Which Car Should I Keep?
January 25, 2016 12:45 AM Subscribe
I have a 2000 Toyota Camry V6 5 speed. It was not treated well and I have spent at least $2K over its sale price of $7K since buying it in 2011. I bought it with 117K miles and now it has 140K. I've had to fix an oxygen sensor, the ball joints and battery wiring along with replacing tires. But I think I am running out of problems to fix. Plus, it's loaded and comes with the power, comfort and style I like.
But, I have the chance to buy a 2001 Honda Civic with 40K miles. It has everything the Camry has except the transmission, the power and the weight. But the Civic has hundreds of transmission and other complaints on one of the vehicle evaluation websites (Carcomplaints.com) while, comparatively, the Camry has many, many fewer. Both cares are supposed to be so good. I've sunk costs into the Camry and don't want to trade problems I know for problems I don't know. But I also don't want to pass up a better choice. If I sell the Camry for it's book value of about $2K and apply it toward the purchase of the Civic (which, BTW, is really being sold by a little old lady in the family who only drove it to church on Sundays), I'll still owe about $1500 on it.
It is financially worth it? Help.
But, I have the chance to buy a 2001 Honda Civic with 40K miles. It has everything the Camry has except the transmission, the power and the weight. But the Civic has hundreds of transmission and other complaints on one of the vehicle evaluation websites (Carcomplaints.com) while, comparatively, the Camry has many, many fewer. Both cares are supposed to be so good. I've sunk costs into the Camry and don't want to trade problems I know for problems I don't know. But I also don't want to pass up a better choice. If I sell the Camry for it's book value of about $2K and apply it toward the purchase of the Civic (which, BTW, is really being sold by a little old lady in the family who only drove it to church on Sundays), I'll still owe about $1500 on it.
It is financially worth it? Help.
I, personally, would do the hell out of this. 40k miles is so stupidly low that if i only had to pay $1500 to switch to a car that not-used-up i would do it every single time. Especially if you can verify it's provenance, like you said you did, of it being a little old lady car. I also second 2k not being a lot of repairs for 4 years of driving a 16 year old car.
The civic has a lot of complaints on that site because it's an incredibly common popular car. It's like pizza hut having a million reviews on yelp.
I would jump to the civic in a heartbeat, but don't get too bummed when it needs say, the 60k mile work(timing belt? i'm not familiar with the intervals on civics) and you have to drop more money or something. It's worth it.
This is one of those situations where $3500 isn't really top dollar, because cars with that low of mileage at that age sort of don't exist in the market. A couple years ago now i totaled a similarly aged car with similar mileage. I had to fight the insurance company a lot, and found exactly one even vaguely similar make/model car with like 15k more miles on it. All the rest had over 100k, and the one i ended up buying had about 90. For cars with a niche following(say, vw diesels) people will actively fight over low mileage ones like this and they usually go above blue book.
The big BIG caveat i'll throw down here though, is that this deal is only worth it if you plan to drive that civic until the wheels fall off. You will never get what you pay back, and it wont really have meaningfully more trade in value or anything than a civic with ~100k on it would. Are you willing to drive it until it has 250-300k miles on it? My old coworker exclusively hunted down and got cars like this, and then drove them until they fell apart. His accord wagon has like 300k miles on it now and he's still beating it to death. But if you just want a car to drive for 4 years until you get something else, don't bother. My style is drive it until its completely not worth fixing, and i approached this question that way, but it may not be yours.
40k miles also REALLY isn't a lot of driving. It's tangential, but on cars like that stuff tends to fall apart from the ravages of time and hot/cold cycles before it was supposed to "wear out". Notably the old car i had to replace ate belt tensioners, some gaskets, and a few other rubber seals/items ahead of schedule just from dry rot. Take it to a mechanic and ask if anything is rotting out ahead of schedule just from time before you drive it around a lot. That car had developed a valve cover gasket leak because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All of those were sub $100 repairs(or with the valve cover gasket, maybe $200?) at a shop i could have done even less myself if i had the time, for what it's worth.
