Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
But not this time. I did get it started, but then it died again. And the idea of driving this thing up to PA was starting to give me a really bad vibe. Finally it did start, so I took it back home, got my '79 5th Ave and figured I'd just suffer with the fuel economy.
Well, while we were up there, I saw this really nice 1992 Buick Roadmaster with only 50K miles on it. It was tempting, and I hate to say, still is sorta tempting. But I'm going to try sticking it out with the Intrepid. I drove it to work Monday, Tuesday, and today, and it hasn't acted up any more. My mechanic has one of my cars in the shop right now, and when that one's done, I'm going to drop off the Intrepid and see if he can find out what its problem is. So hopefully it's just something like a sensor, fuel pump, or whatever, and not some cost-prohibitive repair. I'm at around 140,000 miles now, and the car seems to run just fine, WHEN it's running, that is! So hopefully I can get a few more good years out of it.
There's the woman who works in maintenance at my girlfriend's building who wants to buy the Park Ave. I'd try to solve the CEL problem before being comfortable with selling it to her.
congrats, Lemko. I know that's CEL issue had you worried. My Intrepid has to go in for the emissions test by June 14, and if it passes then I'm free for another two years.
Andre, you are a real glutton for punishment when it comes to your gas bills!
The Roadmaster is the big wagon right? I liked the look of those, although they were completely the opposite of the kind of car I normally buy, so I was never tempted.
I hope there is a way to fix the Intrepid that keeps it running reliably for you at least a few more years. I have followed the stories of the 'Trep quite fondly! :-)
I have a coworker that is a devotee of Chrysler, and she had an Intrepid once upon a time. Alas, hers kept breaking down and was sold after less than five years on the road, but she replaced it with a PT Cruiser that she loved so much she now has a second. The older one is blue, the newer one is a red turbo. She highly recommends Cruisers to anyone that's asking, and states she will keep them both "until the wheels fall off". In that regard, she has some credibility as the third car in her garage is her '63 MG, owned since new (and still visiting our office occasionally - summers only though!). :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There was a wagon version of the Roadmaster, offered from 1991-96. This one's a sedan, though. IIRC, the sedan debuted for 1992. Here's a pic of one. It's kind of a chunky looking thing...I don't think GM did the aero look as well on their big cars as Ford did, but there's still just something about the GM cars I like better.
The seller wanted $4800 for it, but some knowledgeable folks on Edmund's suggested it was worth more like $3K tops. I'm probably going to just stick it out with the Intrepid though. You know, that old cliche about the devil you know, versus the devil you don't. :P And the Intrepid has been pretty good for the most part. It's also the only car I've ever bought brand-new, and I've had it long enough, that I've grown a bit attached to it. Plus, at this point I'm really curious to see just how long it can last.
Now if I got myself in a situation where the amount of driving I do suddenly picked up drastically, Id definitely look into something newer and more economical. But I don't see myself moving anytime soon. And unless they really get me riled up at work (which they do sometimes) I don't really see myself working anywhere else for awhile. So, with any luck, the Intrepid will retire about the same time that I do. :shades:
This isn't an impulse I'd actually act on but any time I see one it gets me thinking anyway.
They were actually very versatile vehicles. They could hold 6 people in relative comfort, 8 if necessary (3rd row seat is best served for kids, but the same can be said for most SUVs and even some minivans). 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds, if you got the LT-1, 1994-96 version. Fuel economy was a decent 17/26. Properly equipped, they could tow up to 7,000 pounds. They had something like 92 cubic feet of cargo space, and could hold the proverbial 4x8 sheet of plywood flat between the wheel wells, although I think you had to keep the tailgate down.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Given the energy and negative environmental impact associated with auto production and scrappage, it would seem as though environmentalists should be campaigning to extend the lives of old cars, thereby keeping U.S. vehicle production at ~10 million units per year. This approximate production level wouldn't be by government decree, but rather by promoting the resource allocation and environmental benefits of keeping older cars on the road longer. In this scenario, financial assistance to the auto industry would be aimed at helping the industry adjust to these lower production levels.
