Spend Money On Keeping A High-Miler On The Road, Or...?

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus68

I was kind of asking generally, rather than actually considering replacing my own.

I'd rather keep my cars (and bikes, when I rode) than replace them. My Corolla had 276,000km on it when I sold it ((60,000 or so on it when I bought it).

I prefer the practice of spending the money on keeping a car you like running, so long as it's fundamentally sound. It'd be nice to have a year here & there where it cost nothing more than ins, tax, diesel, and routine maintenance, but with older stuff, you do expect more maintenance/repair costs than a newer lower-mileage car.

Agree with looking after your car being a factor. The phrases "run it into the ground" and "it'll go forever" are common, and each interesting.

Running a car into the ground is not what I'm talking about here. Running a car into the ground involves driving it hard ("mechanically unsympathetically"), not adhering to some sort of maintenance schedule, crude-bodging rather than quality repair, etc.

Most cars will "go forever" if they're looked after, and you're of the mind to keep it on the road rather than replacing it once costs start creeping up.

In my case, I'd like to have been doing more preemptive work all along (as I've done with all my cars & bikes when in full time permanent work), but circumstances have restricted that for me, though I have looked after the fundamentals. Mine is a 2461cc diesel (apparently with an Audi-built engine), it's a 2000-registered car, but it's the newer late-2000/2001+ model.

I'd like to think that my V70 will be still on the road on its 20th birthday, and I'd be thrilled if I was in the driver's seat on that day.

I disagree with much of this -

most cars will not go forever (see my 3rd and 4th owner comment, as once they join the multiple ownership club the owners cannot afford the maintenance.
Newer cars, let's say those in the 5-10 year old category will often (in my experience) need much more money spending on them than a cared for older car (say a 700/900 - I'll stay with Volvo for obvious reasons).

Fleet cars (majority of new cars sold in the UK are company cars), when they reach the second owner/used market they'll be defleeted when maintenance is due (dual mass flywheel, maybe DPF issues).

Digital cars are more complex, AND more complexity equals less reliability and therefore less durability.

I have doubts about our V70 lasting until 2023: the 745 is already approaching 30 (in 2016).

Jon.
700/900 Register Keeper VOC.

[stephend]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I disagree with much of this -

most cars will not go forever (see my 3rd and 4th owner comment, as once they join the multiple ownership club the owners cannot afford the maintenance.
Newer cars, let's say those in the 5-10 year old category will often (in my experience) need much more money spending on them than a cared for older car (say a 700/900 - I'll stay with Volvo for obvious reasons).

Fleet cars (majority of new cars sold in the UK are company cars), when they reach the second owner/used market they'll be defleeted when maintenance is due (dual mass flywheel, maybe DPF issues).

Digital cars are more complex, AND more complexity equals less reliability and therefore less durability.

I have doubts about our V70 lasting until 2023: the 745 is already approaching 30 (in 2016).

Jon.
700/900 Register Keeper VOC.

I hear what you're saying, but bear in mind that a lot of the digitalisation is necessitated by emissions legislation. I think an interesting parallel question is, what would I buy new today that would have the best chance of lasting the way a Volvo 700 has lasted? (Dunno: maybe Skoda or Toyota...?)

I think the idea of keeping an old car going indefinitely works best for a car that was high quality in the first place: RWD Volvos, and Mercedes of the same era, are the two that spring to mind. Both truck-makers, of course: I don't think that's a coincidence. But a lot of modern cars are built to high standards, and should last well if properly maintained. Conversely, neglect will kill any car, irrespective of make, sooner or later.

What worries me - same as you, Jon - is parts such as DMFs, DPFs etc that are almost guaranteed big bills at some point. It's failure of parts like that, deemed as uneconomic to repair, plus the mindset of "running it into the ground", that lead to the colossal wastage that we now have with scrapping otherwise perfectly viable cars.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by stephend

I hear what you're saying, but bear in mind that a lot of the digitalisation is necessitated by emissions legislation. I think an interesting parallel question is, what would I buy new today that would have the best chance of lasting the way a Volvo 700 has lasted? (Dunno: maybe Skoda or Toyota...?)

I think the idea of keeping an old car going indefinitely works best for a car that was high quality in the first place: RWD Volvos, and Mercedes of the same era, are the two that spring to mind. Both truck-makers, of course: I don't think that's a coincidence. But a lot of modern cars are built to high standards, and should last well if properly maintained. Conversely, neglect will kill any car, irrespective of make, sooner or later.

What worries me - same as you, Jon - is parts such as DMFs, DPFs etc that are almost guaranteed big bills at some point. It's failure of parts like that, deemed as uneconomic to repair, plus the mindset of "running it into the ground", that lead to the colossal wastage that we now have with scrapping otherwise perfectly viable cars.

