- Golden age for a car? Depreciation vs stuff breaking
I’ve only owned two cars in my life (have them both at the moment) a Mazda 323 and a Kia Carnival / Sedona. The Kia, although newer (7 years old) has been a money pit. The Mazda’s almost 18 years old but besides needing a new radiator, rad hose and battery has been brilliant.*
We’re moving soon so selling both cars and will need to buy another when we arrive in Thailand. I know that there’s some luck involved, but I don’t know if I should spend loadsa money on a car that hopefully won’t need a lot spending on it over the few years we have it or get an older car and cross our fingers.
What are your experiences / opinions?
*living in the Philippines, labour costs are minimal. A new steering assembly (rack and pinion) on the Kia cost £20 to fit.Posted 4 years agoBreganteSubscriber
joolsburger – Member
The answer is always Honda.
I would agree. My FRV is just over 8 years old (had since 6months old) and in that time it has had wiper blades, tyres, a battery and a set of brake pads front and rear. So in other words – all consumables. I have never even had to change a light bulb and it runs like new ( I do 10k a year ).
I see no reason to get a new(er) car. But when I do, I reckon it’ll be another Honda!Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Golden age for a car? Depreciation vs stuff breaking’ is closed to new replies.