"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8W__k.45359$zQ3.28976@newsfe12.iad...
> "Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote
>> At 50K miles it is hard to tell how a car has been treated; at 100K it is
>> hard to hide. I would never buy your putative car with the infrequent oil
>> changes, and not only because it had too few miles (although it
>> illustrates my point about hard to tell vs hard to hide). One of the
>> screening checks I do is to remove the oil filler cap and look under it
>> for amount of varnish and deposits; the poorly maintained car would fail
>> right there.
>
> I was going to raise this point, but the oil change interval for newer
> Hondas is now one year and 10k miles for many newer Hondas; potentially
> even less often for Hondas with the Maintenance Minder system. So I think
> he might get away with changing the oil twice without too much wear and
> tear on the engine. I am not so sure one could tell, after four years and
> only two oil changes, that it had not had the oil changed often enough. I
> am not so sure car dealers care that much on a trade in, since they tend
> to still have so much maneuvering room on the actual sale.
>
>> Carfax also gave a clean bill to my son's Acura - the one with wrecking
>> yard markings on several front body parts and no labels under the hood.
>
> I heard there have been problems with Carfax. I have seen
> www.autocheck.com get better reviews.
>

Carfax and autocheck cannot tell you ever changed the oil. As long as you
change it a week before you trade only the next owner will know.

 

"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote
>> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>>> This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of
>>> thinking. It would be cost effective to keep a car for 4
>>> years, only change the oil once or twice > then trade it
>>> for a new one.
>>
>> Some numbers from www.kbb.com a well known automotive
>> pricing service that consumers and car dealers alike use:
>> Today a 2004 Accord sedan LX automatic transmission with
>> 55k miles on it and having complete and verifiable
>> service records (so "excellent" condition) trades in for
>> $8225 in zip code 02138. People are paying about $20k for
>> a new 2008 Accord sedan LX. Figure at least $500 for
>> sales tax. So the net cost of the new 2008 Accord to you
>> would be about $12k.
>>
>> Do you think you would spend $12k on maintaining the 2004
>> Accord over the next four or so years? Do you know how
>> much you have spent on your two Accords since buying
>> them?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with wanting a new car, Anon. But
>> it cannot be justified financially. This is not just me
>> talking but the Car Talk guys; any reputable financial
>> adviser; any accountant; etc.
>>
>
> You might spend 12k on maintenance if you did everything
> in the manual at the dealer and a timing belt plus all
> those oil changes plus new tires, shocks, brake job and
> battery.

Break it down and prove it.

> AND I would have the pleasure of driving a new technology
> car every few years.

This is the only justification there is for buying new every
few years: Mental satisfaction based in materialism.

 

"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
> As long as you change it a week before you trade only the
> next owner will know.

This from the person who could not locate the Maintenance
Schedule in his owner's manual.

You should buy the new car.

 

Elle wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote
>> Being retired all I need is a reliable car.
>
> Being retired I need at least two older Hondas to keep my
> mind engaged. :-)
>
>
Hi,
Being retired I have few other things I am engaged in. Looking after
family vehicles(yesterday I put on winter tires, checked tires making
sure it has correct pressure; I have a shop compressor which makes
certain tasks easy. I have a OBDII, DTC reader on my notebook for CEL
trouble-shooting, I am a life time HAM radio guy, I am life time low
brass guy playing in local concert band, also I work part time as
consulting engineer whenever they need me or when I feel like. I am in
control how much I want to be engaged, LOL!

 

Elle wrote:
> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of
>>>> thinking. It would be cost effective to keep a car for 4
>>>> years, only change the oil once or twice > then trade it
>>>> for a new one.
>>>>
>>> Some numbers from www.kbb.com a well known automotive
>>> pricing service that consumers and car dealers alike use:
>>> Today a 2004 Accord sedan LX automatic transmission with
>>> 55k miles on it and having complete and verifiable
>>> service records (so "excellent" condition) trades in for
>>> $8225 in zip code 02138. People are paying about $20k for
>>> a new 2008 Accord sedan LX. Figure at least $500 for
>>> sales tax. So the net cost of the new 2008 Accord to you
>>> would be about $12k.
>>>
>>> Do you think you would spend $12k on maintaining the 2004
>>> Accord over the next four or so years? Do you know how
>>> much you have spent on your two Accords since buying
>>> them?
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with wanting a new car, Anon. But
>>> it cannot be justified financially. This is not just me
>>> talking but the Car Talk guys; any reputable financial
>>> adviser; any accountant; etc.
>>>
>>>
>> You might spend 12k on maintenance if you did everything
>> in the manual at the dealer and a timing belt plus all
>> those oil changes plus new tires, shocks, brake job and
>> battery.
>>
>
> Break it down and prove it.
>
>
>> AND I would have the pleasure of driving a new technology
>> car every few years.
>>
>
> This is the only justification there is for buying new every
>
> few years: Mental satisfaction based in materialism.
>
Hi,
New technology is only good after it is provewn in real world..
That is how U.S.got into credit crisis? I own every thing I have. I
don't own any money to any one.
>
>
>