Yes, digitalising cars is largely about emissions (is this actually true?), but a part of it is all about driving cost out of the production process too (and sourcing parts from second or third tier supplies in the far east). And yes, begin with quality, but build quality (and modern cars) does not guarantee the longevity of their digital components - digital cars will not be killed by rust for example, or their interiors falling apart or the short life of transmissions...

Skoda or Toyota...slight bias here I used to work for Inchcape (importer of Toyotas into the UK - and worldwide - at the time I was there), so I'd go for your Avensis: they're boring (I had two), but Toyotas are certainly among the best built* cars in the world...and the Avensis is British built.

I'm also bias, having two 700s, two 1980s Mercedes and a 1970s BMW...sad but true.

Jon.
700/900 Register Keeper VOC.

*still digital though.

[Angie]

Being very 'green' minded, and of the 'make-do-and-mend' generation, I'd almost always go for the option of keeping an older car irrespective of perceived value. 'Better the devil you know' is a part of it of course, as well as ongoing costs over the years, In the thirty-three years that I had my Morris Traveller my expenditure, despite two major rebuilds, was significantly less than most people would have spent on frequent car changes over the same period - and similar mileage, over a half-million in my ownership by the time the car eventually became uneconomical (for me) to repair. The car, which I sold, as a project for a price far exceeding the cost of the Volvo incidentally, is now back on the road and in daily use by its new owners. So even a basic-quality car can be kept going, in this case for some fifty-five years and counting, with decent maintenance.

I see several cars of similar vintage and in daily use, and much 'newer' ones, up to perhaps twenty-five years, are a common sight on the roads. Of course anything as well-engineered as a RWD Volvo or Mercedes has an even better chance of longevity, and are nearly always worth repairing/restoring, generally still much cheaper than buying something modern with all its attendant potential problems.

I do tend to dispute the claim that older cars are less reliable. It's all down to maintenance; the Moggie did let me down a few times, but practically always as a consequence of neglect, only a very few times due to poor quality repair or parts. For many years I was doing well over twenty thousand miles annually, not, I grant you, in the greatest comfort and refinement, Volvo has made me a real softie now, but even long journeys were undertaken with confidence, and if anything did happen to go wrong it was generally easily fixed.

Over four-and-a-half years and about 53,000 miles the Volvo has cost, apart from routine maintenance, some £2,500, including purchase price. Yes it's a little heavier on fuel that modern equivalents but that's an incidental in the great scheme of things. Emissions are remarkably low, it's a dream to drive, and generally inexpensive should repairs be needed.

I had a mail-shot from Volvo recently and clicked on the cost of servicing a one-year-old V70. £250, for goodness sake, and recommended additional things included new wiper blades at £50! I paid £600 for the Tors! Go do the math, as they say across the pond!

[stephend]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Yes, digitalising cars is largely about emissions (is this actually true?), but a part of it is all about driving cost out of the production process too (and sourcing parts from second or third tier supplies in the far east). And yes, begin with quality, but build quality (and modern cars) does not guarantee the longevity of their digital components - digital cars will not be killed by rust for example, or their interiors falling apart or the short life of transmissions...

I believe so, at least as far as engine management is concerned (so not fancy gearboxes, traction control etc etc). Recall how the point where everything switched to multivalve and EFI was when catalytic converters became compulsory (circa 1992). Ok, the cat wasn't compulsory - but the new emissions limits were such as to be not achievable without a cat, so to all practical purposes, it was. And it's got more so, with VVT and with the bells'n'whistles for lean burn. It's all about reducing fuel consumption, and reducing CO, HC and NOx emissions to reduce smog etc. Even DPFs are a good idea in principle, given the health hazards of the particulates that diesels emit, even if they're often an owner's nightmare in practice!

And the legislation will only get tighter: for example, methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) used to be excluded from the requirements to be removed, simply because no-one had any practical solutions. But now it's on the upcoming requirements: it's legislators keeping the pressure on vehicle manufacturers to keep innovating.

So part of me feels guilty about driving my uncatalysed 740 - but I don't commute in it, so it's not like I'm one of those sitting in traffic jams every day, pumping out fumes...

[Jim shoe]

New cars all the way for me.

3 years old then move on.

Piece of mind with warranty and don't have to worry about buying a 3-5-7 year old car that is guaranteed to have some underlying problem that will cost you

[Alex121]

I've been asking myself the same thing many times about my T4.

I got it in 2012 with 129k on the clock, it was very tidy, had full service history (Volvo specialist) and it drove very well, had xenons and heated seats too which were a bonus for me.

