- Joined
- Nov 27, 2014
- Messages
- 9,318
Of course this is one of those topics that has no one answer. However, many on this board have discussed this issue. They own a car that is getting up in years and usually requires a repair and the discussion about whether or not to repair or replace the car ensues.
I was reading an article and was very surprised at the method the person in the article used. He has a three strike rule. A car needs to strand him (that's right, strand him) three times AND, the stranding needs to be significant. Per the article:
I infer from this that not starting in the driveway would not qualify.
Personally, I think this is crazy. It's been a long time since I've kept a car a long time, but in retirement I may. However, when I was young and keeping my cars over 100K miles, I don't recall ever getting stranded. I maintained my cars and more important, I think one gets a sense of when they're getting tired and it's time to let them go. The longest one I kept was a Beretta (a GM) which I got over 150K miles on (again, a GM circa 1990's).
Also, the author discusses the financial part of the equation, however I feel he has made a major flaw. He only compares the cost of repair versus buying a new car. When I was driving cheap, I would get used cars with more than 50K on them and drive them another 50K or more. That's a lot cheaper than buying a new car and can, in many instances, be cheaper than a major repair.
Just wondering what you all think about getting stranded as a measure for keeping a car and what you tend to rely on to determine when to let go. For me, I drive GM's and while not the most reliable vehicles, I don't see any reason I won't get 100K out of them. At that point, as long as my finances are as planned, I'd refresh and get a new car. At my age (58 and DW 63), that's probably only 4 to 5 cars and maybe less given how little DW and I are driving already.
Link to the article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/per...break-up-with-your-old-car/ar-AAJhm4s?ocid=se
I was reading an article and was very surprised at the method the person in the article used. He has a three strike rule. A car needs to strand him (that's right, strand him) three times AND, the stranding needs to be significant. Per the article:
The vehicle has to strand me three times in a situation that I feel unsafe or highly inconvenient — breaking down on the highway, on the way to work or to an important appointment.
I infer from this that not starting in the driveway would not qualify.
Personally, I think this is crazy. It's been a long time since I've kept a car a long time, but in retirement I may. However, when I was young and keeping my cars over 100K miles, I don't recall ever getting stranded. I maintained my cars and more important, I think one gets a sense of when they're getting tired and it's time to let them go. The longest one I kept was a Beretta (a GM) which I got over 150K miles on (again, a GM circa 1990's).
Also, the author discusses the financial part of the equation, however I feel he has made a major flaw. He only compares the cost of repair versus buying a new car. When I was driving cheap, I would get used cars with more than 50K on them and drive them another 50K or more. That's a lot cheaper than buying a new car and can, in many instances, be cheaper than a major repair.
Just wondering what you all think about getting stranded as a measure for keeping a car and what you tend to rely on to determine when to let go. For me, I drive GM's and while not the most reliable vehicles, I don't see any reason I won't get 100K out of them. At that point, as long as my finances are as planned, I'd refresh and get a new car. At my age (58 and DW 63), that's probably only 4 to 5 cars and maybe less given how little DW and I are driving already.
Link to the article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/per...break-up-with-your-old-car/ar-AAJhm4s?ocid=se