a replacement. You can probably replace even engines, transmissions and other major systems indefinitely cost effectively, people don't because it's a nuisance having your car out of commission for major work. Obviously there are 20, 30 yo and even older cars on the road all the time.

But when I get a replacement, I am expecting little if any maintenance cost for the first 100K miles or more. If you buy a $6K replacement, the risk of costly maintenance occurring sooner is probably real. Now that I force myself to live within the OP parameters, it's not so easy. If I couldn't find a way to manage a better replacement vehicle (presumably more than $6K), I couldn't rule out a $3K fix if I honestly believed the car had at least,several years of life left in it.

Way helpful huh? As you frame it, it's a roll of the dice either way, and you'll never know which choice would have been better...

 

[Telly]

......I called it a frame part just as a shorthand. I don't remember what part it was, but I understood that the safety issue was something about crumple zones.

She had had a minor accident that involved parts in that general area. She went to a junk yard and got the parts and delivered them to the body shop. The cost of the repair would have been $2,100. But then they noticed this buckled part. She saw it and it was clearly bent (plus rusted, indicating that it was there when she bought the car three years ago). So that fix added $900 to the bill.

I was there when she bought the car, and she had it inspected, but this damage was not detected, nor showed up on the carfax report. The car had been vandalized, and the hood replaced. It had been purchased at auction by the person from whom she bought the car.

Note that if these had been two separate incidents, the buy/replace decision would be different ("Do I spend $900 to fix a $3,300 car?").

OK T-Al, that info brings a new light to it. I'd kiss the uncrumpled fender goodbye. Someday it'll come back as a fridg, or as parts of many made in China cheap consumer goods

Then on to the (fun?) task of selecting a replacement, and the assumption that the replacement will need something, if not immediately, then relatively soon. The trick is to divine that the "something" will not be really really big. But "big" can mean different things to different people, and their capability/incapability to work on things themselves, or the conditiuons that it will be used in.

JClarkSnakes - One of my kids has a C5, and I forgot about that. But I doubt T-Al's DD is thinking of one... unless Dear Dad would pay for it. "Don't ya love me, Dad?"

DonHeff - Yup, unibody. Also was called "Unitized Frame Construction" to make it more palatable. Just bend up sheet metal, put some spot welds here and there, and there ya go, a box. Yes, I have some too.

Travelover - That 1959 Chevy is probably the worst example of a frame ever produced. I think we had a conversation here in the last year on it. The "X Frame" fiasco. 1959 through 1964? full-size Chevy. After that, they went back to a more conventional frame.

 

[FUEGO]

To the detractors of the hypothetical $6000 car, and to T-Al and his daughter Jenny, here is some food for thought:

Top 10 Cars for Smart People | Mr. Money Mustache

Recent well written article outlining smart cars for frugal people. Plenty of options recommended in the $5-8k sweet spot. T-Al, I figure you would appreciate his reasoning, and I think you own a car from his list (toyota yaris or echo??).

Mr Money Mustache also had a good post on getting more space in your small car: Turning a Little Car Into a Big One | Mr. Money Mustache

 

[packrat44]

Cars have to be replaced eventually, and I would not put $3K in a $3.3K car. QUOTE]

Ditto

 

[frank]

I was wondering if this part that was wrecked before she bought it, and she drove with it that way, why is it undrivable now?

 

[TromboneAl]

I was wondering if this part that was wrecked before she bought it, and she drove with it that way, why is it undrivable now?

Not undrivable, but dangerous.

As for any of you talking about Dad buying the car, Jenny is 24, and makes a gazillion times more money that Dad.

Thanks for the link, Fuego.

It sounds like she's considering Honda Fits, Scions, some Honda hybrids, and Versas.

 

[Midpack]

It sounds like she's considering Honda Fits, Scions, some Honda hybrids, and Versas.

Smart girl, all great options...

 

[haha]

Not undrivable, but dangerous.

