The odds of this happening is declining over time. You can see the change in used car prices where popular reliable cars like the crv or crosstrek maintain a resale value above 10k for 5-10 years dependent on trim.

You can't fight rust and degrading rubber. That's whats killing these old cars. My parents just walked away from a 14 year old Subaru. Headgasket was shot, fuel lines and brake lines rusted and shot, whole laundry list of other rusted and shot components like suspension, dash lit up like a chrismas tree, total bill was going to look like $15k for a car that wasn't worth $9k even before all this went down. A car is a wear item and eventually needs replacing unless you have years worth of knowhow and own expensive equipment like a lift and sometimes specialized tools for your vehicle.

> That's whats killing these old cars.

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.

"popular reliable" is basically just "what all the rich people bought last decade"

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.

the buyer should think about the replacement value of the vehicle.

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.

Plus insurance will go up, and in California the annual license fee is partly based on the value of the car.

My modern car made my insurance rate go down. Most of your rate is about damage you cause to others. Modern safety features, at least according to my insurance company math team, make my car less likely to hurt someone else or their car.

> My modern car made my insurance rate go down.

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... .

In an efficient market anyway, and auto insurance definitely isn't where I am!

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.

If you have an old enough car, and are willing to pay the cost to replace if it you get into an accident, you can drop the comprehensive and collision coverage. This makes my old 2003 car cheaper to insure than my 2020 car, though I'm taking a bit extra financial risk, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

I "repaired" a car that was worth 600€ because without a repair nobody would be willing to buy it for its true value. I'm pretty sure value of the car (to me) exceeds 600€ + the cost of repair now.

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 always thought they were saying, “Sell the car for scrap, take the money you would’ve spent on the repair and buy another (functioning) car for 600€ cash“.

I don’t think they’re saying “get a new car with a monthly loan.”

So what? So you spend $3000, instead of $50,000 for a new car. Not having a car payment is an amazing feeling.

Spend $3000 a year keeping some clunker working and hoping a big bill doesn’t come along, or spend $2400 a year for a new car.

> Spend $3000 a year keeping some clunker working and hoping a big bill doesn’t come along, or spend $2400 a year for a new car.

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.

You can believe that if you want, my mother just paid $2800 to get her Citroen through another year. Throw in the 1000 a year deprecation as well and it’s far cheaper, and more importantly more predictable, to have a new car.

> it’s far cheaper, and more importantly more predictable, to have a new car

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.

Citroen’s very common in my county - far more than a Mazda

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.

Why does it have to be a clunker? In what world are you buying a $12,000 car? Used? So you're guaranteed at least $2400 a year, or maybe $3000 a year(which is ridiculous) keeping an older car going.

A main seal leak isn't catastrophic, just inconvenient, for the kind of people who own older cars. Tons of other things fall into this category.

Repair cost exceeding the value of the vehicle is still cheaper than getting a new car. A new car is almost always a bad deal.

Well those aren't the only alternatives. Most people just turn around and get another used car again.

I would not say "might" but "will". Eventually the car becomes more expensive to maintain than to replace. But that is not some terrible thing to avoid, it's just a recognition that the car has a finite life you need to estimate when making your purchasing decision, so those maintenance costs are fairly shared by the seller and buyer, with the seller paying half the future maintenance forward in the form of depreciation and the buyer agreeing to take on the other half in exchange for a cheaper car.

2004 sebring. Traded in in 2018 after 235k miles - I'd had reasonable maintenance on it, but last couple years was getting to be a bit more each year. Last 6 month my mechanic said "it needs engine work, but I can't tell you how much it will be until I take apart the engine, and... that's probably going to cost more than a couple thousand all told.". 235k miles wasn't too bad. I got a 2016 car for around $12k with ... 7k miles on it, getting around 40mpg now, and it's doing fine. I don't want to keep it another 12-13 years, but suspect I could, given how it's holding up so far and how much I drive.

> but you might run into a catastrophic failure (main seal leak or similar)

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.

Some main seal leaks happen slowly, some all of a sudden. If it happens suddenly, and your engine runs without oil, it is catastrophic.