The counterargument and the conventional wisdom is that this would be bad for the economy, and new cars tend to be more fuel efficient, less polluting and safer. On the economic impact, is that really true, once the industry has time to adjust to lower production levels? Thousands of workers could be employed in repairing and maintaining older vehicles.
On the issues of fuel efficiency and pollution, I question whether the alleged efficiencies of newer cars compensates for the incremental energy and pollution required to overproduce and then market the excess units. This is what we've been doing, but is it the wisest strategy going forward? Does the U.S. really need 16-18 million new vehicles per year, and is this level of production a wise use of scarce resources? Maybe or probably not, in my opinion. Eventually, older cars would be replaced by new ones, but at a slower pace.
That is the real issue in my mind, ALLEGED improvements in emissions. Last year the smog check guy told me he gets 15 year old cars that test as clean as the newest ones requiring testing. My 20 year old Lexus LS400 is just about as clean as the newest LS460. The 2009 gets ONE MPG better than my 20 year old LS400. I would like to see test results on actual emissions for those two and I would bet it is not significant.
So who is the REAL environmentalist? The guy that keeps his car in good condition for 20 years or the person that trades off every 3-4 years. We know from a Carbon Footprint standpoint the person with the older car is far ahead. As the newer the car the bigger the manufacturing footprint. Five new cars in 20 years will be a tremendous pollution load compared to keeping the same car for 20 years.
Green aside, there are other factors that argue for not driving a car till the wheels fall off, such as: new cars are safer, better gas mileage, better performance. Then, there is the factor of just feeling good about driving a new or recent car. Idea of driving a 15, 20, 25 year old car has to be pretty distasteful and depressing to most folks.
RE Post 111 idea of finacial assistance to automakers to help them adjust to 10 million units in US per year - this is nonsense. Automakers should do what most businesses have to do when revenue or number of units decrease. That is, reduce costs, get rid of employees, reduce plant/assets and production capability.
Yup. We have reached the point where there just isn't much pollution to reduce now days. The law of diminishing returns. I first learned about practical application of that principle when buying stereo equipment 25 years ago. Model A had .0002% harmonic distortion. For $500 more, Model B had .0003% harmonic distortion. However, it is impossible for humans to detect any improvements after about .02%. Anything better than that is essentially about bragging rights.
In car pollution terms, that's why the environmentalists have had to go after CO2.... There really aren't any other devils left to exorcise.
Bingo, and CO2 is directly related to the amount of fuel consumed. Thus cutting CO2 is a double whammy for the eco nuts. They can limit the size of the vehicles we drive by limiting the CO2.
Yes, of course. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. What I meant is that, from a pollution footprint standpoint, maybe the government's financial aid to the auto industry would be better utilized to aid in restructuring for lower volume levels instead of how it's being employed.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My uncle and I were talking about just this on Tuesday evening, as I was driving him out in my '85 Silverado, to pick his '03 Corolla up from the mechanic. I was theorizing that it's possible the Silverado could go on forever, unless it got into a serious accident, or I let the rust get too serious on it and it got structural.
Is there really anything major that COULD go wrong in an '85 Silverado, that could run up a really big repair bill? The transmission is just a 3-speed THM350C, which could probably be rebuilt for around $1,000 or less. When the 305 V-8 finally blows, I could probably find a serviceable used one, or upgrade to a used/rebuilt 350, and guess that wouldn't run more than $1500-2000, unless I decided to go all-out and get some fancy crate engine.
While it might sound silly to put that kind of money into a 24 year old truck, it's still a lot cheaper than newer vehicles, where a tranny can set you back $3-5K or more, and engines can easily run $5-7K and up.
Interestingly enough, the mechanic told my uncle not to bother putting too much money into the Corolla, since it's getting old and up there, mileage-wise. He bought it in May '02, and it has about 168,000 miles on it now. I thought that was an interesting switch, where usually people will tell you not to put any serious money into an old domestic, but then swear that an old import will run on forever! To be fair though, last May he did ask me if I really wanted to sink $500 into my 2000 Intrepid to replace the camshaft and crankshaft position sensors, when the car started acting like a 1975 Dart and stalling out at random! :P
Holy smokes! Does a little driving, huh?
If that's mostly highway miles, I would keep plowing money into it (if necessary) until 200K at least. That engine has a good rep, and highway miles are easy on auto transmissions.
