TEN YEARS. YOU THINK CARS START TO FALL APART AT TEN YEARS?
For the average driver, that's like, between 100-150k miles on an engine, that's at best half to three quarters the lifespan you should expect on one engine.
There are regular maintenance recommendations for every type of car. You do the fuel filter at 100k and the water filter at 150k and the oil every (whatever your manufacturer recommends) and the tires when the wear hits a certain point.
One of the bigger risks with buying a used car is that you don't know the maintenance history, so you don't know if these things were done or if it was well maintained, which is why it's important to ask about that as part of the purchase of a used car (something I did, that the seller lied about, that is going into the lawsuit). However, if you do have a car where you keep up with the maintenance, you should - generally, barring the occasional freak thing or damage done by peculiarities of your area - be able to predict what your maintenance costs will be as the car ages.
It shouldn't be a surprise to you that you needed to do your fan belt just a few weeks after you had to get the brakes done which was just a few weeks after you had to replace the thermostat which was just a few weeks after you did a transmission fluid flush - you should be doing that stuff on a regular schedule or at a specific mileage and you should be *planning for those expenses* because when you replace your thermostat at the correct part of the maintenance cycle it means you aren't going to throw a rod when your engine overheats which you didn't realize because the thermostat hadn't been replaced. "A stitch in time saves nine" but it's "maintenance on the dot saves you a lot" or some shit.
I know that people don't know much about cars but you can't just be out there waiting for shit to break.
Anyway. I'm 39. At this point I'd say that pre 2010 is solidly in "senior" territory for cars the way that a 9 year old dog is a senior dog. Not a puppy anymore, you have to be cautious about diet and exercise, but still with a lot of good life left to live. Pre 2005 is DEFINITELY in old territory. That's a 20 year old car, that's getting close to its lifespan. On the flip side, I think that anything built after 2015 is new, or should be treated as new. Post-2015 cars are so new that I don't even want them there are too many computers in that shit.
The most reliable car that I currently drive is a 2009 GMC Sierra. The second most reliable car is a 2001 Saturn wagon. I have never owned a new car (and this subaru is not the oldest car I've bought, though my Jeep was intentionally purchased as a project car whereas this was an accidental project car). The last car that I owned was a 2010 Toyota Yaris with 168k miles on it and literally genuinely no mechanical problems; I bought it in 2020 - when it was ten years old - with 120k miles on it.
I bought that car for six thousand dollars and it cost between 200-400 a year on maintenance (getting the brakes done in 2025, replacing the battery in 2020, oil changes about three times a year etc), so a max of $2k in maintenance over the 5 years I had the car, bringing the total up to $8k, which is certainly not twenty five to thirty thousand dollars or eight hundred dollars a month. And those maintenance costs are like paying for gas. That's part of owning a car. Because you still have to pay for maintenance on a new car. You're still going to wear down tires and brakes on your new car. You're still going to have to have oil changes and fluid flushes done on your new car.
New car ownership has actually gotten CRAZY expensive in the last ten years, and genuinely the build quality seems to have fallen off a cliff. (Look up information on right to repair; car manufacturers are a fucking nightmare and new cars are fucking awful in terms of what you can do to keep your car functional; I *will* agree that there's a degree of planned obsolescence in cars, however I'd argue that it's MUCH more prevalent in newer cars, and that older cars actually WERE built to last)
If your brakes, water pump, transmission, some sensor, and a serious oil leak all need to be handled within six months of each other, what this tells me is that you're not following recommended maintenance schedules. If you have to have your mechanic tell you about a serious oil leak during an oil change, that tells me you're driving a car with a serious oil leak and not recognizing the symptoms (and, since you're doing those oil changes on a regular 3 month schedule - which you probably shouldn't be, you should probably be going based on mileage, which in modern cars is 5k-7k more often than the 3 months 3k miles jiffy lube used to harp on - that oil leak sprang up in the last three months WAIT ARE YOU CHECKING YOUR OIL).
