Old cars can be maintained to run for hundreds of thousands of miles, but you might run into a catastrophic failure (main seal leak or similar) where the cost of the repair exceeds the value of the vehicle.
They maintain value because a Sienna that's had an easy 100k miles with by the book maintenance is in much nicer shape and inherently has more life left than a Pacifica that was rode hard and put away wet over the same time period and distance.
Matter of perspective.. the only thing you list that I'd consider a concern to investigate is the "dash lit up like a chrismas tree". Everything else you mention is cheap replacement work.
The warning lights could be just a few cheap sensors but could also be very expensive ECU replacements. So that one I'd have to dig deeper but the rest wouldn't bother me to buy such a car and fix it up in a weekend.
I might spend $1500 on my 12 year old car (which is "only" worth 4200 according to KBB), instead of spending lot more money to get a different used car with unknown issues or a hefty monthly payment.
Theft premium stays the same, even though replacement cost has gone down and it's less valuable as a target. You'd think other cars becoming safer on average would decrease the risk of getting into accidents at their fault and at my fault, but the comprehensive premium stays the same on a now older car.
I find it hard to believe that auto thieves somehow avoid the equally dense town 1hr down the highway.
Same here. Bought a Volvo which is more expensive and has a more powerful engine than the Opel that I had before for 16 years, I have even added some options to the insurance coverage compared to before, but now I pay 300$ less than before => of course I'm happy, but it's weird, didn't expect this... .
Maybe the car's brand has as well something to do with it? Maybe some statistics show that for some reason Opel drivers cause more damages or whatever... . Misterious... .
Your calculation is silly and so many people fall into this trap. If you want to calculate whether a repair is worth it you have to either calculate cost per mile or cost per month. If a repair costs 1000€ and buying a new car would get you 200€ monthly payments and the repaired car survives 5 months then you just broke even and every month after that is profit. Your new car is never going to make you a profit.
The only thing you lost is the opportunity cost of not driving a new car.
When people say "where the cost of the repair exceeds the value of the vehicle." what they really mean is that they want a new car and there is nothing wrong with that but it is absolutely not cheaper than maintaining the old car a little bit longer.
I don’t think they’re saying “get a new car with a monthly loan.”
Assuming we're talking economic cars (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, etc), it is very difficult to imagine spending $3K a year in maintenance. Maybe once in a decade if you're super unlucky.
These are cars that'll go on nearly forever on just an oil change a year (less than $100) and belts and tires every so-many years (depending how much you drive).
There is no math in the world that'll make a new car cheaper to own and operate than an old reliable brand car. If you enjoy newer cars, enjoy! But it won't be cheaper.
It can never be cheaper to have a new car. Do the math objectively and this is clear.
It can be more predictable, if you value that. Lease a new car, you know exactly what you're paying every month and for how long. Sure. But it'll be a lot more than an old car.
> You can believe that if you want
I don't believe, I have all my car expenses tracked since the early 90s so I know what I spend. In those 30 years I've mostly had cheap reliable old cars and a few new cars. The new cars have their joy, but they are a huge money pit. Currently my newest car is 17 years old and the oldest is 33 years old.
No new cars for me ever again, I let others pay the depreciation so I can get nearly-free transportation.
If you wanted cheap transportation, there's nothing cheaper to own than a ~$3K-4K used Honda/Mazda/Toyota. You obviously cannot have 1K/year in depreciation on a car that cost so little. New cars will be guaranteed to depreciate way more than that though.
The strategy for cheap transportation is buy that reliable car for 3-4K, drive it for ten+ years with minimal maintenance, insure for liability only. At the end of the years you can sell it for pretty much same as the buy price if you kept it clean. You can easily verify this by looking at craigslist prices for, say, a Honda Civic from the 90s to the 00s. A clean running car will only depreciate to a certain point and no more. If you buy it at the bottom of the depreciation curve you won't lose any money in depreciation. For some models, if you hold them for a while, it'll actually appreciate.
A Citroen is not a Honda/Mazda/Toyota. With an esoteric car like that, I don't doubt parts are expensive and reliability is low.
Your experience may be that used cars are cheap. My experinece over 20 years is that’s not always the case. I’ve had good used cars and awful used cars, the awful ones costing more than my current lease even before you get into the less concrete value of reliability and comfort.
I don’t deny that used cars can be cheaper. I simply state that’s not always the case.
That's hardly a catastrophic failure, it'll just leak oil and you can schedule repairs at convenience. Having replaced a few, it's also a cheap part.