I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where rust is seldom an issue. Cars only die because of mechanical issues, often owner inflicted, which they don't want to fix. Structurally they're fine. My daily driver is an 86 Pontiac. It's easier to diagnose and work on than modern cars, and parts are cheap. It had some issues when I bought it a few years ago, but it's reliable now and has been for a long time. I like early EFI systems - they're more efficient than carburetors but they're well documented and not too hard to diagnose if something goes wrong.
I've had good experiences with late 90s Cavaliers and a Neon. I prefer to avoid OBD-2 though, because the check engine light is a barrier to getting the car registered and it can lead to lots of shooting in the dark. OBD-1, and the electronic controls that era of cars typically use, are simpler to figure out.
Old cars are cheap to own as long as you can work on them yourself - and older models are more service friendly. For those who rely on paid mechanics, the economics are different and younger cars probably make sense.
Old cars can be made reliable. Typically, after purchasing a used car they go through a period of needing issues figured out and fixed. Ultimately they become reliable cars, and cheap to keep that way.
It's valuable to have alternate cars available. I think that's true no matter what you drive, really.
I sometimes hear relatives rationalize whether to repair their cars based upon how much the car is worth. It seems to be a popular form of reasoning, but I don't agree with it. You don't fix a car to profit on resale, you fix it to drive it and avoid spending 10x as much on another car.
Any car that you own and are familiar with is worth more to you than what it's worth to a prospective buyer. The buyer doesn't have the experience with the car that you do, and the mere fact that you are selling it points to it having something wrong with it. They have to factor in their doubts and this depresses the value.
Market value of my car is probably around $1000-$1500. I would not be able to replace the car for that money. I'd end up with somebody else's unknown problems.
If an old car can be made reliable with a $1000 repair, it's cheaper than paying $10,000 for something newer and more complicated. The fact that the old car might have a market value of half the repair cost is irrelevant. Cars are not investments, they are expenditures. Economically speaking, the path which costs less money, costs less money.
Of course there's nothing wrong with somebody wanting a new car, I just don't agree with the way it gets rationalized sometimes.
I've had good experiences with late 90s Cavaliers and a Neon. I prefer to avoid OBD-2 though, because the check engine light is a barrier to getting the car registered and it can lead to lots of shooting in the dark. OBD-1, and the electronic controls that era of cars typically use, are simpler to figure out.
Old cars are cheap to own as long as you can work on them yourself - and older models are more service friendly. For those who rely on paid mechanics, the economics are different and younger cars probably make sense.
Old cars can be made reliable. Typically, after purchasing a used car they go through a period of needing issues figured out and fixed. Ultimately they become reliable cars, and cheap to keep that way.
It's valuable to have alternate cars available. I think that's true no matter what you drive, really.
I sometimes hear relatives rationalize whether to repair their cars based upon how much the car is worth. It seems to be a popular form of reasoning, but I don't agree with it. You don't fix a car to profit on resale, you fix it to drive it and avoid spending 10x as much on another car.
Any car that you own and are familiar with is worth more to you than what it's worth to a prospective buyer. The buyer doesn't have the experience with the car that you do, and the mere fact that you are selling it points to it having something wrong with it. They have to factor in their doubts and this depresses the value.
Market value of my car is probably around $1000-$1500. I would not be able to replace the car for that money. I'd end up with somebody else's unknown problems.
If an old car can be made reliable with a $1000 repair, it's cheaper than paying $10,000 for something newer and more complicated. The fact that the old car might have a market value of half the repair cost is irrelevant. Cars are not investments, they are expenditures. Economically speaking, the path which costs less money, costs less money.
Of course there's nothing wrong with somebody wanting a new car, I just don't agree with the way it gets rationalized sometimes.
Last edited:
