Pros & cons of replacing an older automobile engine vs remanufacturing
January 26, 2016 1:03 PM Subscribe
If I'm going to fix an older car with a broken engine, what are the pros and cons of (a) trying to get replacement engine vs (b) having the engine remanufactured?
I have a 97 Geo Prizm that I badly damaged by overheating almost 5 years ago. At the time I didn't have the resources for a complete engine overhaul, and the easiest thing to do with it was park it, so it's been largely parked since. It's past time to decide what to do with it next. I figure my options are:
(1) Junk it. Easiest way to get it off my hands. It was an otherwise good if aging car when I broke it, though, so this trespasses somewhat on my non-throwaway ethic of keeping viably useful things in use rather than turning them to waste prematurely.
(2) Sell it quite cheaply to someone else who may want to fix it. Second easiest way to get it off my hands, presumably into the hands of someone else who would find it useful.
(3) Have it fixed. Probably by either:
(a) getting a replacement engine. I've had good luck in the past with a Japanese Engine that gave an older Nissan an extra five good years of life, and I figure since Prizms are rebadged Corollas, they're probably available. On the other hand, I'm sure this can go wrong in one way or another, and I'm also a little uncertain how a foreign engine might play with California Emission standards.
(b) having the engine rebuilt or remanufactured. I don't have any experience with this. The rebuilds I've seen on the cars of acquaintance seem like they've ended up being band-aids that didn't yield a reliable vehicle. Remanufacturing seems like a more thorough process, but again, one I don't have any personal or observed experience with.
Before I pick one of these options, I'd like to better understand the pros and cons of 3 (a) & (b).
I'd love to hear from anyone who either has significant experience doing auto work, or who's made these choices (or seen other people make them).
I have a 97 Geo Prizm that I badly damaged by overheating almost 5 years ago. At the time I didn't have the resources for a complete engine overhaul, and the easiest thing to do with it was park it, so it's been largely parked since. It's past time to decide what to do with it next. I figure my options are:
(1) Junk it. Easiest way to get it off my hands. It was an otherwise good if aging car when I broke it, though, so this trespasses somewhat on my non-throwaway ethic of keeping viably useful things in use rather than turning them to waste prematurely.
(2) Sell it quite cheaply to someone else who may want to fix it. Second easiest way to get it off my hands, presumably into the hands of someone else who would find it useful.
(3) Have it fixed. Probably by either:
(a) getting a replacement engine. I've had good luck in the past with a Japanese Engine that gave an older Nissan an extra five good years of life, and I figure since Prizms are rebadged Corollas, they're probably available. On the other hand, I'm sure this can go wrong in one way or another, and I'm also a little uncertain how a foreign engine might play with California Emission standards.
(b) having the engine rebuilt or remanufactured. I don't have any experience with this. The rebuilds I've seen on the cars of acquaintance seem like they've ended up being band-aids that didn't yield a reliable vehicle. Remanufacturing seems like a more thorough process, but again, one I don't have any personal or observed experience with.
Before I pick one of these options, I'd like to better understand the pros and cons of 3 (a) & (b).
I'd love to hear from anyone who either has significant experience doing auto work, or who's made these choices (or seen other people make them).
This car, in damn near perfect shape only Blue Books out at like $1200 bucks. The labor alone on installing a new engine (let alone the purchase of either engine in either scenario A or B) is going to be triple that.
I mean, if you're an eccentric who really loves those '97 Prisms….I guess thats cool if its your jam. But you're staring down a bill that's going to be closer to $7-9k if you're farming the work out to a shop. For what you're looking to do, even if you are a Prism loving eccentric, you could just go pick up 3 of them for the same price tag you're lookin at.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:27 PM on January 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, if you're an eccentric who really loves those '97 Prisms….I guess thats cool if its your jam. But you're staring down a bill that's going to be closer to $7-9k if you're farming the work out to a shop. For what you're looking to do, even if you are a Prism loving eccentric, you could just go pick up 3 of them for the same price tag you're lookin at.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:27 PM on January 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
No way is it worth replacing the engine in a 97 Prizm.
posted by LoveHam at 1:30 PM on January 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by LoveHam at 1:30 PM on January 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
A '97 Geo? With a toasted engine?