It's true that a lot less severe collision totals cars these days. Question is, if the insurance wants to total it but there was no airbag deployment (and assuming it still drives normally, as a great many cars do that are totalled by insurance), should you buy back the title and keep it on the road? What's the "green" thing to do?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Plus cars were simpler then with far fewer gadgets; on the other hand they were much more prone to rust in the snowbelt states like where I lived.
If that's mostly highway miles, I would keep plowing money into it (if necessary) until 200K at least. That engine has a good rep, and highway miles are easy on auto transmissions.
Yeah, that's mostly highway miles, and I imagine the car should theoretically last a long time. My Mom & stepdad have a 1999 Altima that they bought brand-new, and it's up to around 278,000 miles now. Now it did eat the automatic tranny at 35,000 miles, but it was replaced under warranty, with no hassle.
My uncle had to go to a hospital up in Baltimore yesterday to get some tests and stuff done, and I took the day off to drive him in case they did anything to him to make him drowsy, and we took his Corolla. I still stand by everything bad I've ever said about that car's driving position, because I find it to be uncomfortable after about 10 minutes, but otherwise it's been a good little car.
A couple years ago, the check engine light came on, and it got diagnosed as the catalytic converter. Toyota wanted about $1500 to fix it. Some local place upped it to $2000! Even the mechanic I was using at the time (I didn't know the mechanic we have now back then) guessed it would've been around $1200-1300. Well, a local muffler shop, which did the exhaust on my '68 Dart years ago, was able to do it for $585. But then the light came back on, so it had to go back. They ended up putting another converter on, but then the light came on again. Took it back, and finally they did something to get it to go off (hopefully not just resetting the computer!) and it seemed to hold. I took it through the emissions test for my uncle, and it was fine for awhile, but ultimately the light came on again.
Well, this time around, my mechanic said that it was the second converter, not the first. I never bothered to look up under the car, but I guess it has two of them in a row? Well, the cost to replace the second one was about $340...not too bad, all things considered.
That got me thinking though...I wonder if the $1500 and $2000 estimates would have been to replace both converters, rather than just the one?
Question is, if the insurance wants to total it but there was no airbag deployment (and assuming it still drives normally, as a great many cars do that are totalled by insurance), should you buy back the title and keep it on the road? What's the "green" thing to do?
I've had two cars that were totaled, a 1969 Dart GT and a 1986 Monte Carlo, and in both cases I held onto the cars. Each time, the insurance company just cut me a slightly smaller check than they would have if they had taken the wrecked cars off my hands. I think the salvage value of that Dart was about $90, and the Monte was about $150, so they deducted those amounts from the check I received. I ended up getting $1079.50 for the Dart (don't ask me why that number sticks in my head) and about $2100 for the Monte. Also in each case, nothing happened to the title.
Which makes me wonder then...what exactly has to happen for a car to get a salvage title? Maybe that would be when an insurance company or junkyard or whatever actually gets legal possession of a totaled car, but then for whatever reason it gets sold rather than being scrapped? In my case, the insurance company never took possession of either of my cars.
But I think if more people kept their cars till they stopped working we would see manufacturers making better cars to meet our needs than we do today. Todays cars are like designer Jeans. They are designed to be traded in in 3 to 5 years and they don't tend to make parts easily available much passed than time. I am talking parts like headlight units. I had a older Honda Civic Si and it seems they made the headlight unit for that car only one or two years. Getting a replacement was a bear.
I plan on keeping my cars till I can't move them on their own. There is absolutely "nothing" on the market that interests me in mainstream vehicles. Sports vehicles will always cause the pulse to quicken a bit but once the brian kicks in they aren't very practical. IMHO.
It might just depend on the car. A friend of mine had a 1995 Mercury Grand Marquis, and the passenger side headlight assembly started getting brittle. Eventually, the bottom edge cracked and started falling apart. In May of 2004, he bought a new assembly from the Lincoln/Mercury dealer. IIRC, the only years they were interchangeable were 1995-1997, and only the Mercury. The Crown Vic used a different headlight. Now I think the part did have to be ordered. I don't believe they had it in stock.