As for any of you talking about Dad buying the car, Jenny is 24, and makes a gazillion times more money that Dad.

Thanks for the link, Fuego.

It sounds like she's considering Honda Fits, Scions, some Honda hybrids, and Versas.

In which case she can easily buy a good new car for less than $20,000 (Subaru Integra?) and improve her life and safety considerably. In spite of what the board may think, there are more important issues beyond penny-pinching, especially for young people with their whole lives ahead, and with more arrows in their quivers than we retirees have.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

It sounds like she's considering Honda Fits, Scions, some Honda hybrids, and Versas.

In which case she can easily buy a good new car for less than $20,000 (Subaru Integra?) and improve her life and safety considerably. In spite of what the board may think, there are more important issues beyond penny-pinching, especially for young people with their whole lives ahead, and with more arrows in their quivers than we retirees have.

Ha

+1 to haha, I was in the process of typing that I prefer to have more metal around my loved ones. A car like the Fit does not have much mass, and will lose in any collision with a vehicle closer to the median weight class.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

+1 to haha, I was in the process of typing that I prefer to have more metal around my loved ones. A car like the Fit does not have much mass, and will lose in any collision with a vehicle closer to the median weight class.

-ERD50

Ditto. Not interested in econoboxes for me or my loved ones given all the 3 ton monsters rolling around the roads.

 

[TromboneAl]

In which case she can easily buy a good new car for less than $20,000 (Subaru Integra?) and improve her life and safety considerably. In spite of what the board may think, there are more important issues beyond penny-pinching, especially for young people with their whole lives ahead, and with more arrows in their quivers than we retirees have.

Ha

Yes, but there's probably a happy medium position. She would be safest in a Hummer or Lincoln Navigator. She could hire a professional driver to transport her in a specially reinforced Mercedes. She could wear a crash helmet when driving down the block, and, as ERD50 has said, have the brakes inspected weekly.

You just have to decide where to draw the line between economy, bother, and safety.

 

[REattempt]

Holy frame fraud batman! I had no idea cars don't have frames anymore. I assumed that after an accident you needed to check whether the frame was bent - happened to me in 67. What do they call the frame now or is that what "unibody" construction means?

Yes, that is what they mean by "unibody," or Toy-Tab construction. Remember paper toys that had to be assembled and they had tabs and slots? You had to put "Tab A" in "Slot A?" Well that is basically how they produce cars today without a Frame. They put the parts together and weld them. Here is the best page I found to show the difference:

Used Car Inspections - Frame Inspections

This page is also interesting in that it makes the observation that

A unibody vehicle, with previous frame damage, will have [SIC] substantially weaken or compromise the structural safety of the vehicle. The only way to determine the structural safety of a repaired frame vehicle, is to wreck the vehicle again, and see if it protect the passenger compartment.

there is a direct connection from vehicles with previous accident damage and chronic mechanical problems.

and

"Farmers Insurance" estimated that 40% of all accident repairs are substandard.

and another tidbit I didn't know...

A frame specialist will be able to tell the buyer if the frame is the same as when it came from the factory. Most automotive technicians have little or no experience in frame analysis or repair. There is big difference between a mechanical technician and a body technician. Rarely will you find a shop that has ASE Master Technicians and ASE Certified Body and Frame Technicians under one roof. Before purchasing, be sure to have the vehicle's frame professionally inspected by a ASE Certified Frame Specialist.

Emphasis Mine.

I have a 14 YO Daughter who will be driving within the month. If I bought her, or frankly anyone, a used car, it would be worth the $150 for a competent inspector to know if the car had been in an accident. If it had, I'm not sure I would trust any repair with unibody construction...you just don't know if it will protect the passenger.

Finally, I hope everyone knows not to trust CARFAX to give you a safe answer. There are too many situations that go on where CARFAX doesn't know that the car has been in an accident.

Be safe out there people!