Junk it.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:33 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Junk it.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:33 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mostly agree with the folks who say its not worth getting the car running again. And I agree with you that a major rebuild is a risk, especially in a general purpose fixit shop. If you can find a company that has a rebuilt engine ready to sell you, and who wants your old engine to rebuild for the next guy, its probably going to work OK, but I doubt your engine is of a model any company like that is going to be interested in.
posted by SemiSalt at 1:42 PM on January 26, 2016
posted by SemiSalt at 1:42 PM on January 26, 2016
But you're staring down a bill that's going to be closer to $7-9k if you're farming the work out to a shop.
Just to throw a little water on that idea - a junk engine is likely to be around between $800 and $1000 (delivered, with a 1 year warranty) according to a few sites. It would be at the very most 2 days work (assuming some complications) at a shop to swap it out, which would be an absolute maximum bill of $1600 in labour even if you went to an expensive shop. At a local garage and if it goes well I think you'd be able to get the engine installed for less than $1K if it was a direct exchange, as it is not at all a difficult job.
So between $2K and $3k is a more realistic number with the work done at a (non-dealer, independent) shop. If you do the work yourself, you're just looking at maybe $1K for the engine and consumables if you shop around.
However, even at at the best case $1K its still a waste of money.
posted by Brockles at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to throw a little water on that idea - a junk engine is likely to be around between $800 and $1000 (delivered, with a 1 year warranty) according to a few sites. It would be at the very most 2 days work (assuming some complications) at a shop to swap it out, which would be an absolute maximum bill of $1600 in labour even if you went to an expensive shop. At a local garage and if it goes well I think you'd be able to get the engine installed for less than $1K if it was a direct exchange, as it is not at all a difficult job.
So between $2K and $3k is a more realistic number with the work done at a (non-dealer, independent) shop. If you do the work yourself, you're just looking at maybe $1K for the engine and consumables if you shop around.
However, even at at the best case $1K its still a waste of money.
posted by Brockles at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
After a cursory look at prices online, it looks like a Toyota 4A-FE (which was the standard engine) will set you back over $600 just for the engine. This amount of money, before you consider labor, extra parts, etc., will buy you a terrible car that will be better than a 1997 Geo Prizm that's been sitting in one place for five years.
posted by General Malaise at 1:45 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by General Malaise at 1:45 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Anecdata of one, I had a remanufactured engine put in a camry, and it was nowhere near as good as the original engine. Oil leaks galore, missing parts, etc. Having the engine replaced also caused some issues with wiring, losing tach, speedo & the auto transmission going into limp(2nd) at speed sucked. Should have just junked the car, would have been cheaper and less frustration.
Plus as has been said, its a 97 geo. Junk it.
posted by TheAdamist at 1:45 PM on January 26, 2016
Plus as has been said, its a 97 geo. Junk it.
posted by TheAdamist at 1:45 PM on January 26, 2016
Around here we can buy pick your own part engines for a couple hundred bucks. So while it isn't worth paying someone to change out an engine someone with more time than money might find it worth while. Re-manufacturing this engine isn't worth it (cost exceeds value of car just for the rebuild) unless the car has sentimental value exceeding the cost of just buying a new to you Geo in working order.
So 2 or 3a depending on whether you want to do the work yourself or not. Changing an engine isn't all that hard if you have the tools; mostly a matter of acting methodically. Knowing nothing about your particular model it's the kind of thing that is routinely done over the course of weekend. Used engine cost, oil, coolant, filters, plugs, maybe a clutch and a case of beer and you are good to go. (And you get to practice taking the new one out of the junk yard car).
