Hah, I will not deny that it's probably very cost efficient, but 7k is only a cheap car relative to a new car. A cheap early 2000's late 1990's civic that runs is somewhere around 5 times less than that.
Yeah but this car was three years old and was certified pre-owned, with low mileage. You're suggesting one that is pushing two decades of service. We looked at those kind of cars too and it was obviously a worse choice unless you love rust and frequent repairs.
I'm not suggesting either. I drive a car from 2001 that has spent most of its life in the US north-east. Rust can be an issue but you would be surprised how many cars don't have major rust problems. However, if I had an option of getting a more expensive car (7k was out of my budget) when I was looking for one, I would have gone with something more like what you mentioned. I'm just throwing out the idea that 7k isn't necessarily in the same price range as an old civic. It's definitely rolling the dice with an old car but I have only had to pay for one battery and one alternator (notice I said pay for... in all actuality I received a free battery and had to have an extra alternator replaced as the shop I went to was garbage but owned up to it).
Yeah, the competitors were about the same price but in sorry shape.
Anyway, the prices kind of scale together. If you bought a twenty-year-old Spark/Matiz it would be cheaper than the comparable Civic. Also, I don't know where the OP lives, but the US has pretty lax regulations that let people drive around old cars for longer than many countries.