On preview, i'd also think about gas mileage. The camry does not come out great there. Whereas it seems even with the v6 model included the civic is something like 10-12mpg ahead. Likely even better. That's around 1/3rd more, and really wouldn't take long to make a meaningful difference depending on how much you drive.
posted by emptythought at 4:18 AM on January 25, 2016
The civic has a lot of complaints on that site because it's an incredibly common popular car. It's like pizza hut having a million reviews on yelp.
I would jump to the civic in a heartbeat, but don't get too bummed when it needs say, the 60k mile work(timing belt? i'm not familiar with the intervals on civics) and you have to drop more money or something. It's worth it.
This is one of those situations where $3500 isn't really top dollar, because cars with that low of mileage at that age sort of don't exist in the market. A couple years ago now i totaled a similarly aged car with similar mileage. I had to fight the insurance company a lot, and found exactly one even vaguely similar make/model car with like 15k more miles on it. All the rest had over 100k, and the one i ended up buying had about 90. For cars with a niche following(say, vw diesels) people will actively fight over low mileage ones like this and they usually go above blue book.
The big BIG caveat i'll throw down here though, is that this deal is only worth it if you plan to drive that civic until the wheels fall off. You will never get what you pay back, and it wont really have meaningfully more trade in value or anything than a civic with ~100k on it would. Are you willing to drive it until it has 250-300k miles on it? My old coworker exclusively hunted down and got cars like this, and then drove them until they fell apart. His accord wagon has like 300k miles on it now and he's still beating it to death. But if you just want a car to drive for 4 years until you get something else, don't bother. My style is drive it until its completely not worth fixing, and i approached this question that way, but it may not be yours.
40k miles also REALLY isn't a lot of driving. It's tangential, but on cars like that stuff tends to fall apart from the ravages of time and hot/cold cycles before it was supposed to "wear out". Notably the old car i had to replace ate belt tensioners, some gaskets, and a few other rubber seals/items ahead of schedule just from dry rot. Take it to a mechanic and ask if anything is rotting out ahead of schedule just from time before you drive it around a lot. That car had developed a valve cover gasket leak because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All of those were sub $100 repairs(or with the valve cover gasket, maybe $200?) at a shop i could have done even less myself if i had the time, for what it's worth.
On preview, i'd also think about gas mileage. The camry does not come out great there. Whereas it seems even with the v6 model included the civic is something like 10-12mpg ahead. Likely even better. That's around 1/3rd more, and really wouldn't take long to make a meaningful difference depending on how much you drive.
posted by emptythought at 4:18 AM on January 25, 2016
I would take both cars to a mechanic, get them hooked up to the diagnostic and ask the professional her opinion.
There are problems with older cars that you just can't see and that the owners don't know.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 5:01 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are problems with older cars that you just can't see and that the owners don't know.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 5:01 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
A 2001 Civic with 40,000 miles and no rust? Sounds great. Driven by a little old lady you say? Almost too great.
My mom is a little old lady who puts 200K+ on her Hondas. Don't let her age fool you, those are hard miles of stop and start local driving as a visiting nurse. A car is in the condition a mechanic tells you it is when she puts it up on the lift. Its history is only part of the story. And a 15 year old car, even with low mileage, is going to need work if that work hasn't been done (seals, gaskets, hoses and anything made out of rubber, just for a start, especially on a car that was barely driven, unless it was stored in pristine conditions).
However, I'm taking from your comment that it has a manual transmission? Those complaints are *not* just because everyone has a Honda Civic. Civic manual transmissions from 2001-5, as I recall the date range, have really big problems. My mom just had to replace hers (on a 2004) and apparently had missed a recall (she's meticulous and we think she was never notified) along the way -- the Honda part was no longer even available and we had to find it in a junkyard. We're waiting to hear back from Honda about the $1000 it cost.
Also, look up "Takata airbag recall." For both of these cars, but almost certainly for that Honda, unless the original owner took it in for recall service, it well might contain an airbag that will kill you in a wreck.
I would not sweat the gas mileage on cars this old. It's a trivial expense compared to repairs and maintenance. Your cost basis is the maintenance, not really fuel (and gas is going to be cheap for the remaining life of these cars, most likely -- it's certainly dirt cheap now).
That low mileage thing might be a red herring. If these two cars were even close to being in equivalent mechanical shape, I'd take the Camry any day for the safer, bigger ride and being more solidly built overall. But the Civic (with a manual) will be a lot more fun to drive.