Reliability wise a used engine is pretty well as reliable as the miles on it. Everything else being equal if you get one with less miles than your car it should be more reliable than your car was before you blew it up.
posted by Mitheral at 1:47 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
So 2 or 3a depending on whether you want to do the work yourself or not. Changing an engine isn't all that hard if you have the tools; mostly a matter of acting methodically. Knowing nothing about your particular model it's the kind of thing that is routinely done over the course of weekend. Used engine cost, oil, coolant, filters, plugs, maybe a clutch and a case of beer and you are good to go. (And you get to practice taking the new one out of the junk yard car).
Reliability wise a used engine is pretty well as reliable as the miles on it. Everything else being equal if you get one with less miles than your car it should be more reliable than your car was before you blew it up.
posted by Mitheral at 1:47 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Everything else being equal if you get one with less miles than your car it should be more reliable than your car was before you blew it up.
But this thing has been sitting fro five years. The gas tank needs to be flushed, the brakes checked and likely serviced, the tires changed, new battery, and who knows what else.
Even if somehow none of that were necessary it still wouldn't be worth the trouble.
If it makes you feel any better about junking the thing, it'll probably sit in a junkyard for a while, possibly supplying someone with a windshield wiper motor or something before getting cubed and melted down somewhere.
posted by cmoj at 2:01 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
But this thing has been sitting fro five years. The gas tank needs to be flushed, the brakes checked and likely serviced, the tires changed, new battery, and who knows what else.
Even if somehow none of that were necessary it still wouldn't be worth the trouble.
If it makes you feel any better about junking the thing, it'll probably sit in a junkyard for a while, possibly supplying someone with a windshield wiper motor or something before getting cubed and melted down somewhere.
posted by cmoj at 2:01 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
The labor alone on installing a new engine (let alone the purchase of either engine in either scenario A or B) is going to be triple that.
This isn't really the comparison to make. It's not about the cost of repairs vs. value of the car, it's about the cost of repairs vs. replacing the car.
The car is basically worthless, even if it was running. What you really want to look at is how much it will cost you to buy something comparable that will meet your needs.
The nice thing about replacing the engine with a newer one is that the engine will now be pretty reliable. So if doing that costs $2,500 but it would cost $3,000 to replace the car outright, it's cheaper to just fix it. The thing that throws a wrench in the works is that I have a LOT of doubts about that car's transmission. It's one thing to spend $2,500 fixing a car and making it reliable, it's another to do that so that you'll be able to uncover other major components that need to be repaired. Sitting around without getting driven is really hard on cars and this one has sat around for a LONG time and it wasn't a very good car to begin with. Even if the transmission and electrical systems still work just fine, there are a bunch of other components and other work that needs to be done to get it running.
If you can, get an estimate on the cost of repairs. I'll bet you can find a good used car for less than that. Take heart in the fact that if there is anything to be reused on that car, someone will use reuse it or recycle it.
posted by VTX at 2:12 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
This isn't really the comparison to make. It's not about the cost of repairs vs. value of the car, it's about the cost of repairs vs. replacing the car.
The car is basically worthless, even if it was running. What you really want to look at is how much it will cost you to buy something comparable that will meet your needs.
The nice thing about replacing the engine with a newer one is that the engine will now be pretty reliable. So if doing that costs $2,500 but it would cost $3,000 to replace the car outright, it's cheaper to just fix it. The thing that throws a wrench in the works is that I have a LOT of doubts about that car's transmission. It's one thing to spend $2,500 fixing a car and making it reliable, it's another to do that so that you'll be able to uncover other major components that need to be repaired. Sitting around without getting driven is really hard on cars and this one has sat around for a LONG time and it wasn't a very good car to begin with. Even if the transmission and electrical systems still work just fine, there are a bunch of other components and other work that needs to be done to get it running.
If you can, get an estimate on the cost of repairs. I'll bet you can find a good used car for less than that. Take heart in the fact that if there is anything to be reused on that car, someone will use reuse it or recycle it.
posted by VTX at 2:12 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
My cousin has a thing for Geo Prizm Convertibles. You might get $2 for it on Craigslist.
