buying a car

[maksimizer]

buying a car is a game of luck.

you can spend 500$ on a car, have it run for two years, with oil changes
or you can spend 6000$ on the exact same car, have it break down x times over two years, and another 2000$ in repairs.

[i-vtecyo]

I would go with option A. Becareful when buying cars at around 100k and 200k km because unless you know when the timing belt and water pump was done, most likely it will require service soon. Always ask for maintenance histories or receipts, and inspect the car thoroughly for wear and tear components (eg: Brakes, tires, ect) and try to listen for any odd sounds from engine and transmission. A 5 speed manual vs automatic is hard to say. If you are inexperience with manual transmissions then stick with automatic because a clutch job can cost up to 1k. When inspecting automatic transmission, test drive it thru all the gears and also see how long it takes and how smooth it shifts on "D" when u drive. If you know what your doing, u will minimize the chance of buying a money pit.

[PJ]

My friend bought a 91 Tercel for $800 5 years ago that had ~350k km on it. It now has close to 500 and still running strong

The nice thing about Civics, Corollas, etc is that parts are very available and cheap, and because there's a billion of them around, you can go to any Mom and Pop shop to get the work done.

[BMW_freak]

buy a used older car.... learn to drive and wrench on it while you are that! it is worth it!

an e30 maybe

[alwayslive]

since some of you said that the 2001-2005 civic models had problems with the automatic transmission, would these problems still be present in a car like the Acura EL of the same year? If I were to get a 2001-2003 EL, should I look to buy one that is automatic or manual? Which would be more of a money pit in the long run?

[BrRsn]

To answer your question, EL = civic, just with nicer trim

For hondas, always get a manual if you can.

More fun to drive, more efficient, last longer, cheaper to replace

Also, honda transmissions are kinda derpy and refuse to downshift in some situations -- definitely not the best autos I've driven.


Take it with a grain of salt, but my 2001 auto civic passed 350k on the original tranny no problems.
The v6 auto's are notoriously bad though

[Traum]

Originally Posted by alwayslive

since some of you said that the 2001-2005 civic models had problems with the automatic transmission, would these problems still be present in a car like the Acura EL of the same year? If I were to get a 2001-2003 EL, should I look to buy one that is automatic or manual? Which would be more of a money pit in the long run?

IIRC, the EL has a slightly different model year introductions compared to its Civic siblings. What that means is, while the EL have also had a facelift, I don't think they span the same 01-03 and 04-05 years as the Civic.

With the EL having more "luxury" equipment, the chances of those failing (and thus requiring repairs) will naturally be slightly higher. But as far as the automatic transmissions are concerned, they would be just as reliable (or unreliable) as the Civic.

[alwayslive]

Thanks everyone! How does the mazda 3 play into all of this? Sorry for all the questions, I just don't want to buying a car and end up regretting it lol

[The_AK]

My old civic is up for sale too by new.
owner
2004 HONDA CIVIC COUPE MANUAL

Let me know what details you want on this car but I wouldn't pay more than 3500 given dome.of the things I know. I'm surprised he's asking this much

[Hehe]

I'd suggest leasing a new car if this is your DD and reliability is crucial.

At 150k or anywhere near that number is when car starting to cost more in maintenance than paying for a new car.

The truth is that modern cars has too many things in it that simply aren't designed to last that long and will ultimately need replacements. Unless you are very handy to work your own car, it's just not worth the trouble.

[BrRsn]

Originally Posted by Hehe

I'd suggest leasing a new car if this is your DD and reliability is crucial.

At 150k or anywhere near that number is when car starting to cost more in maintenance than paying for a new car.

The truth is that modern cars has too many things in it that simply aren't designed to last that long and will ultimately need replacements. Unless you are very handy to work your own car, it's just not worth the trouble.

Ehh .. strongly disagree.

I'm a student and wanted a cheap beater, I bought a '05 corolla with 260k on it for $3500 -- took it on road trips, drove it down to california and back, and it was my DD -- zero problems, burned no oil, and it was an automatic. I drove the piss out of it. Written off, but it had plenty of life left in it.

Look at the cars taxi drivers use -- I know of corollas pushing ~700,000k on the stock tranny/engine with no issues. There are reliable cars to be had that can run far beyond the 300,000 mark with no maintenance. Are they fun to drive? Not really. Are they good looking cars? Nope -- but they'll start every time you turn the key

[Traum]

Originally Posted by alwayslive

Thanks everyone! How does the mazda 3 play into all of this? Sorry for all the questions, I just don't want to buying a car and end up regretting it lol

Assuming you are talking about the 1st gen Mazda3 (2003-2008), for the most part, it is a good car.