 

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 18:05:35 -0700, "Michael Pardee" <null@null.org>
wrote:

>of having to remove the head to get the plugs out. Apparently Ford has
>released a TSB on removing the plugs: warm up the engine, loosen the plugs
>about 3/4 turn, apply penetrant and let the engine cool... then, good luck.

I think something must have been left out. If one can loosen the plugs
3/4 turn, what's the problem? Just take 'em all the way out. Maybe I'm
missing something.



Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher

 

Elle wrote:
>
> I was going to raise this point, but the oil change interval
> for newer Hondas is now one year and 10k miles for many
> newer Hondas; potentially even less often for Hondas with
> the Maintenance Minder system. ...

Actually, it's when the MM tells you or one year, whichever comes first,
at least for my 08 CR-V. It just hit the year mark (with about 4500 mi
and the MM said oil life was still 60%) so it got its annual oil change
(and filter which the book says only needs to be changed every other oil
change).

 

Elle wrote:
> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>
>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>If Honda is going to use a part that must be changed as
>>>>part of the routine eminence schedule, it should be
>>>>designed so it is easy to change. I consider it poor
>>>>design.
>>>
>>>How would you improve on this design?
>>>
>>>Have you run the numbers to see whether it pays more to
>>>replace the TB and keep the car vs. buying a new one?
>>>
>>>Once every 7 years/105k miles is not routine. The typical
>>>Honda owner probably changes the TB exactly once while
>>>owning the car, after all.
>>>
>>
>>I would say it is more likely that most Honda owners do
>>not keep their car for 7 years. They unload them before
>>this expensive, necessary belt change is due.
>
>
> Many people trade in their Hondas (among other car makes)
> for a new car when the timing belt is due because they
> cannot do simple financial calculations. Keeping a car for
> 14 years/210k miles and spending $1000 once for a timing
> belt in that period is an excellent financial choice
> compared to buying a new car every 7 years/105k miles. As
> importantly, do you know of a car make that is clearly more
> reliable, and so is less costly to maintain, that costs less
> to purchase than a Honda?
>
>


Absolutely correct!

My flock of ancient Honda Civics have phenominal reliability.

They also have the advantage of a simplified timing belt design... Not
necessary to change out the water pump as it is driven by a conventional
water pump/alternator belt.

Those that buy a new car only come out ahead IF they drive the thing
'til the wheels are square. With Hondas, that's usually 300K or more..

JT

 

Elle wrote:

> "Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote
>
>>I would add that many people are thinking about trading in
>>their 7 year old car anyway and are prompted by the
>>looming cost.
>
>
> Sure, but this choice cannot be justified financially unless
> some dollar value is attached to the mental satisfaction of
> owning a new car. Plus a lot of them think they are going to
> see maintenance costs go way up in the coming years. With
> cars built about 1990 and later, this just does not happen,
> on average.
>
> A fun example: My parents are driving a 91 Ford Taurus with
> 124k miles. He is an engineer and numbers wonk. He tracks
> his car costs and MPG carefully. He was able to justify
> having $1000 of suspension work recently, because his
> overall cost of ownership per year continues to decline, and
> because the MPG is good enough that he thinks the engine is
> fine. He does not do his own care maintenance, either.
>
> They bought a Toyota Corolla a couple of years ago (to
> replace an even older Taurus), but mostly for fun and better
> MPG.
>
>


Heh... A few years ago, someone gave me a '92 Taurus that had
overheated but was otherwise in mint conditon. When I got done with it,
I had over $2K invested and was glad to get $1,500 just to see it out of
my sight forever.

No more American junk!

JT

 

Elle wrote:

> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote
>
>>Being retired all I need is a reliable car.
>
>
> Being retired I need at least two older Hondas to keep my
> mind engaged. :-)
>
>


I've got that and now I'm building a couple of new storage sheds for
added benefit...

