I'm replacing a '92 Ford Taurus (122,000 miles) with a Honda Accord. Which of these two pre-owned Accords (all else being equal) is the wiser buy? Choice one: 2002 Accord, 93,986 mi for $11,995. Choice two: 1992 Accord, 54,659 mi for $4,990. Both vehicles check out good on Carfax. Putting it another way: Which is more valuable -- low mileage or a more recent manufacture? Thanks.
15 years is too old. Keep in mind that that 54K miles could have been 27000 2 mile trips while the 93K on the 2002 could have been 10000 9 mile trips. It is the number of times the engine is fired up that really matters, and short trips like you'll see with an ancient low miles car are a killer. Get the 2002. But get one for $10K with 75K miles.
Third that. And don't depend on Carfax, especially with the '92. It's a 'garbage- in, garbage-out' system. Example: my '96 VW Jetta broadsided another car that ran a stop sign. Airbags deployed, $13k worth of damage (this was in '98 when the car was worth about $14.5k). Car wasn't totalled, and when I went to sell it in 2003, I pulled the Carfax on it. Accident never showed up! I did disclose the accident to the seller, however, and last time I checked, car had put on another 50k miles. Dan D '07 Ody EX Central NJ USA
That's pretty strange. Car is worth 14.5 and gets 13 worth of damage, and it's not totalled? Any insurance company I've ever heard of would consider that totalled. They generally operate on about a 60-70% ratio of damage/value to decide that. How did you pull that off?
Are you asking about the actual value of the car or which one has the greater value? Obviously, the '02 is the most valuable. But, IMNSHO, the '92 is the better value. Less accumulated mileage is always a BIG plus. Add to that the fact that the '92 has less in the way of gadgetry is another consideration. I would go for the '92 without blinking. Of course, if "styling" is a consideration, my opinion won't count for much. The last consideration is just "pocketing the difference between the cost of the '02 vs. the '92. You can spend that in a more rational manner in these trying times... JT
the insurer i settled claims for had a 75% threshold, and if the circumstances were right you could push it to 85% before writing it off but that would only have been customer initiated to push it to 85% - claims would be more than happy to total loss it @ 75%. Again, varies with all insurers.
I'd go for the 2002. It's probably a safer car (more airbags, ABS, etc.), not to mention more comfortable. And the mileage isn't all that high for an Accord. As with all cars, of course, get it checked out thoroughly pre-purchase by someone who knows Hondas. Trust Carfax to rule out one car or another, but not as confirmation that any given car is OK.
OK, but the above numbers come out to a 90% ratio. Hard to believe that *ANY* insurer would not declare that a total loss, especially when you throw in the fact that airbags deployed... No doubt, but the above sounds a little beyond normal variances.
I'm not sure how it happened but was glad it did, as the car wasn't paid off at the time.... I think it might have been due to the airbags - they accounted for about $5k of the damage. If you deduct the airbag cost (remember, this was relatively early in the 'airbag' phase and they were being stolen from cars because they were so expensive to replace) you get more like 55%. None of the damage was structural - all of the front-end sheetmetal was replaced (bumper, grille, hood fenders, driver's side door - along with a lot of engine ancillaries - A/C compressor, radiator, alternator, etc. But no glass was broken, no unibody bending, etc. After the accident, I put another 90k miles on the car with absolutely no issues - no bizarre tire wear, etc - other than the black paint fading at a different rate on the new sheetmetal. The structural integrity of that car was very, very good, and is why I still own VAG products today. Dan D '07 Ody EX '04 Audi A4 quattro Central NJ USA