Get that Honda inspected and make sure they look up the recall history on the VIN number for both transmission and airbags. If there are recalls that haven't been done, make sure Honda will honor them this far out or walk away.
posted by spitbull at 6:10 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
My mom is a little old lady who puts 200K+ on her Hondas. Don't let her age fool you, those are hard miles of stop and start local driving as a visiting nurse. A car is in the condition a mechanic tells you it is when she puts it up on the lift. Its history is only part of the story. And a 15 year old car, even with low mileage, is going to need work if that work hasn't been done (seals, gaskets, hoses and anything made out of rubber, just for a start, especially on a car that was barely driven, unless it was stored in pristine conditions).
However, I'm taking from your comment that it has a manual transmission? Those complaints are *not* just because everyone has a Honda Civic. Civic manual transmissions from 2001-5, as I recall the date range, have really big problems. My mom just had to replace hers (on a 2004) and apparently had missed a recall (she's meticulous and we think she was never notified) along the way -- the Honda part was no longer even available and we had to find it in a junkyard. We're waiting to hear back from Honda about the $1000 it cost.
Also, look up "Takata airbag recall." For both of these cars, but almost certainly for that Honda, unless the original owner took it in for recall service, it well might contain an airbag that will kill you in a wreck.
I would not sweat the gas mileage on cars this old. It's a trivial expense compared to repairs and maintenance. Your cost basis is the maintenance, not really fuel (and gas is going to be cheap for the remaining life of these cars, most likely -- it's certainly dirt cheap now).
That low mileage thing might be a red herring. If these two cars were even close to being in equivalent mechanical shape, I'd take the Camry any day for the safer, bigger ride and being more solidly built overall. But the Civic (with a manual) will be a lot more fun to drive.
Get that Honda inspected and make sure they look up the recall history on the VIN number for both transmission and airbags. If there are recalls that haven't been done, make sure Honda will honor them this far out or walk away.
posted by spitbull at 6:10 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
To throw something out there... this is a 15 year old car with 40,000 miles on it. That is obviously, very low mileage. However, things on the car are 15 years old. Rubber parts. Engine seals. Timing belt. Etc. There's no guarantee that you won't start seeing some of the problems related to age that you would in older cars. Were the oil changes done on time? I'm not talking every 3-5000 miles. The oil should have been changed every 6-9 months on that car even with the lower miles since moisture and such can build up over time.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying that just because it's that low mileage doesn't mean it's a slam dunk for longetivity. The Civic has better gas mileage, and 2000-ish Toyotas had some problems that took a few years before they were handled. If you think you want to do it, have a mechanic inspect both cars and explain what you're thinking. It will cost you some money but if you're looking at dropping that extra coin on the Civic it would be a worthwhile investment.
posted by azpenguin at 6:45 AM on January 25, 2016
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying that just because it's that low mileage doesn't mean it's a slam dunk for longetivity. The Civic has better gas mileage, and 2000-ish Toyotas had some problems that took a few years before they were handled. If you think you want to do it, have a mechanic inspect both cars and explain what you're thinking. It will cost you some money but if you're looking at dropping that extra coin on the Civic it would be a worthwhile investment.
posted by azpenguin at 6:45 AM on January 25, 2016
I’m going to be contrary and say keep the Camry. The repairs you’ve made are pretty standard, and ones I have already had to make on my 2008 Corolla (which I’ve had since 2008).
That level of repair kind of goes with the territory of driving anything, and I will wager that you’ll have similar repairs to make on the Honda if you do decide to go with it. In fact, both my husband and I had 2004 Honda Civics and had some odd-ball repairs to do on them: both of our gas cap cover cables snapped, which is not hugely expensive but very annoying. We each had our Civic’s alternator die as well. I also had a 1995 Civic, and around 10 years all kinds of things started going wrong that were related to the age of the parts rather than the milage: valves drying out, dashboard wiring going bad, that kind of stuff. I know that's all anecdotal, but that's where my head would be.