Headlights these days are kind of a pain, anyway. If I break a headlight on any of my old cars, from my 1957 DeSoto on up to my 1985 Silverado, it's just a quick trip to any auto parts store. But nowadays, with these fancy flush composite assemblies, it's much more complicated, as chances are you can only get the part from the dealer's parts department, or from a donor car in the junkyard.
Whereas I might pay $6-8 for one of those old style square or round headlights, the whole new assembly on a modern car could run hundreds of $. When my buddy bought the headlight for his Grand Marquis, it was about $225. He brought it over to my place and we tried to figure out how to install it, but gave up, so he had to pay a mechanic $75 to do it. So, he was out $300. And then, the next month, got $600 in trade when he swapped it for a 2004 Crown Vic! :sick:
Please pardon my ignorance or naivete', but what the heck is "the brian?"
You got it! At least at the Toyota dealer anyway, it would have been the entire pipe from where it attaches to the exhaust header all the way back through the muffler. Which is not to say the $1500 at the dealer would necessarily have been a better deal, but I look at it this way: the replacement would have been covered for the life of the vehicle at the Toyota dealer, it would only have cost $575 more, and it would have been done on the first try, instead of futzing around with four visits to the mechanic's house.
I am of the opinion that it would be greener to keep the old car on the road, provided there was no airbag deployment and the car is inspected and found to be safe, than it would be to let the insurance total it and go buy a new one. But I know that's not the answer the auto industry wants to hear right now....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ah, you're right. My brain that wasn't properly engaged.
My thoughts, precisely.
That would work back in the old days when emissions controls were more of an afterthought, but nowadays, with the more sophisticated computers, sensors, and such, I wonder if taking the converter off of a modern car might end up doing more harm than good?
I don't suppose we want to know how you happen to know this...
Part prices like that are what makes cars get totaled out for what look like minor accidents.
Healing Hazy Headlamps
I thought about just trying to buy some better ones out of a junkyard, but the last time I was in the junkyard, every Intrepid in there either had front-end damage or a completely-missing front end clip. I think the final 2004 Intrepids were all built-out in September 2003, so even the newest would be going on 5 1/2 years old now.
I haven't priced them at the dealer, but I imagine they'd be around $200 or more. At least I know how to put them in, though, which is something we never could figure out on my buddy's Grand Marquis. On my Intrepid, you have to take the headlight out completely to replace a burnt-out bulb, so that's how I learned. Fortunately it's real simple. Just take out two REALLLLY long bolts, and the assembly lifts right out.
Nice to see that they actually designed some things intelligently in that car. But don't get me started on where they put the battery! :mad:
As I look back on it (cult classic, meaning i made very little money on it) I remember how many people resisted the idea. This was the "prosperous" 1980s, and people felt that driving an old car was...well...somehow demeaning to them.
Of course, back in the 1980s, cars were simpler and it was easier to patch them up and keep them going.
I'm not so sure this Drive It Til It Drops concept would work anymore. I'd have to think about it. Repair costs are getting prohibitive, junkyards are disappearing and the technical demands on the average car owner are pretty stressful.
On the other hand, if the economy got really bad and money became very very tight, then the imagination of the human mind may know no bounds!
Looks like a fun book Joe, and the cover ride would be a perfect fit for a Dull Man. :shades:
I am looking for an older PU right now. Tired of this under powered 99 Ranger V6. Looks good and will bring what I paid a couple years ago. I am leaning toward the pre 1995 F250 Powerstroke diesel. Once I get it all fixed up it will be my truck till I croak. No new PU interests me anymore. Too much money, for too little, with built in obsolescence. We are being dazzled with technological wizardry.
I sort of thought about going that route when my Granddad's '85 Silverado finally croaks...if I decide I still want a pickup. Only problem is, it seems like these days old 50's and 60's pickups are either restored to show quality, or total basket cases that are really ready for the crusher. I don't think there's much middle ground anymore, where you can just find a nice old truck that's a little rough around the edges, but still serviceable as a workhorse. I think my old truck of choice would be a '60-66 Chevy or GMC, although I do like the earlier versions of the '61-71 Dodge...back when they had the quad headlights and trapezoidal grille.