It's not worth the space it's taking up inbyour life. Junk it and take yourself out for a burrito with what you get for it.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 2:27 PM on January 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not worth the space it's taking up inbyour life. Junk it and take yourself out for a burrito with what you get for it.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 2:27 PM on January 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
The gas tank needs to be flushed, the brakes checked and likely serviced, the tires changed, new battery, and who knows what else.
That's a good point. The engine replacement cost (to my mind) makes this nonsensical from an economic perspective on its own. But equally (and in addition) the cost of making that car safe trumps any point in trying to make it run. A car that sat for 5 years needs 4 tyres. Without question. Even if they were new when it was parked. It needs a brake fluid flush, no question. The battery is almost certainly toast (again, even if it were new when it was parked).
So even ignoring the engine issue for a second, a car that has sat for 5 years will need $500 for tyres, maybe $40 in brake fluid (plus labour), $100 for a battery, windscreen wipers etc so you're nearly at $700-750 before you even start on the engine. And THAT is more than the car is worth.
Honestly, just forget it.
posted by Brockles at 2:40 PM on January 26, 2016
That's a good point. The engine replacement cost (to my mind) makes this nonsensical from an economic perspective on its own. But equally (and in addition) the cost of making that car safe trumps any point in trying to make it run. A car that sat for 5 years needs 4 tyres. Without question. Even if they were new when it was parked. It needs a brake fluid flush, no question. The battery is almost certainly toast (again, even if it were new when it was parked).
So even ignoring the engine issue for a second, a car that has sat for 5 years will need $500 for tyres, maybe $40 in brake fluid (plus labour), $100 for a battery, windscreen wipers etc so you're nearly at $700-750 before you even start on the engine. And THAT is more than the car is worth.
Honestly, just forget it.
posted by Brockles at 2:40 PM on January 26, 2016
If it's been sitting for five years, it's junk at this point. There's no way it's worth the cost to get it running properly, AND the cost to replace the engine. Post it on Craigslist for $500 and take the highest offer.
posted by Slinga at 2:49 PM on January 26, 2016
posted by Slinga at 2:49 PM on January 26, 2016
Response by poster: So between $2K and $3k is a more realistic number with the work done at a (non-dealer, independent) shop.
This is in line with a few estimates I've been able to line up, most under $2500. That's still well above blue-book or market value for similar used cars I've priced out, of course.
From at point of view that's purely about economic optimization, junk (or sell, if possible) makes the most sense.
Perhaps I should have added a related part to this question that's shaping some of my value judgments:
I'm given to understand that the best thing one can do as far as the environmental impact of a car goes is to keep using it as long as it meets emissions standards (CA emissions standards, in this case) and has reasonably economical gas mileage, as the impact of junking and the demand leading to the manufacture of a newer vehicle are greater than the reduced impact of a hybrid/EV/whatever.
If I were buying a new vehicle, I'd be willing to spend an extra margin (certainly a four figure margin in every case I've looked at) if I had a reasonable belief it'd be a lower impact, so it'd seem consistent to be willing to do the same here. Assuming it's possible it'll get me a working vehicle for a reasonable amount of time, anyway -- I might be willing to make economically sub-optimal decisions or do inconvenient things to lower impact, but I'm not willing to pay the price AND get no utility out of it.
That's mostly why I'm asking the question about what the likely outcomes of a used engine vs remanufactured engine are.
If the working assumption that keeping the car on the road is a lower impact decision than junking it is false (or even iffy), I'd be interested to know that.
posted by wildblueyonder at 3:10 PM on January 26, 2016
This is in line with a few estimates I've been able to line up, most under $2500. That's still well above blue-book or market value for similar used cars I've priced out, of course.
From at point of view that's purely about economic optimization, junk (or sell, if possible) makes the most sense.