<G>

JT

 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:11:42 -0500, L Alpert wrote:

> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:2WR_k.22788$k66.19344@fe03.news.easynews.com. ..
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:13:40 -0500, L Alpert wrote:
>>
>>> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OqOdnawJ9P6blabUnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>>I have 2 Honda Accords, a 2001 V6 and a 2002 4 cyl. If the timing belt
>>>>breaks, will it cause extensive engine damage?
>>>>
>>>> The manual on the V6 is unclear when to change the belt it says to
>>>> change it at 60,000 miles if you drive in very hot or cold
>>>> conditions.
>>>> I do not have a manual for the 4 cyl, it was a used car. It has
>>>> 94,000
>>>> on it now and runs perfectly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I believe the recommended change period is 105K miles or 7 years under
>>> normal conditions. My own interpretation of very hot has always been
>>> desert type conditions (Death Valley, Sahara), very cold would be
>>> similar to the northern Midwest areas and Canada/Alaska for the 60k
>>> change.
>>>
>>> The key is not just the belt itself, but the internal cords/fibers
>>> that
>>> do not allow the belt to stretch, which are usually made from
>>> Kevlar/Twaron (both are aramid type high tensile fibers). I'm not
>>> sure
>>> if the base OEM Honda belts are rubber, HSN or carbon fiber type (I
>>> would suspect that they may be the one of the latter two, as at some
>>> point in the 90's they increased the recommended belt change interval
>>> by
>>> a fairly large amount).
>>>
>>> Here are a couple of articles you may want to read....especially the
>>> thermal properties of the Kevlar and interference engines.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_belt
>>
>> irc, kevlar is subject to accelerated fatigue when subject to humidity,
>> so
>> i believe the cords in high quality timing belts are usually glass
>> fiber.
>> the above link does allude to glass fiber use, although not in detail.
>
> "Glass fiber" is a misnomer, as it still uses a polymer carrier (ie,
> flass filled kevlar) as far as I last was aware of.
>
> Polymer with 30%-33% glass fiber by weight is usually what you will find
> in most industries. The higher percentages the more prone it will be to
> fracture at a specific radius due to extremely high flex modulus.

i fully admit to being rusty on this stuff, by why would you have a glass-
filled aramid fiber??? there is no benefit that i can see unless you want
to reduce elasticity of pure aramid, but the fatigue properties would
suck. glass is plenty stiff and virtually fatigue proof if the surface is
sufficiently protected. in which case, maybe you mean aramid /coated/
glass fiber?




>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar
>>>
>>> The potential damage from a broken belt is quite extensive,
>>
>> with an interference engine
>>
>>
>>
>>> and you may
>>> or may not see any symptoms.
>>
>> ...prior to breakage.
>>

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yv__k.16505$M33.15452@newsfe03.iad...
> "Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote
>> I would add that many people are thinking about trading in their 7 year
>> old car anyway and are prompted by the looming cost.
>
> Sure, but this choice cannot be justified financially unless some dollar
> value is attached to the mental satisfaction of owning a new car. Plus a
> lot of them think they are going to see maintenance costs go way up in the
> coming years. With cars built about 1990 and later, this just does not
> happen, on average.
>

I have no argument there, but it is common practice. Somebody has to pay the
big depreciation, I guess.

A mechanic who had a radio show in Phoenix a while back (maybe still does)
had an interesting formula for deciding whether it is cost effective to
repair an old car or to replace it. As a basis for comparison, learn the
lease payment of a car that would fulfill the requirements you have for the
vehicle you currently own. Amortize the costs of repair at that rate (say,
$300 per month) to determine when you would break even on the cost. If you
don't foresee putting money into the old car at that rate for the indefinite
future - and most owners have a pretty good idea what they can expect, as
opposed to what they fear - then it makes economic sense to do the repair.
This formula neglects the added cost of comprehensive insurance for a new
car or the higher costs of registration in many states, but it puts people
in the ballpark.

Mike

 

"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:14KdnYTgBugg56HUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4o__k.16504$M33.41@newsfe03.iad...
>> Today a 2004 Accord sedan LX automatic transmission with 55k miles on it
>> and having complete and verifiable service records (so "excellent"
>> condition) trades in for $8225 in zip code 02138. People are paying about
>> $20k for a new 2008 Accord sedan LX. Figure at least $500 for sales tax.
>> So the net cost of the new 2008 Accord to you would be about $12k.
>>
>> Do you think you would spend $12k on maintaining the 2004 Accord over the
>> next four or so years? Do you know how much you have spent on your two
>> Accords since buying them?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with wanting a new car, Anon. But it cannot be
>> justified financially. This is not just me talking but the Car Talk guys;
>> any reputable financial adviser; any accountant; etc.
>>
>
> You might spend 12k on maintenance if you did everything in the manual at
> the dealer and a timing belt plus all those oil changes plus new tires,
> shocks, brake job and battery. AND I would have the pleasure of driving a
> new technology car every few years.

