Hello,
I have the opportunity to upgrade from a 1997 honda accord w 191,000 miles, to a 2005 accord with 147,000 miles, very well maintained, for 8000 dollars.
any opinions on how much of a benefit is the cars eight year younger age - and 44 thousand miles? thanks
Certainly not worth $8000. If the current car runs OK you have a lot of miles left in it. I would jusr continue with your existing car, which is well depreciated and the costs will still drop although some increase in repairs is to be expected. The only good reason to trade in this case was if the present car was unreliable and parts for the 1997 were no longer available.
You can go to Edmunds.com to research the values of the cars. A '97 is now a 15-16 year old car so it doesn’t really depreciate that much based on years. The '05 is 8 years old and will depreciate more per year for the next few years. Some of your $8000 will just go towards depreciation of newer car.
How important are safety features to you. The '05 will have far superior air bags and occupant protection in a crash. The '05 will have a newer motor and transmission with some refinements, but substantially not a lot different or better than the '97. The AC controls and radio controls will be nicer and fancier on the newer car, but the AC and radio won’t be that much better in terms of performance.
In the end only you can decide if this is a wise and satisfying way to spend your money.
I might think about it if the newer car had less than 100k on it. See if you can find one like that. And check that the money side works.
It depends. Currently in the fleet we have a 98, 03, 07 Accord, 2000 CIvic, and 2008 Crv. We used to have a 1994, 96, 97 Accord as well.
The biggest thing the 05 Accord has going for it are the safety features. With an 05 you get side air bags, curtain air bags, front air bags, ABS, EBD, not to mention the car is heavier, thus doing better in crash tests. I have 140,000 miles on the 2007 Accord and in the 50,000 + miles i’ve owned it I have only replaced the tires, rear brakes, and a wheel bearing. It’s been a solid car and get’s better mileage than our older Accords.
If the 1996 Accord runs great, and is in good shape I would wait until a lower mileage, newer model comes available. However from a safety stand point the older car is not as safe. Check the IIHS website and see the difference between crash tests of the 96 and 05 model. You’ll feel a lot safer in the newer car.
Hope this helps.
Maybe if you’re trading an I4 Accord for a V6 Accord, it might be worth the $8,000 difference. However, if I was going to spend $8,000, I would want a car with fewer miles on it.
Way too many miles to be worth $8K. Keep looking.
Current car is worth 3k? Can you sell it? A newer car, even with the same miles is nicer. You cannot deny that. Put aside miles. That is not the issue. I would feel better in an 05 car with 140k miles vs a 97 car w/140k miles. Yes newer car is more valuable. It newer, nicer, better. It is WORTH more. Pay the money.
$8,000 will buy a lot of repairs on your 97. If the 97 is in good condition and everything works I would keep the money in the bank and keep saving. You will eventually have the opportunity to buy a newer Accord with fewer miles for a better price.
@bloody-knuckles
I think your advice to the original post is right on. Any time we replace anything at our house with something new or something newer, Triedaq’s first comment is “I like the old one better”. We used hand-me-down bedroom furniture for the last 33 years and Triedaq finally agreed I could replace it, so last week new bedroom furniture was delivered. Triedaq’s first comment: “I liked to old furniture better”. He is just as bad about cars and even clothes. I know he needs a new lawnmower. Our old mower he bought 22 years ago smokes like a cheap cigar in a high wind. I see him pouring oil into it each time before he starts mowing the yard. He fogs for mosquitoes at the same time he mows the yard. I know that when he finally is forced to buy a new mower what his comment will be.
A 2005 car is still eight years old. If your 1997 car still serves your purpose, follow Triedaq’s model.
Mrs. Triedaq
thanks everyone. i did not purchase that car, i am saving for a better deal in the future. i took a test drive in a new civic, just to see, and i found the ride quite bumpy, even compared to my old honda, and even though the new civics are supposed to be relatively large. was it the road, or are they a little bit tinny, do you think?
$8000 including the trade in of yoru old car? Seems steep. Maybe look around for a better deal. But the 2005 w/150K is more likely to be a reliable ride than the 97. It’s not the miles that matter as much as just how old the car is. Older cars have problems due to rubber and plastic parts deteriorating, and rust – all of which lead to problems where are hard to diagnose, and are difficult to fix. Plus the problem of parts availability. A newer car – even if it has the same number of miles – is usually a better bet than the same make/model of it’s older version.
A couple of months ago, my wife “volunteered” my services to help a friend shop for a new car. This friend is a single woman in her late 60s. We tested both the new Accord and the new Civic. The Accord was smoother and quieter than the Civic, but the Civic was certainly acceptable and roomy enough in the back seat for my 6’ 2" frame. I didn’t find the new Civic to be tinny at all. Our friend did buy the Civic. The driving position was better for her (she is about 5’ 4" tall) and the Civic fit in her garage better than the Accord. I didn’t find the ride bumpy in the Civic–I thought it was quite smooth, though not as smooth as the Accord. However, the price difference was one factor in favor of the Civic over the Accord and the fact that the Civic has a 5 speed automatic transmission and the Accord has a CVT transmission tipped the scales for the Civic.
Consumer Reports isn’t exactly running around and praising the Civic nowadays.
@db4690–Consumer Reports does say that the 2013 Civic has improved over the 2012 which CR said had slipped in quality from the 2011. When I helped our friend go car shopping, I found the Civic acceptable. However, I’m not a good judge of cars. My wife and I have given up on conventional cars–we have a 4Runner SUV and Sienna minivan. I find either one much more comfortable for me to drive, particularly on long trips than a regular car. Both my wife and I like vehicles where we sit up higher.
Yes, they did say the 2013 model was an improvement over the 2012 model
But they also said it didn’t handle as well as some of the older Civics
And it also didn’t score as highly as some of the older Civics
That’s why I said that they weren’t “praising the Civic nowadays”
I agree with the general sentiment. It certainly is worth it for a newer car but not one with that many miles. That is too many miles of unknown service to have more confidence in then the car you own. Now, a 2005 with 90k, absolutely ! A compact is a great option. They will feel tinnier, not because they are poorly built, but because they have less insulation. Having said that, they should still be an improvement over a 97 Accord.
Well, u said no so discussion is over, but, that never stopped me. An 05 accord ex, v6, leather, nav and all that may be worth 8k. You could sell it in 1 yr for 7k? You can always sell ANY car and get some money in return. It’s not like you wasted 8k.
What Accord model and what engine? It might be worth $8000 from a dealer. Private sellers get about $1000 less. Also, it will have a timing belt if it has the V6. Find out when the the belt was last replaced. You need to see a receipt or get it in writing if this is a dealer sale and they claim it was just done. The belt needs to be replaced every 105,000 miles. The 4-cyl has a timing chain.
One more thing: I think that used Hondas are grossly overpriced. I would never buy one. BTW, I have a 2005 Accord EX V6 (bought new) and I think it’s a great car.