Perhaps I should have added a related part to this question that's shaping some of my value judgments:
I'm given to understand that the best thing one can do as far as the environmental impact of a car goes is to keep using it as long as it meets emissions standards (CA emissions standards, in this case) and has reasonably economical gas mileage, as the impact of junking and the demand leading to the manufacture of a newer vehicle are greater than the reduced impact of a hybrid/EV/whatever.
If I were buying a new vehicle, I'd be willing to spend an extra margin (certainly a four figure margin in every case I've looked at) if I had a reasonable belief it'd be a lower impact, so it'd seem consistent to be willing to do the same here. Assuming it's possible it'll get me a working vehicle for a reasonable amount of time, anyway -- I might be willing to make economically sub-optimal decisions or do inconvenient things to lower impact, but I'm not willing to pay the price AND get no utility out of it.
That's mostly why I'm asking the question about what the likely outcomes of a used engine vs remanufactured engine are.
If the working assumption that keeping the car on the road is a lower impact decision than junking it is false (or even iffy), I'd be interested to know that.
posted by wildblueyonder at 3:10 PM on January 26, 2016
There is no scenario where this makes environmental sense. You're going to be replacing nearly half of the parts on the damn thing as it is, they're going to end up exactly the same place the car would end up if you sold it to a junk yard for scrap metal.
Just, no. You're taking this WAY too far.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 3:15 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just, no. You're taking this WAY too far.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 3:15 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the working assumption that keeping the car on the road is a lower impact decision than junking it is false (or even iffy)
From an environmental perspective, the impact of your decision is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable. Individual decisions simply don't make a difference; population-level ones do.
posted by asterix at 3:34 PM on January 26, 2016
From an environmental perspective, the impact of your decision is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable. Individual decisions simply don't make a difference; population-level ones do.
posted by asterix at 3:34 PM on January 26, 2016
I'm given to understand that the best thing one can do as far as the environmental impact of a car goes is to keep using it as long as it meets emissions standards (CA emissions standards, in this case) and has reasonably economical gas mileage, as the impact of junking and the demand leading to the manufacture of a newer vehicle are greater than the reduced impact of a hybrid/EV/whatever.
But this is a collective thing. Your car doesn't work any more - it is beyond sensible repair. But maybe by you putting it in a breaker's yard can mean parts take off it keeps 3 more cars on the road for two more years so the collective benefit is greater than you burning thousands of dollars with a crappy car.
Your $3K investment into this car will likely get you a car that does better fuel mileage than your current one could anyway. So the net positive is still better to get rid of it.
posted by Brockles at 3:49 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
But this is a collective thing. Your car doesn't work any more - it is beyond sensible repair. But maybe by you putting it in a breaker's yard can mean parts take off it keeps 3 more cars on the road for two more years so the collective benefit is greater than you burning thousands of dollars with a crappy car.
Your $3K investment into this car will likely get you a car that does better fuel mileage than your current one could anyway. So the net positive is still better to get rid of it.
posted by Brockles at 3:49 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd suggest putting something really silly in, like an Evinrude engine, and running it in the 24 Hours of Lemons.
posted by eriko at 4:05 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by eriko at 4:05 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
If it costs you 2500 dollars to get this running you're better off buying five 500 cars and scraping them whenever they need a repair. This is, literally like trying to put a new engine in a 20 year old Geo that has sat for a quarter of that time. How much it is worth is a function of how much change is in the ashtray. It's junk.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:06 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:06 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the point is that if you really want a 97 Geo Prizm you’d be better off junking this one so someone else can use the parts and buying someone else’s 97 Geo Prizm. It’s not about the feasibility of replacing the engine, it’s about the fact that it’s been sitting for 5 years.