You like the Camry’s power, comfort, and style, and the Civic is going to be a downgrade. I don’t know if you live somewhere snowy, but that’s also something to consider. The Corolla is so much better in the snow than the Civic, and I can only imagine that the Camry, being a bit bigger, is even better than the Corolla. You will not enjoy going from the Camry to the Civic in the snow if that is a factor where you live.
posted by Kriesa at 7:07 AM on January 25, 2016
That level of repair kind of goes with the territory of driving anything, and I will wager that you’ll have similar repairs to make on the Honda if you do decide to go with it. In fact, both my husband and I had 2004 Honda Civics and had some odd-ball repairs to do on them: both of our gas cap cover cables snapped, which is not hugely expensive but very annoying. We each had our Civic’s alternator die as well. I also had a 1995 Civic, and around 10 years all kinds of things started going wrong that were related to the age of the parts rather than the milage: valves drying out, dashboard wiring going bad, that kind of stuff. I know that's all anecdotal, but that's where my head would be.
You like the Camry’s power, comfort, and style, and the Civic is going to be a downgrade. I don’t know if you live somewhere snowy, but that’s also something to consider. The Corolla is so much better in the snow than the Civic, and I can only imagine that the Camry, being a bit bigger, is even better than the Corolla. You will not enjoy going from the Camry to the Civic in the snow if that is a factor where you live.
posted by Kriesa at 7:07 AM on January 25, 2016
The Camry is a keeper. You've barely spent anything on maintenance, so drive it into the ground! (Also, the Camry is more comfy than a Civic.)
posted by heathrowga at 7:26 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by heathrowga at 7:26 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh and yes, a 15 year old Honda is going to need an alternator, regardless of mileage, if it hasn't been replaced in the last decade add $400 right there, ask me how I know. Likewise, regardless of mileage, a timing belt (supposed to be done at 100K, but I'd do it on a car that old even with low mileage), so there's a few hundred more. With 40K it may even have original tires on it, or a second set. Even barely driven, a 5 or 10 year old set of tires (let alone a 15 year old set of factory stock tires) will need immediate replacement and will not run true or be reliable rubber (it ages, it dries, it cracks, it deforms under the weight of the car). So add $300-400 minimum right there. Even if the tranny is good you're going to want to do a full service on the entire drivetrain, CV boots are likely to be cracked, etc. So add another $500-1500 depending on what's needed.
Of course if you haven't seen these hits on your Camry, that time is coming. What you've described are really bare minimum things for a car with 140k, and right around 150-200K is where the big stuff starts to go even on a tank like a Camry. Auto transmission, anti-lock brakes, struts, alternator and the like just wear out, and that's the ballpark where they start doing so even on a very reliable iteration of the Camry.
So to me the logical thing to do is to drive the Camry until that stuff starts happening, then reassess your situation.
Pretty soon you're into the kind of money that would buy you the next level up in reliability and the only tradeoff is that you spend less time without a car or catching a ride to the mechanic's shop or broken down by the side of a dark highway, plus as a bonus car safety has improved by leaps and bounds in the last decade, and what price do you put on that?
posted by spitbull at 8:32 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course if you haven't seen these hits on your Camry, that time is coming. What you've described are really bare minimum things for a car with 140k, and right around 150-200K is where the big stuff starts to go even on a tank like a Camry. Auto transmission, anti-lock brakes, struts, alternator and the like just wear out, and that's the ballpark where they start doing so even on a very reliable iteration of the Camry.
So to me the logical thing to do is to drive the Camry until that stuff starts happening, then reassess your situation.
Pretty soon you're into the kind of money that would buy you the next level up in reliability and the only tradeoff is that you spend less time without a car or catching a ride to the mechanic's shop or broken down by the side of a dark highway, plus as a bonus car safety has improved by leaps and bounds in the last decade, and what price do you put on that?
posted by spitbull at 8:32 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would take both cars to a mechanic, get them hooked up to the diagnostic and ask the professional her opinion.
What does that even mean? 'Hook it to the diagnostic'? This isn't star trek, there is no magic box that will tell you the condition of a car. Yes, taking a car to a mechanic is a sensible step if you don't know anything about cars, but it is just a visual inspection for the most part. A mechanic can only look for obvious problems. A road test and a few minutes underneath and in the engine bay and looking at the brakes etc or will show any symptoms that are starting to appear - noises, signs of contact or fluid loss, general condition of hoses, engine mounts and other lifed or otherwise deteriorating components, but that's the same thing as the last service you got on your own car. You alread have that for one car and the prognosis is good, or you'd have been recommended to do additional work, if your mechanic is any good.
