Oops, can’t count. That’s 10 votes for “abandon ship.”
Make that 11 votes. Count me in.
In my experience, “drive it into the ground” status is usually achieved before the 20 year mark, and this car is almost 24 years old.
This is a no-brainer! Men are supposed to be rational, but in this case your husband’s affection for the convertible is outweighing common sense.
As others pointed out, you need to quantify all the needed work from a safety point of view as well as the other work needed to kep the car running. All this will be avery long list, and will prove that’s it’s plain stupid to keep the car.
Best yet, if you know anyone who is an industrial accountant, have him do a responsible evaluation what kind of a money pit you are in for if you keep the car.
Just driving it into the ground is limited by 1) personal safety, 2) government inspections, and 3) sound economics.
My sister is an accountant and she would tell you that you are past the “getting rid of” point.
I vote with those that say that assuming the decription is accurate it has already been run into the ground.
There’re also the safety concerns. A good chassis, steering, and braking system are all safety concerns, but so are all the advances in safety technology that have been instituted since '87, like airbags, four wheels discs, and better protection of the passengers through better crumple zone technology, just to name a few.
So why invest in the recent repaint?
- I have a 95 Ranger I am just waiting for death on, once it gets there, I’m donating it. I can’t image a 8 year older Ford, even a convertible.
Are four wheel disc brakes really a safety advance? I see rear disc brakes as more of a convenience to make the brakes easier to service.
Goldwing is a maybe, probably even a “fix it.” If the husband wants to drive it, I say let him fix it.
We bought it used, but my husband is in the Navy so a lot of the time it was parked outside in San Diego for months on end. We like the convertible, but this is starting to cost so money, I’m in grad school and don’t want to get stuck somewhere when he’s not around. But he said a new used car is too much when we can put money into this one. I just don’t see that, so that’s why I was asking opinions.
A happy wife is a “happy” wife. I run mine into the ground but then, I’ve been through 3 wives! My 68 vette, my 69 cadillac, my 73 jeep, my 89 suzuki and my 98 eclipse - all of them with nearly 200,000 miles each.
I think of them as an advance because they’re less prone to fading and cannot entrap water when driving through a puddle like a drum can.
I acknowledge that many vehicles still have drums in the rear, and in all honesty I cannot consider that a deficiency, but I still consider discs better.
Problem is, hubby is in denial because he like the car. Fine. But his financial argument makes no sense. His argument is basically, “why spend money on a newer more reliable car when we could throw that money away trying to keep my old junker running forever?” You gotta forget the financial argument and just say, “Honey, I’m the one driving this heap when you’re gone, and I don’t want to get stuck somewhere when it dies. I’m buying a reliable, used, newer car that ain’t going to break on me. You’re welcome to keep the Mustang parked in the lot, but I ain’t drivin’ it no more.”
My wife basically wants a safe car that’s reliable and not a rust bucket. She drove our 1965 Dodge Dart with 154,000 miles on it and 13 years old to its final destination (Navajo Metals). She had the 1976 Granada till 108,000 miles and 12 years of age, when the undercarriage started to rust out, and the car could no longer be jacked up. Her 1994 Sentra with 130,000 miles on it is reliable, safe and presentable, and will be kept till a major repair sends it to the recycler.
However, at any time she knows that if the car becomes bad news, it goes immediately,and she gets a new one.
It’s one way to get a wife to last at least 43 years!!
In a sense both of you are right. He wants to keep the car, and you want a car you can depend on. “Driving it into the ground” is the problem. A car you are driving until it is dead is not going to be a dependable car. Score one for the lady.
A Mustang convertible has some cool factor, and I suspect this is a 5.0 because how many guys soul would be stirred by the 4 banger in a Mustang, even if it is a convertible. So, score one for the man.
IF you do keep this car, you need to make a commitment to make it right. There is no reason it can’t be a good dependable car if the resources (that’s time and money) are put into fixing it up and making it dependable. It is not a complicated car, parts are readily available, and just about any decent mechanic can work on it.
If you keep it, fix it up properly. If you aren’t going to fix it, sell it to someone else and get a car you can depend on.
Do you have to sell this car to buy another? Buy another car and drive it for 90 days and then make your decision.
If the car is primarily your driver, I would think the decision would be yours.
My point about fixing the car is that the repair costs may not be that high and everyone is assuming this car is a rust bucket with everything on it being worn out. Maybe, maybe not.
It’s very common for these cars to have the 2.3 4-cylinders in them and these engines can be had pretty cheap. Not that I would sell it seeing as how it’s stashed back for a project like the OP’s car, but I’ve got a complete good-running 2.3 that I might take a 100 bucks for.
My opinion is at odds because flushing interest money down the toilet and car payments cause me to break out in a rash. 
Ask him to compromise and see if he’d go for a NEW Mustang convertible. 
This would make for a nice project car for someone wanting to mess with all the nuances of building the car up to race spec.
Maybe going from a 1986 car to a 2011 car seems a bit extreme. Maybe a newer car, possibly a newer Mustang, might be a good compromise. Georgemon can get a 2008 Convertible Mustang V6 for less than $20,000 and a GT for just over $20,000. Compared to 2011 costs of $30,000 for the V6 and $35,000 for the GT, the 2008 looks very interesting.
Since it’s allegedly a heap with a shaky engine, transmission, and convertible top I might be interested in this rolling junk if it’s anywhere near OK. Better than a crusher.
At least it has a nice new paint job 