That said, if you really love the car then fix it up, knowing that it may not make financial sense, there are dumber things you could do. People seem to love them. Talk to a few mechanics. I believe this car was built at the NUMI plant, the subject of a This American Life episode.
posted by bongo_x at 5:24 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
That said, if you really love the car then fix it up, knowing that it may not make financial sense, there are dumber things you could do. People seem to love them. Talk to a few mechanics. I believe this car was built at the NUMI plant, the subject of a This American Life episode.
posted by bongo_x at 5:24 PM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I understand the economics or lack thereof for replacing the engine. What I don't understand is the idea that a car somehow deteriorates any more if it has been sitting for five years compared to being driven a few times a week for five years. Both cars spend at least 95% of their time just sitting.
posted by JackFlash at 5:40 PM on January 26, 2016
posted by JackFlash at 5:40 PM on January 26, 2016
I'm given to understand that the best thing one can do as far as the environmental impact of a car goes is to keep using it as long as it meets emissions standards (CA emissions standards, in this case) and has reasonably economical gas mileage, as the impact of junking and the demand leading to the manufacture of a newer vehicle are greater than the reduced impact of a hybrid/EV/whatever.
That's a very general statement that may or may not be true in specific cases. I would roughly calculate that, depending how much you drive, you would break even for energy if you replaced this car with a Prius c in about four years. So, for carbon, keeping this car running is not the environmental choice. If you want to provide details (how much you drive each year, what kind of car you would replace this with), I'd be happy to run some numbers.
For other emissions, while your car may meet standards, it will still pollute much more than a newer vehicle - by an order of magnitude, at least.
Bear in mind also that cars have finite lifetimes and this car, even with a new engine is probably only going to last a few years, while a new car will last a decade or more. You are, at best, delaying the purchase of a new car for a while. If you prefer to buy used, you can buy all kinds of used cars that will be much better environmentally than this one.
I think the clear environmental choice is not to waste any more resources on this vehicle.
posted by ssg at 7:41 PM on January 26, 2016
That's a very general statement that may or may not be true in specific cases. I would roughly calculate that, depending how much you drive, you would break even for energy if you replaced this car with a Prius c in about four years. So, for carbon, keeping this car running is not the environmental choice. If you want to provide details (how much you drive each year, what kind of car you would replace this with), I'd be happy to run some numbers.
For other emissions, while your car may meet standards, it will still pollute much more than a newer vehicle - by an order of magnitude, at least.
Bear in mind also that cars have finite lifetimes and this car, even with a new engine is probably only going to last a few years, while a new car will last a decade or more. You are, at best, delaying the purchase of a new car for a while. If you prefer to buy used, you can buy all kinds of used cars that will be much better environmentally than this one.
I think the clear environmental choice is not to waste any more resources on this vehicle.
posted by ssg at 7:41 PM on January 26, 2016
What I don't understand is the idea that a car somehow deteriorates any more if it has been sitting for five years compared to being driven a few times a week for five years.
Although inactive cars demonstrably DO deteriorate much more being inactive (no-one is checking tyre pressures, fluids are not being warmed and circulated, regular maintenance is not being performed etc, fluids are stagnating in lines and components) no-one is actually saying that. They are only saying here that in a 5 year span, batteries, tyres and brake fluid are beyond their service life. So they need to be replaced BEFORE any additional deterioration from sitting (rust on brake discs, dry rot on rubber hoses etc) is considered.
Using a car - even once a week - and warming it through and blowing air over it and drying it out (including moisture in engines and transmissions needing to be evaporated out by warming the oil and casings) is a much better way of keeping a vehicle in good condition. I'm kind of staggered that it isn't generally recognised that prolonged inactivity is bad for vehicles is even being questioned considering the mountain of evidence in every day life to support it.
posted by Brockles at 8:01 PM on January 26, 2016
Although inactive cars demonstrably DO deteriorate much more being inactive (no-one is checking tyre pressures, fluids are not being warmed and circulated, regular maintenance is not being performed etc, fluids are stagnating in lines and components) no-one is actually saying that. They are only saying here that in a 5 year span, batteries, tyres and brake fluid are beyond their service life. So they need to be replaced BEFORE any additional deterioration from sitting (rust on brake discs, dry rot on rubber hoses etc) is considered.