There is no real reason to switch between one 15 year old car and another beyond 'because you want to'. The mileage concerns in a sub 200K miles Japanese car are pretty small and you'd be rolling the dice equally in both. Age is the FAR bigger factor in this and a 40K mile car is every bit (possibly more) liable to fall foul of aged rubber and other components as your current car.
You will lose money switching cars. You will get zero tangible benefit from switching cars in any real sense. A breakdown is equally possibly in both cars, in my opinion. Keep your current car and only upgrade if you are going at lest 5 years newer or for some other tangible and significant reason - which just doesn't exist here.
posted by Brockles at 8:58 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
What does that even mean? 'Hook it to the diagnostic'? This isn't star trek, there is no magic box that will tell you the condition of a car. Yes, taking a car to a mechanic is a sensible step if you don't know anything about cars, but it is just a visual inspection for the most part. A mechanic can only look for obvious problems. A road test and a few minutes underneath and in the engine bay and looking at the brakes etc or will show any symptoms that are starting to appear - noises, signs of contact or fluid loss, general condition of hoses, engine mounts and other lifed or otherwise deteriorating components, but that's the same thing as the last service you got on your own car. You alread have that for one car and the prognosis is good, or you'd have been recommended to do additional work, if your mechanic is any good.
There is no real reason to switch between one 15 year old car and another beyond 'because you want to'. The mileage concerns in a sub 200K miles Japanese car are pretty small and you'd be rolling the dice equally in both. Age is the FAR bigger factor in this and a 40K mile car is every bit (possibly more) liable to fall foul of aged rubber and other components as your current car.
You will lose money switching cars. You will get zero tangible benefit from switching cars in any real sense. A breakdown is equally possibly in both cars, in my opinion. Keep your current car and only upgrade if you are going at lest 5 years newer or for some other tangible and significant reason - which just doesn't exist here.
posted by Brockles at 8:58 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Most cars have a computer port that does a diagnostic evaluation. It's where the mechanics start with evaluating.
It IS Star Trek!
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 9:52 AM on January 25, 2016
It IS Star Trek!
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 9:52 AM on January 25, 2016
Most cars have a computer port that does a diagnostic evaluation. It's where the mechanics start with evaluating.
The diagnostic port will only tell them what the computer tells them. It won't evaluate the condition of physical parts, for example, the front main seal is starting to seep oil, or the struts have lost their ability to hold the car where they need to, or the timing belt has developed a crack from long term dry rot, etc. If the car has any stored codes then it will tell them what codes are there, but that only gives a mechanic a starting point. For example, a P0420 on my car can mean anything from a loose spark plug wire to a bad catalytic converter. The diagnostic port is often down the list of where the mechanics look.
posted by azpenguin at 10:05 AM on January 25, 2016
The diagnostic port will only tell them what the computer tells them. It won't evaluate the condition of physical parts, for example, the front main seal is starting to seep oil, or the struts have lost their ability to hold the car where they need to, or the timing belt has developed a crack from long term dry rot, etc. If the car has any stored codes then it will tell them what codes are there, but that only gives a mechanic a starting point. For example, a P0420 on my car can mean anything from a loose spark plug wire to a bad catalytic converter. The diagnostic port is often down the list of where the mechanics look.
posted by azpenguin at 10:05 AM on January 25, 2016
Most cars have a computer port that does a diagnostic evaluation. It's where the mechanics start with evaluating.