The pluses for the car is, for at least a few years during its sale run, it toppled the perennial Civic as the top selling car in Canada. That means there are lots of copies available in the used market, and parts are widely available should anything break. The car also drives and handles very well, and at least when it was new, the interior had a nicer design and materials compared to similar vehicles in the same class (eg. Corolla, Civic, Elantra, etc.)

The 2.0L MZR engine has a timing chain with it, so there are no timing belts issues / replacement to worry about. For the most part, it is also quite a reliable engine, but its fuel consumption is nowhere nearly as good as the Corolla and Civic. In fact, a friend of mine continually complain about his abysmal gas mileage in his first gen 2.0L Mazda3 -- he was regularly getting 11-12L/100km in mixed driving conditions, and has a tough time beating 10L/100km even with mostly highway driving. I'd say his poor gas mileage is a bit of an outlier, the Mazda3 definitely isn't as easy on gas as other cars in the same class. The 2.3L MZR engine is quite thirsty for gas.

The potential and more common issues that I know of are, with the early model year cars, they are somewhat prone to isolated rusting. Make sure you check the rocker panels, door frame (not the door itself, but the frame on the chassis), etc. The car is also known to eat up front disc rotors, so be prepared to see that occur.

For a few model years, the driver side door was prone to a hack / glitch where the door could become unlocked if the area immediately in front of the driver side handle bar is punched / banged on. Mazda eventually issued a recall to address this, but I dunno how you can find out whether a car has had the recall applied. At any rate, I have seen more than a few Mazda3's with dented / banged up driver side door. As a matter of fact, my next door neighbour's Mazda3 looks exactly like that, and he never bothered to fix it.

[alwayslive]

Thanks guys. I think I will just end up buying an older beater as a DD. I'm just worried cause I'm a poor college student lol and I'm only making 1200-1500 a month, so if my car breaks down and needs thousands of dollars of repairs I'm pretty screwed. At that point i'll also lose the option to sell it so i'll be out 5-8k which would be pretty shitty lol.

[fliptuner]

Being a member of bcmazda3, I see very few first gens with any sort of rust issues. My '07 GT 2.3 consistently get's 10L/100km or better, combined. Brakes wear at the same rate as any other car of equal weight.

In 120K it's gone through 2 sets of front pads and 1 set of rears, 2 transmission flushes, 1 set of shocks/struts, a thermostat, 1 accessory belt, a throttle body service and a couple dozen oil changes. The only repair that that would be considered out of the ordinary, is when the right motor mount started to tear at 100k (I bought OEM replacements for $220 for all 3 mounts).

All in all, it's been a great car.

[alwayslive]

out of all the cars that I have been looking at (civic, integra, EL) I do like the mazda3 the most in terms of overall look. Gas milage might not be in the 30mpg's like civics, but I have driven my friends hatchback and they are pretty fun to drive.

[fliptuner]

The other reason I suggested a Corolla is, think of who generally owns them. They're not bought cause they're cool and great for picking up chicks and mad dorifto parking lot hoonage.

That's why even though Integras and SiR's are reliable, chances are a lot higher they're driven hard and maintained (or neglected) by a younger crowd.

[Tone Loc]

Originally Posted by dhillon09

For hondas, always get a manual if you can.

More fun to drive, more efficient, last longer, cheaper to replace

This. Made that mistake when I was back in HS... bought an '04 Civic Si-G with auto. I absolutely hated it, the transmission felt like it was being controlled by a youth with Tourettes and was bog slow. After that car, I never understood why people enjoyed Hondas and there was such a strong tuning scene around them, because mine was a piece of shit.

...until I got a 1996 manual EK hatch as a "winter beater" 3 years later. The manual version, despite being down 0.1 litter and 27 hp from my old Si-G felt worlds quicker, faster, more responsive, way more fun to drive. I was mind blown at how a nearly 10 year older version of my car was so much more fun than the newer "better" Civic.

Don't get an auto Civic... you will regret it the second you step into a manual one. That being said, I paid $1800 for my Civic, came with T1R coil overs, Buddy Club P1 wheels AND winter tires on steelies... granted it's a little dirty and needs some work as well as a carpet, but they can be crazy cheap on CL provided you wait around for a good deal.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by dhillon09

Ehh .. strongly disagree.

I'm a student and wanted a cheap beater, I bought a '05 corolla with 260k on it for $3500 -- took it on road trips, drove it down to california and back, and it was my DD -- zero problems, burned no oil, and it was an automatic. I drove the piss out of it. Written off, but it had plenty of life left in it.

Look at the cars taxi drivers use -- I know of corollas pushing ~700,000k on the stock tranny/engine with no issues. There are reliable cars to be had that can run far beyond the 300,000 mark with no maintenance. Are they fun to drive? Not really. Are they good looking cars? Nope -- but they'll start every time you turn the key

Good for you for the Corolla. But the fact doesn't change regarding reliability. Assuming the OP is looking to put 0 work and drive it for the next 3 years or so. The new car would be less headache.