 

[haha]

Yes, but there's probably a happy medium position. She would be safest in a Hummer or Lincoln Navigator. She could hire a professional driver to transport her in a specially reinforced Mercedes. She could wear a crash helmet when driving down the block, and, as ERD50 has said, have the brakes inspected weekly.

You just have to decide where to draw the line between economy, bother, and safety.

There are 5*crash test ratings in small cars, like the one I drive, an Integra. (My '06 actually has only 4* on some dimensions, because of no side curtain airbags.) These are a very long way from the examples you gave. I am considering buying a new one to replace my 2006, mainly to get side curtain airbags. And I only drive ~4000 miles/year. Nice to protect your one and only head in a t-bone accident. I know I was hugely de-stressed by my sons decisions to forgo cars until they could afford payments on a safe new car. It also frees the mind for work and recreation too, which young people really need plenty of.

My first car was a new Volvo, and I am so happy that is what I did. Later after I was retired a bought a used VW which was a pain, but I learned a lot and I had plenty time, and by then I had become a medium capable wrencher. I always had a main family car that was bought new, and kept very well maintained. Like you say, her old car had a bent frame, and who knew? You are not going to get new Japanese car or a Ford with a bent frame. In fact, they are going to be good all around.

Tell her Uncle Ha says to go new!

Ha

 

[pb4uski]

DD owns a Saab 9-3 which I have driven a few times and seems to be a very solid car that I am quite comfortable in her tooling around town in.

 

[ERD50]

Yes, but there's probably a happy medium position. She would be safest in a Hummer or Lincoln Navigator. She could hire a professional driver to transport her in a specially reinforced Mercedes. She could wear a crash helmet when driving down the block, and, as ERD50 has said, have the brakes inspected weekly.

You just have to decide where to draw the line between economy, bother, and safety.

True, however something like a Fit is on the low end of the distribution curve. If we are looking for balance, which we must do in almost all cases, I'd have to think that 'balance' in this case, generally means a bit higher on the curb weight range.

I just read that a Fit is ~ 2400#. My Volvo S40 ~ 3100#, and I will get something larger when I replace it, I feel a bit vulnerable in it.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

If you look at new cars you find up to 10 or more airbags that partly makes up for the lighter weight. In addition of course there is a question of does the driver go into the boonies where cell service could be spotty. As an example I had a 2000 chevy truck that the water pump went out 30 miles east of San Angelo, Tx. I barely got a cell signal but did eventually get AAA there. Traded it in on a Chevy Cruze, getting nearly double the mileage, seems ok for now. Now I did get it with a spare tire rather than the tire pump. Of course West Texas has a lot of middle of nowhere and several large cellular no service areas.

 

[samclem]

It's important to remember that the IIHS and NHTSA ratings for frontal crashes pertain only for crashes into similar-sized vehicles. A 5-star rated big car is a lot safer than a 5-sar rated small car. If we look around when we drive we'll notice anybody driving a Fit or a Smart car is unlikely to hit a similar-size vehicle.

Here's a link to an article about the testing the IIHS did between mid- and subcompact cars from the same manufacturer.
From the article:

The Institute chose pairs of 2009 models from Daimler, Honda, and Toyota because these automakers have micro and mini models that earn good frontal crashworthiness ratings, based on the Institute's offset test into a deformable barrier. Researchers rated performance in the 40 mph car-to-car tests, like the front-into-barrier tests, based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, forces recorded on the driver dummy, and movement of the dummy during the impact.

Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance.

. . . The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.

The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact.
. . .
Here's how the pairs of cars fared in the Institute's new crash tests:

Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar's rating is poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.

. . . Like the Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry is acceptable.

We can't all drive around in Hummers and there are factors to consider other than safety. But for me, the cutoff is 3000 lbs.