I'm sorry, but this is clearly a long way outside your knowledge base. It is not a 'diagnostic port' and 'most vehicles' have nothing at all of the sort. It is essentially (especially in such an old car) a list of logged specific conditions outside parameters. If those specific conditions do not occur to log a fault, there is zero information in there. Usually these logged fault codes are incredibly vague and the lack of presence of a code does not at all preclude a fault in the future. It is not even close to as powerful as you are implying and please stop insisting that it is some magical examination device.
posted by Brockles at 10:33 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, but this is clearly a long way outside your knowledge base. It is not a 'diagnostic port' and 'most vehicles' have nothing at all of the sort. It is essentially (especially in such an old car) a list of logged specific conditions outside parameters. If those specific conditions do not occur to log a fault, there is zero information in there. Usually these logged fault codes are incredibly vague and the lack of presence of a code does not at all preclude a fault in the future. It is not even close to as powerful as you are implying and please stop insisting that it is some magical examination device.
posted by Brockles at 10:33 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Keep the Camry. It's much more of a known quantity for you.
posted by Gray Skies at 11:07 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Gray Skies at 11:07 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: A bunch of great arguments. Thank you.
posted by CollectiveMind at 11:36 AM on January 25, 2016
posted by CollectiveMind at 11:36 AM on January 25, 2016
CollectiveMind: " I've had to fix an oxygen sensor, the ball joints and battery wiring along with replacing tires."
These are just maintenance items you should expect to perform on any car over the course of four years. Your new Accord is probably immediately going to need tires at a bare minimum (check the date code and replace if more than 10 years old).
Depending on whether they have been keeping up with maintenance it'll probably need complete fluid changes. And it's likely to need a new battery if it hasn't had one in the last couple years. Also timing belt if an interference engine (it's a 7 year interval).
IMO there isn't really much in the way of difference between these two cars. Both have essentially fully depreciated and unless you plan to put more than 200K miles on either of these cars the difference in mileage is essentially meaningless. So really the it comes down to whether you like driving the Honda more than the Toyota. And whether you like it $1500 more.
posted by Mitheral at 3:41 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
These are just maintenance items you should expect to perform on any car over the course of four years. Your new Accord is probably immediately going to need tires at a bare minimum (check the date code and replace if more than 10 years old).
Depending on whether they have been keeping up with maintenance it'll probably need complete fluid changes. And it's likely to need a new battery if it hasn't had one in the last couple years. Also timing belt if an interference engine (it's a 7 year interval).
IMO there isn't really much in the way of difference between these two cars. Both have essentially fully depreciated and unless you plan to put more than 200K miles on either of these cars the difference in mileage is essentially meaningless. So really the it comes down to whether you like driving the Honda more than the Toyota. And whether you like it $1500 more.
posted by Mitheral at 3:41 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's another vote for not switching. If the other car is a downgrade from what you're used to, then it feels like you're going through a lot of hassle and expense to get something that you like less for the idea that the low mileage will mean that it keeps going for longer, which you have no real guarantee of. Maintenance costs are likely to be pretty similar between the two cars and $2k of maintenance over 4 years is not an unheard-of average for a car like this. And, as others have noted, the Honda is likely to need this same sort of maintenance at some point as well, so it seems unlikely that you'll end up coming out ahead.
posted by Aleyn at 6:14 PM on January 25, 2016
posted by Aleyn at 6:14 PM on January 25, 2016
I have a '99 Camry with ~120K miles and if presented with your dilemma, I probably would not switch. The biggest if silliest reason is that I like my Camry. It's been in the family for a while so I know its provenance -- it's gotten repairs and regular maintenance. A little-old-lady Civic is tempting but it too is over 15 years old, so I'd consider it a wash as far as reliability is concerned.
posted by Standard Orange at 12:32 AM on January 26, 2016
posted by Standard Orange at 12:32 AM on January 26, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
It's only financially smart to make a switch like this if your old car no longer meets your needs, or you have an opportunity to sell your old car at an unusually high price that would more than make up for the transaction costs, or you have an opportunity to buy the replacement at a price low enough to more than make up for the transaction costs, i.e. it's a fantastic deal. In this case, at $3500, it sounds like your relative is trying to get top dollar out of her 15-year-old Civic. Even with the low mileage.
Maybe there's more to the story with your Camry, but an 02 sensor, tires, battery cable and ball joints do not constitute a ridiculous amount of work on a car with 117-140K miles on it, 11-16 years old. Neither is $2K an awful 4-year maintenance bill on an older car with some miles on it. If the Camry has been more expensive than you expected, maybe it's that you overpaid a bit for it in the first place? If so, buying another car now won't fix that.
posted by jon1270 at 2:47 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]