Two weeks later as my Uncle works for Volvo and I trust the garage, I let them do a free health check on it and to my surprise there was around £1200 worth of work that needed doing (too much to list). This bill includes parts at cost price + a few % and labour at half what it usually is, so I got it all done. At the time I was 21, just graduated and didn't have a huge amount saved so this stung quite a lot.

I now have over 2 folders full of Volvo invoices. I calculated last month that I've spent roughly £5,600 on her in the last 3 years NOT including the mods I've done to it. It's needed new MAF, MAP sensors, throttle body, suspension bushes, drop links, headlights, ballasts - Last year the turbo went at 160,000 and a cost of £1200 for a new gen Volvo TD04 unit, the exhaust then got multiple holes in it within about 2 weeks, upgraded that to a JT tuning system and then after that I got rear ended on the M27 by a tw*t on his phone - Fortunately it was just the bumper, no structural damage. The CEM then went faulty, the auto leveling xenon sensor went faulty, aerial stopped working, broken rear spring, all repaired or upgraded now and the list goes on believe me...

The point is the car is bloody fantastic to drive and body wise there's barely a mark on it. I've probably spent about £700 on mods including the lowering, exhaust and the remap, the rest unfortunately is just keeping it on the road. My dad had a T4 that did 205k without so much as a hickup, it was faultless. Mine is not! It's never been reliable and always has an issue every other week.

I've looked several times at swapping it for something, I've test driven focus ST's, Astra VXR's and a T5 and prefer the T4 over all of them hands down.

I'm now back at the point where I need to make another decision. I thought I was finally at the stage were I can quite literally say "It'll be fine, there's not much left to go wrong on it now that hasn't been replaced!" then my Uncle called me on my birthday after a service to tell me I have hydrocarbons in the expansion tank - Either early signs of a head gasket failure or a have an internal crack in the block somewhere. I have no coolant or oil loss at all but the pressure and reading is getting higher every couple of weeks. The engines on borrowed time.

I always liked the idea at some stage of fully forging it. So, do I hand it over to Tim Williams and fully forge it, complete engine rebuild, as new, for a few thousand, or do I throw in the towel and replace it?

Pictures of above mentioned money whore...

[christheancient]

I'm one of those in the league of "I probably spend less in maintenance costs keeping my (much loved - by me) V70 Classic than I would lose in depreciation on a newer car." As a f'r'inst... I have just had my MoT done and I will admit that it needed a steering joint needed replacing. Total bill for parts, labour and MoT was £174. But what would it have cost me on a new model? I dread to think!

The car has a 'soul' that I wouldn't find in a newer car. And I'm used to its (very few) little anachronisms and 'wobblies'. And, unlike me, it looks good for its age.

And, for me, I find that newer cars have far too many of what Yorkshire folk call "do-nowts" in them. I don't need/want them! Well... OK, I appreciate having air-con, power windows and some of the 'older/lesser' luxuries. But, then again, the first car I ever drove was a 1937 Austin 7 with a 3-speed non-synchro gearbox. (I admit that I was under-age and it was my mates and we just used to drive it round his parents' orchard!)

Some luxuries are great; but I feel that with newer cars, far too much time can be spent on too many distractions provided by the increasing plethora of 'driver aids'... to the detriment of actually driving. Before I got my V70, I used to be in the league of a new company car every six months; and the number of 'extras' that appeared on each replacement meant having to spend an evening reading the "Owners' Guide" and realising that, probably, none of the 'new features' would be needed or used by me. Therefore, they were a waste of time (and company's money).

So, "The Blue Streak" will probably stay with me for quite a while yet. It's like me in that it is that bit older; but there's plenty of life left for minimal outlay or loss.

[The Thong]

I would go New.... Except for the fact that you'll never own the car, you have to keep it below a stupidly low Mileage limit and hand it back at the end of the period in factory fresh condition which means costly bodywork repairs due to car park cretins. I had a new motor that spent more time at the dealer than parked outside my house. Nope, as much as I like the idea, I'll keep with my old knackers.
Also, you have to find the repayment come hell or high water. At least with a motor you own, all barring a catastrophic failure you can choose when you need to spend the money rather than it going out month after month to a finance company.

TT

[griston64]

My usual way is buy a car 6-8 months old cash and then keep for quite a while.

Intend to keep the V70 for at least 10 years and possibly more.

We still have in the Family my mums Honda Civic ( bought new in 2000 ) with 50k ! And my Uncles Audi 100 2.3e ( bought new in 1991 ) with 79k !

Only spent money on tyres, exhaust and batteries on the oldies and have no monthly payments on any cars.

Worst move I ever made was buying a 7 year old V70 which looked good but was a complete pile of pants !! ( badly neglected as mentioned in another post )

I would be inclined to spend money keeping an old car going if you have owned for a long time and from nearly new.