Yes, the majority of cars would push 300k easily, but by around 150k it's when the maintenance start to get expensive. If a new car encounters any problem, just bring it to dealer and let warranty takes care of the rest. Not so much on a beater. Every time a beater has a problem, it's basically replacement of xxx or yyy. The thing is just you never know when and what will go wrong.

And taxi is a different story. They are under constant driving and they have people who maintain them. And they don't care what light comes on, as long as the car would run, they have no problem.

I have bought beaters before and I ended up losing money pretty much every time (all within 1 year driving). And all beaters I bought were under regular maintenance but still problems and not to mention you can forget just going for a $50 oil change. It's replacement this or replacement that from there on.

[StanleyR]

Originally Posted by Hehe

but by around 150k it's when the maintenance start to get expensive. If a new car encounters any problem, just bring it to dealer and let warranty takes care of the rest. Not so much on a beater. Every time a beater has a problem, it's basically replacement of xxx or yyy. The thing is just you never know when and what will go wrong.

What is it that gets so expensive at 150? I can see maybe ball joints/tie rod ends, maybe a set of shocks/struts...front pads...but that's about it. Oh and MAAYBE tires, but then again, nothing I've just mentioned is covered under warranty/leasing anyway. So if it fails, the leasee is on the hook for those repairs

I had a 97 Escort with stick that I bought for 5700 in 03 with 143k on it.
Drove it all over western Canada and sold it with 256k and only replaced shocks/struts, tires, front pads and did annual oil changes with M1 and never did it leak or burn oil over that time.

Currently my dd is a 07 Focus SES i got from Richmond Subaru with 101kms for $5100+tax. I've had to replace the tires and front brakes and battery...that's it aside from ATF and engine oil changes. I currently have it almost at 123kms and I know it can EASILY make it to 200k with no problems. Best yet, is that it doesn't have a timing belt, rather a chain that'll fail LONG after I've dumpd it.

[dashosh]

I'd overpay for the car with a good mileage if it is in a good condition. It depends on how long you are going to use this car.

[BrRsn]

Originally Posted by StanleyR

What is it that gets so expensive at 150? I can see maybe ball joints/tie rod ends, maybe a set of shocks/struts...front pads...but that's about it. Oh and MAAYBE tires, but then again, nothing I've just mentioned is covered under warranty/leasing anyway. So if it fails, the leasee is on the hook for those repairs

I had a 97 Escort with stick that I bought for 5700 in 03 with 143k on it.
Drove it all over western Canada and sold it with 256k and only replaced shocks/struts, tires, front pads and did annual oil changes with M1 and never did it leak or burn oil over that time.

Currently my dd is a 07 Focus SES i got from Richmond Subaru with 101kms for $5100+tax. I've had to replace the tires and front brakes and battery...that's it aside from ATF and engine oil changes. I currently have it almost at 123kms and I know it can EASILY make it to 200k with no problems. Best yet, is that it doesn't have a timing belt, rather a chain that'll fail LONG after I've dumpd it.

This is what I mean.

If you are willing to get your hands dirty and watch a youtube video and spend the odd saturday or sunday wrenching, you can easily find a very reliable car that will be cheaper to purchase, run, and insure than a new car. Buying a new car is never cheaper than running an old car, especially when we're talking about civics/corollas -- hell, the corolla doesn't even have a timing belt to be replaced.

If you do your research, if you know your shit, a cheap $3000 car can last you another ~100K or more with little or no money spent on repairs. Don't try to prove your point with personal experience, because all that shows is you picked a shitty car to buy to begin with

[freakshow]

Originally Posted by Hehe

Good for you for the Corolla. But the fact doesn't change regarding reliability. Assuming the OP is looking to put 0 work and drive it for the next 3 years or so. The new car would be less headache.

This is where either you're wrong, or everyone else interpreted the OP's post differently.

I'm assuming that the OP want's to lose as little money as possible over the next 5 years, which is different than not putting in work. A used car would definitely meet this criteria better than a lease. I'm not even talking about fixing things yourself, although that will help a lot. Even if you take it to a good indy mechanic for everything, a used car should still be cheaper than the least over the next 5 years.

[alwayslive]

^ yep you got it. I am willing to put in work, I am just not willing to constantly throw my whole paycheck at my car just to get it fixed. I'm hoping to get around 80-100k out of the car, without it breaking on me every month.

Thanks for the replies everyone, really learning quite a bit from this

[fliptuner]

Seems like something that would suit your needs:

acura el 2001