 

[Midpack]

There's no way around the large mass prevails over small mass, no matter how good the small car design. So as long as we have cheap plentiful gas, I guess many 'mericans are going to buy big cars. Hummers are nearly dead, maybe one day we'll have to give up all the other land barges...

 

[wargames]

Good information but you probably forgot that the Corvette and the Lotus Elise both have frames. Both use hydroforming techniques building their frames so they do not look much like the old ladder frames. I believe there are several other currently available sports cars that also have frames.

Funny how you mention both of these cars. My buddy has the 2010 ZR1 Vett, 638hp. He was on the 94 Interstate, Ill. When a Lotus pulled along side, stomped on it, then let him catch up, my buddy had his dad with him, and he says " Dad, hang on were going for a ride". They both hit it, my buddy said the Lotus never caught up to him, he said, he let up, and was coasting down to 150mph. He said, the Lotus was Modified, you could here the difference in the motor. His dad is 92.

 

[Meadbh]

I vote for Option #1. I wouldn't feel comfortable about DD's safety in her current car, knowing what we now know.

Speaking of Volvo, did you know they are now introducing airbags on the exterior of the car, to prevent injury to pedestrians whom you hit?

Volvo introduces new pedestrian airbags | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

 

[Nords]

I wonder if there is another question lurking in the back of your mind. Namely, "If this very vital almost-frame part could have been damaged when we bought the car used, and it was not detected, then who is to say that the same thing or worse won't be the case if we junk it and buy a $6000 used car?"

The cost of the repair would have been $2,100. But then they noticed this buckled part. She saw it and it was clearly bent (plus rusted, indicating that it was there when she bought the car three years ago). So that fix added $900 to the bill.
I was there when she bought the car, and she had it inspected, but this damage was not detected, nor showed up on the carfax report. The car had been vandalized, and the hood replaced. It had been purchased at auction by the person from whom she bought the car.
Note that if these had been two separate incidents, the buy/replace decision would be different ("Do I spend $900 to fix a $3,300 car?").

I wonder how much that damage mattered if it was only detectable by dissection and she got all those years of trouble-free driving from it.

Perhaps a fourth option would have been to ignore the discovery and continue with the other repairs, but I'm guessing that the body shop (and the car insurance company) would balk. And even $2100 seems like a dubious repair decision for a car of that age & mileage.

I think today's litigious society makes people nervous about driving damaged vehicles, but mechanically the vehicles can drive with a lot more damage than we're willing to put up with. We drove a '97 Nissan Altima for six years with a bent rear stabilizer bar (as in "bent into the profile of a guard rail", but that's another story) and put at least 40K miles on it. The car's still on the road today with 115K miles. Can't tell it's a problem from the handling or performance, and you can't tell it's a problem unless you know what shape a rear stabilizer bar is supposed to have.

If cars were maintained by submarine shipyards, repairs would only be done if the damage significantly (not just "annoyingly") interfered with operation. You'd hear questions like "It still goes into fourth gear but not overdrive, and you think that's a problem?!?" or "So this shimmy doesn't show up until 80 MPH, and you think we should fix it?!?"

"Temporary repair" is a very long time between shipyard overhauls...

 

[glippy]

The arms race in buying ever-heavier vehicles is out of control. I think we should think about making criminal and civil liability with car-related incidents proportional to the gross weight of the vehicle you're driving.

A simple system like, if you're in an accident that is your fault, you have to pay punitive damages, to be split among the victims, that are a multiple of the weight of your car. Say, something like $4/pound for every pound above one ton. So if you run into a Hummer (6,600lbs) with your Yaris (2,300lbs), you are forced to pay the Hummer driver (2,300 - 2,000) * $4 = $1,200. Whereas, if the hummer driver runs into the Yaris, he's forced to pay (6,600 - 2,000) * $4 = $18,400.

If we're going to say people have the right to drive whatever size vehicle they want in order to increase their safety, even at the cost of making the roads less safe for other drivers, they ought to have to compensate others for the increased risk they are creating.