ARE YOU ALL CHECKING YOUR OIL? YOU'RE ALL CHECKING YOUR OIL REGULARLY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CHECK THE LEVEL WHILE THE ENGINE IS WARM AT A MINIMUM ONCE A MONTH AND NO THE OIL LIFE SENSOR IS NOT ENOUGH THAT'S WHY IT'S INSANE TO ME THAT SOME NEW CARS DON'T COME WITH DIPSTICKS YOU GUYS ARE CHECKING THE OIL SO YOU NOTICE IF THERE'S A SUDDEN DROP AND ARE AWARE OF LEAKS, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT JUST RAWDOGGING WHATEVER THE OIL AND LUBE PLACE PLONKED IN YOUR ENGINE UNTIL THE NUMBER ON THE STICKER POPS UP, RIGHT?
Also nobody in the world is buying a thousand dollar car and putting $1500 into the transmission (or paying eighty bucks for an oil change). A transmission problem in a thousand dollar car is your signal to buy a different car OR to buy a transmission for four hundred bucks and put it in yourself. I think you may be underestimating exactly how shitty a thousand dollar car is in 2025.
This is a thousand dollar car:
This is a thousand dollar car:
(bud, you don't get to list a car without a functional engine as in 'fair' condition what are you doing?)
This is a thousand dollar car:
(note the transmission problem - that car is worth six hundred dollars for scrap and the owner is seeing if they can get a couple hundred more for it from someone who will take on the burden of repairs themselves or just needs something to run for a couple weeks, but you can't buy a car that's missing "reverse" and think it's going to do anything but fall apart; nobody who is buying a thousand dollar car is going to put two thousand dollars into it unless they are buying a car to restore)
But one way or another, no, a well-maintained ten-year-old car that you buy at $7k (or hell, even $10k) is not going to end up costing you more than a $400-a-month loan on a new car ($14400 for a 3yr term, $24k for a five year term). If you spent a thousand dollars a year on maintenance on a seven year old car you would have seven years of owning that car before you caught up to the $14k car, except that you wouldn't catch up because the $14k car would have its own maintenance costs to catch up on. Plus, again, you would be required to carry full coverage insurance while financing versus having the option to carry liability only for a car you buy outright, which for me is a difference of $150 a month at a minimum, or $5400 for a three year loan or $9k on a five year loan. That's just the difference, not the total cost of the insurance. The difference in cost from carrying liability only versus full coverage on a five year loan is more than I have ever spent on a car.
So, no, buying a used car is not going to cost you more money in the long run than buying a new car, especially if you can pay out of pocket, ESPECIALLY especially if you can do work on it yourself, and assuming you follow the manufacturer recommended maintenance schedule.
Also if you are paying eight hundred dollars for brakes you are either getting fucked by your mechanic or fucked by the fact that you've got a new car with proprietary brakes that can only be replaced at the dealership. Nobody in the world is paying a thousand dollars for a car and then paying eight hundred dollars to get the brakes done.
Fuck, actually, I bought my car for $2500; from the dealership, an engine replacement is $7k, new axles are $3k, a new transmission is $5k, and various and sundry fluid changes and maintenance things are about $2k, which would basically get the thing back to new. So It would actually cost me less to have my 2005 subaru totally rebuilt *BY SUBARU* with a new engine with zero miles on it than it would cost me to pay a $400 loan for five years ($19.5k vs $24k). So even if I went with the most maintenance I could physically have done on my car, done by the most expensive possible place to have it done, it would cost less than the $400-a-month loan AND I wouldn't have to carry $5-9k of extra insurance. Hell, it would cost me less than the three year option and the insurance difference ($19.5k vs $19.8k).
That is, of course, absurd, and not anything that anyone should do, but that's about how insane it sounds to me to agree to a $400 monthly loan (let alone an $800 commitment).
Also, wait, hi, I'm suddenly realizing that this is a really, really easy argument to make with basic math.
If you buy a thousand dollar car and spend two thousand dollars on it in the course of a eight months before replacing the car, you are spending $375 a month on car ownership, including the cost of maintenance. And that is making some VERY expensive assumptions about maintenance (eight hundred dollars for brakes is extortionate).
If you're spending $400 a month on a car loan, you're spending $400 a month *before* the cost of maintenance and the difference in insurance cost, and even if you ignore that $400 is more than $375.
I can't believe I wrote all of this out only to realize that you're saying that $375 a month is more than $400 a month right before I hit the reblog button.