| Atticus Grinch |
09-18-2003 05:03 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Well for the first 3 years (in the case of piece of shit Jeeps) everything is under warranty. Thereafter it is not.
|
That increases somewhat the value you receive by paying for the steeper depreciation during that period, but it has no effect on the Magliozzi thesis that the annual cost of maintenance (whether you pay it or someone else does) remains pretty consistent over time.
This issue is irrelevant to the lease v. buy debate --- I just wanted to address the widespread myth that the cost of keeping a old car running is an upward slope. It's not. The general trend line is flat; I think the Magliozzis found the average was about $800/yr or something for repairs and maintenance. You might not have repairs one year, and get hit for $1,600 the next, but it stays a relatively flat line.
If you budget --- and bank --- that for each year you own the car, you will probably keep it running to 150,000 miles or much more. The point is to debunk the idea that a car reaches a critical juncture at which the annual cost goes above that average and that you're doing yourself some kind of financial favor for getting rid of the car ( i.e., "Dump it before it really starts costing you money.") All of this analysis occurs outside the warranty window.
I've heard the Magliozzis say on the radio that, cost aside, reliability is a legitimate reason to dump a car --- if you can't stand the risk of breaking down by the side of the road, you should bear the additional cost of always being early in a car's life cycle. But again, this doesn't require that repair costs jump in year 8 or 10 like most people think they do. The Magliozzis concluded that the supposed jump was something people tell themselves on the showroom floor to convince themselves to do something they want to do but don't need to do, i.e., buy a new car when the old one is still running.
|