Using a car - even once a week - and warming it through and blowing air over it and drying it out (including moisture in engines and transmissions needing to be evaporated out by warming the oil and casings) is a much better way of keeping a vehicle in good condition. I'm kind of staggered that it isn't generally recognised that prolonged inactivity is bad for vehicles is even being questioned considering the mountain of evidence in every day life to support it.
posted by Brockles at 8:01 PM on January 26, 2016
I'm kind of staggered that it isn't generally recognised that prolonged inactivity is bad for vehicles is even being questioned considering the mountain of evidence in every day life to support it.
I've seen no such evidence in my experience. Sounds like one of those old wives tales. There is no such thing as "stagnating fluids" or fluids that need to be warmed or other nonsense. Maybe the battery needs to be replaced but that is true for any car of that age. I've taken apart motors that have sat in a junk yard in the rain, pulled the heads and the cylinders and rings are like new. There is little difference between a car sitting for 5 years and being driven for 5 years. As I pointed out both cars are sitting for more than 95% of the time. The car that is started frequently and does short commuter runs is going to be in worse shape than one that sits.
posted by JackFlash at 8:23 PM on January 26, 2016
I've seen no such evidence in my experience. Sounds like one of those old wives tales. There is no such thing as "stagnating fluids" or fluids that need to be warmed or other nonsense. Maybe the battery needs to be replaced but that is true for any car of that age. I've taken apart motors that have sat in a junk yard in the rain, pulled the heads and the cylinders and rings are like new. There is little difference between a car sitting for 5 years and being driven for 5 years. As I pointed out both cars are sitting for more than 95% of the time. The car that is started frequently and does short commuter runs is going to be in worse shape than one that sits.
posted by JackFlash at 8:23 PM on January 26, 2016
Engine oil and gasoline are both hydroscopic. The worst thing to do to a car is drive it one mile once a week. That's why the "little old lady only drove it to
church" is most certainly a bad car. The acids that build up in the engine if you don't drive it enough to boil the water off will wreck it.
posted by eriko at 8:25 PM on January 26, 2016
church" is most certainly a bad car. The acids that build up in the engine if you don't drive it enough to boil the water off will wreck it.
posted by eriko at 8:25 PM on January 26, 2016
There is no such thing as "stagnating fluids" or fluids that need to be warmed or other nonsense.
So you think there is no difference between a metal surface that has drained of all oil and sat exposed for many years and one that is splashed with a (warm and hence devoid of water) oil film once a week? Exposed metal rusts at the same rate as metal that is regularly coated with oil?
Not to mention dry rot of rubber components from inactivity.
Sure. It's an old wive's tale. Whatever you say.
posted by Brockles at 8:41 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
So you think there is no difference between a metal surface that has drained of all oil and sat exposed for many years and one that is splashed with a (warm and hence devoid of water) oil film once a week? Exposed metal rusts at the same rate as metal that is regularly coated with oil?
Not to mention dry rot of rubber components from inactivity.
Sure. It's an old wive's tale. Whatever you say.
posted by Brockles at 8:41 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Engine oil and gasoline are both hydroscopic. The worst thing to do to a car is drive it one mile once a week. That's why the "little old lady only drove it to
church" is most certainly a bad car. The acids that build up in the engine if you don't drive it enough to boil the water off will wreck it.
Oil and gas aren't truly hygroscopic, that is they don't absorb moisture out of the air (although ethanol can). But the oil can receive water condensation products from combustion. That is why short trips, as you say, can be a problem if the engine doesn't get warm enough to remove them. But if you get a car good and warm and then shut it down for a few years it should be fine. It's not going to accumulation water not running. Better than starting it up once a week.
posted by JackFlash at 8:56 PM on January 26, 2016
church" is most certainly a bad car. The acids that build up in the engine if you don't drive it enough to boil the water off will wreck it.
