Last post on Dec 08, 2013 at 7:13 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Malibu, Nissan Maxima, Mazda MAZDA3, Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Hyundai Elantra, Lexus IS 250, Acura TSX, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#3444 of 3640 Re: Used Civic 36k miles and 66K miles [acemanhattan]
Aug 22, 2013 (7:54 am)
I still suggest new over used.
Low miles won't always assure low repair costs. Time does things to a car too, and sometimes only short city trips (which is what low mile cars like this must be) can cause their own issues.
Of the two, however, I'd probably suggest the Accord. The Civics of that era are rather flimsy. The Accord is a different class of vehicle and more solidly built.
As much as I love my Hondas, I think it's possible you might be buying too much into the idea that "a Honda will last almost forever." Hondas age better than most cars, and generally last longer, but they still age and require $$ when they get old.
Hondas back in those days often didn't have anti lock brakes, no side air bags, and Honda's acclaimed Advanced Compatibility Engineering hadn't even been thought of yet, and wouldn't be for about 10 years. Engine tech has also advanced a lot since the mid to late 1990s.
If you're fixed on used, I think you'd be better off with a one-owner Hyundai Sonata from c. 2007 for about the same money. Paying that much money for cars that are that old doesn't make a lot of sense imho. You might luck out, but you might not and could be facing some major issues in the next 5 years.
#3445 of 3640 Re: Used Civic 36k miles and 66K miles [acemanhattan]
by Kirstie@Edmunds HOST
Aug 22, 2013 (7:36 am)
You can post links - as long as you're not posting links to sell something to our members, it's fine.
#3446 of 3640 Re: Used Civic 36k miles and 66K miles [benjaminh]
Aug 22, 2013 (9:19 am)
#3447 of 3640 Re: Used Civic 36k miles and 66K miles [acemanhattan]
Aug 22, 2013 (9:40 am)
I wouldn't pay nearly $7k for a 15 year old econobox no matter what badge is on it.
Low miles is not necessarily a good thing. If the odometer is accurate, the car was driven only 200 miles per month. That indicates to me mostly short, infrequent trips--can be hard on an engine, worse than highway driving. Also with a Civic of this age, rust can be an issue--be sure to have the underbody checked.
Aug 22, 2013 (9:46 am)
When you are referring to a Hyundai at about the same price, you are referring to a private party seller, correct? The lowest I'm finding an 07 for at a dealership is $12,500.
#3449 of 3640 Re: Hyundai Sonata [acemanhattan]
Aug 22, 2013 (10:17 am)
I was thinking private party. But it was just a guess. And probably I had an overly optimistic idea of how low a price you might find on a 2007 Sonata. Sorry about that.
Here's another thing to factor in: how much do you think you'll drive each year? If you drive the average amount (12-15k a year) a car with good mpg (say 30 or higher epa combined mpg) might save you as much as $500 compared to a car with "average" mpg (say 23 mpg). This is another argument for a newer car with a higher tech engine and transmission.
Believe it or not, a new 2013 Accord gets about the same mpg as a 2003 Civic. Or, compared to a 2003 Accord a 2013 Accord you can save about $500 a year on gas.
Just to make it more complicated to think about!
PS That 12,500 at the dealership is the asking price. You might be able to get a thousand or so off of that.
#3450 of 3640 1999 Civic vs 2003
Aug 22, 2013 (10:38 am)
A 1999 Civic is rated 27 combined mpg. Annual fuel cost is estimated by the epa to be $1950
A 2013 Civic is rated 32 combined mpg. Annual fuel cost $1650.
So a difference of $300 a year, which over a decade adds up to $3000.
The 1999 Civic sedan is 175 inches long and 67 inches wide.
A 2013 Civic is 179.5 inches long and 69 inches wide.
May not sound like much, but what this translates to is that the 2013 Civic is a roomier car inside and has a bigger trunk compared to the 1999. It also gets to 60 faster, which is sometimes nice when merging onto a freeway even when you're driving an economy car. The 2013 is also a much, much safer car than a 1999 Civic. Did you watch that crash video I posted?
In fact, a brand new Civic today is almost exactly the same size as an Accord back in 1986.
#3451 of 3640 Re: Used Civic 36k miles and 66K miles [acemanhattan]
Aug 22, 2013 (11:21 am)
I would make 2005 the cutoff date for buying used. You do realize that '96 is a 13 year old car. And if it really has that low miles, it means it has sat, A LOT. In the Portland climate, you are probably looking at a lot of interior wires and lines that will have to be replaced, among God knows what else.
2005 will get you standard ABS brakes, dual airbags, and other safety features that you don't want to be without. That means probably not a Honda, but you could be looking at other cars that are reliable but depreciate more. Hyundai Elantra, Pontiac Vibe, Buick Century are examples.
Buying a used car from a dealership is no different from buying new. You still have to negotiate a price. You can often get 1500 2000 off the asking price. And get it checked out from your own mechanic too first.
#3452 of 3640 Re: Used Civic 36k miles and 66K miles [suydam]
Aug 22, 2013 (11:25 am)
Math was never my strong suit. A 17 year old car.
#3453 of 3640 Re: 1999 Civic vs 2003 [benjaminh]
Aug 22, 2013 (11:44 am)
I just looked back through your posts and didn't find a crash link.