"Might" is the operative word. It assumes several catastrophic problems and
a flurry of lesser problems. Consider the handful of potential problems that
could comprise the $12,000: transmission failure (about $3000), driveshaft
replacements, a timing belt (since it is a predictable expense it would be
correct to put 4/7 the cost into four years). That's still a very, very long
way from $12K... and it assumes terrible luck. I would think if somebody was
having that kind of record with a car they would unload it, even at a huge
loss to a DIYer like me, long before the four year mark came around. If a
car is that bad when a few years old you know it was that bad when it was
new. The difference is that when new nobody knew how bad it was before it
was sold.

It's amazing how many costs are not covered by warranty. My daughter-in-law
lamented that the non-warranty costs on her Kia, counting the mandatory 3000
mile oil changes to keep the warranty in force, were more than her car
payments. You mention "all those oil changes plus new tires, shocks, brake
job and battery" (here in Arizona you can add windshield replacement)...
none of those are warranty items. New cars need those at the exact same rate
used ones do. In the end, a warranty is only as good as the service you can
get. Even if you get past the problems of denials - a very common complaint
in auto forums - good luck finding somebody who actually knows how to find
and fix your problem.

New cars demand repairs, while used ones do not. That statement is easy
enough to illustrate. My son-in-law is a new driver and tried to take his
'86 Taurus to Phoenix as its first freeway trip in many years. On the long
climb out of the Verde Valley the engine lost coolant, overheated and ended
up with two warped heads. If the car had been worth it he would have been
looking at a repair he couldn't afford. Instead he is out the $300 he paid
for the car. $2000 vs $300 - not a hard decision.

Personally, I am relieved when the warranty runs out on just about anything
I own. I get no pleasure from anything that I have to convince somebody else
needs to be fixed, and I am easily frustrated by poor troubleshooting skills
in techs I have to rely on to complete the repair.

BTW - I don't think you should be touting the unalloyed advantages of "new
technology" to Elle or me - we've been in high tech too long to believe
that. But maybe I can interest you in a Windows ME update to your old
Windows 98?

Mike

 

"Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
news:t33pj4pkqcp9n4qsgt16rsm28tj4v1hgu3@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 18:05:35 -0700, "Michael Pardee" <null@null.org>
> wrote:
>
>>of having to remove the head to get the plugs out. Apparently Ford has
>>released a TSB on removing the plugs: warm up the engine, loosen the plugs
>>about 3/4 turn, apply penetrant and let the engine cool... then, good
>>luck.
>
> I think something must have been left out. If one can loosen the plugs
> 3/4 turn, what's the problem? Just take 'em all the way out. Maybe I'm
> missing something.
>
>
>
> Elliot Richmond
> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>

I was amiss in calling it "welding in place" when the problem is actually
galling, like stainless steel does. According to the guy at work who learned
about it a little late, when he removed his plugs even according to the
procedure they bound and screeched all the way out. Not a good thing in an
aluminum head.

 

"Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote
On how a 4-year-old car might need $12k of repairs over the
next 3-4 years:
> "Might" is the operative word. It assumes several
> catastrophic problems and a flurry of lesser problems.
> Consider the handful of potential problems that could
> comprise the $12,000: transmission failure (about $3000),
> driveshaft replacements, a timing belt (since it is a
> predictable expense it would be correct to put 4/7 the
> cost into four years). That's still a very, very long way
> from $12K... and it assumes terrible luck. I would think
> if somebody was having that kind of record with a car they
> would unload it, even at a huge loss to a DIYer like me,
> long before the four year mark came around. If a car is
> that bad when a few years old you know it was that bad
> when it was new.

ISTM the last statement above is wisdom borne of years of
experience, honed by the laying on of hands often on
engines. It is something I had not considered, maybe because
I have not owned nearly as many cars as JT, the OP or you,
or because I have always owned a Japanese-make car.

snip; please look back for context

> New cars demand repairs, while used ones do not.

Wisdom beams through this post like sunshine in Arizona.

> I am easily frustrated by poor troubleshooting skills in
> techs I have to rely on to complete the repair.

This drives my happy Honda DIY efforts. It is not that the
dealer's or other import shop's techs are not good; it is
that they are not allowed the time to do a repair or
maintenance really well.

> BTW - I don't think you should be touting the unalloyed
> advantages of "new technology" to Elle or me - we've been
> in high tech too long to believe that. But maybe I can
> interest you in a Windows ME update to your old Windows
> 98?

Ha, but to explain to others, I trust you mean that Windows
ME turned out to be terrible and many reverted to the older
Windows 98 where possible?

Elle
Former Win ME user; now Win XP user, and whose dad is still
happily using Win 98 on one of his computers, partly because
of the principles Michael Pardee states here.