Oil and gas aren't truly hygroscopic, that is they don't absorb moisture out of the air (although ethanol can). But the oil can receive water condensation products from combustion. That is why short trips, as you say, can be a problem if the engine doesn't get warm enough to remove them. But if you get a car good and warm and then shut it down for a few years it should be fine. It's not going to accumulation water not running. Better than starting it up once a week.
posted by JackFlash at 8:56 PM on January 26, 2016
I would bet you nearly anything that even if you swap out the engine, this car is going to be breaking down every week or two FOREVER with some dumb electrical or mechanical problem. Seriously, i've owned a repaired previously-sitting car like this TWICE.(never had to swap the engine, but other issues kept it sitting both times)
Buying a used car is as environmentally neutral as junking this car. My friend drives a corolla like this, and we've gone to junkyards to get parts for it before!
$3000 is the bottom end of what gets you a decent car nowadays depending on your location. Call a couple reputable local repair shops and ask them if they have(or know of) any cars for sale. Troll craigslist, etc.
A running, checked out car will be infinitely better than dropping 3 grand into this thing. I would bet essentially anything that it would NEVER be reliable. The engine itself might be, but it's always going to be that car that randomly takes 10 seconds to shift up, or that the windshield wipers cut out on, or the dash lights only work half the time, etc. And the one that randomly wont start when it's warm and the wheels been turned to the right too long, or other nonsensical shit. This is the kind of car you'll drive for a month and half the exhaust system will fall off.(it's happened to me AND a friend, both with sitting cars)
You want to buy something exactly like this persons camry.
Also, you need to set yourself free from the idea that junking a car is "waste". LOTS of people out there who don't have much money drive cars like this. And cheap parts keep them running and not only keep them from getting scrapped but keep those people employed. Supplying good parts for an in-demand common car like this is a net environmental and moral good.
posted by emptythought at 11:14 PM on January 26, 2016
Buying a used car is as environmentally neutral as junking this car. My friend drives a corolla like this, and we've gone to junkyards to get parts for it before!
$3000 is the bottom end of what gets you a decent car nowadays depending on your location. Call a couple reputable local repair shops and ask them if they have(or know of) any cars for sale. Troll craigslist, etc.
A running, checked out car will be infinitely better than dropping 3 grand into this thing. I would bet essentially anything that it would NEVER be reliable. The engine itself might be, but it's always going to be that car that randomly takes 10 seconds to shift up, or that the windshield wipers cut out on, or the dash lights only work half the time, etc. And the one that randomly wont start when it's warm and the wheels been turned to the right too long, or other nonsensical shit. This is the kind of car you'll drive for a month and half the exhaust system will fall off.(it's happened to me AND a friend, both with sitting cars)
You want to buy something exactly like this persons camry.
Also, you need to set yourself free from the idea that junking a car is "waste". LOTS of people out there who don't have much money drive cars like this. And cheap parts keep them running and not only keep them from getting scrapped but keep those people employed. Supplying good parts for an in-demand common car like this is a net environmental and moral good.
posted by emptythought at 11:14 PM on January 26, 2016
« Older Why do revolutionaries become dictators? (and... | Emergency/EoL Digital Asset Planning Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
3(a) is the only really viable option of the two engine replacement options. It is a very old car (especially considering the quality of it even when new) and is absolutely not worth any more than the bare minimum being spent on it to make it run. I would get a similar engine from a 'pick and pull' or secondhand/junkyard engine place and go with that.
HOWEVER. The most you will get from a car that has sat for 5 years is a dirt cheap beater of dubious quality. Lots of things can have rotted or weakened or otherwise seized up in that time, so it won't necessarily run as well as it did when you parked it. Also, it won't make the car worth any more than its resale (which is likely a few hundred bucks) so any money you put into it needs to be closely balanced against just buying something newer or better (or just junking it).
Because it is an old and cheap car, putting a nice expensive remanufactured engine in it is a waste of money, because while it is a better engine option, the car won't last long enough to make the most of it and it just means everything else is so much poorer in condition than the engine. You won't get to see the additional investment in additional value, essentially.
My suggestion would be to sell it on Craigslist as a project.
posted by Brockles at 1:14 PM on January 26, 2016 [5 favorites]