> Spend $3000 a year keeping some clunker working and hoping a big bill doesn’t come along, or spend $2400 a year for a new car.
Assuming we're talking economic cars (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, etc), it is very difficult to imagine spending $3K a year in maintenance. Maybe once in a decade if you're super unlucky.
These are cars that'll go on nearly forever on just an oil change a year (less than $100) and belts and tires every so-many years (depending how much you drive).
There is no math in the world that'll make a new car cheaper to own and operate than an old reliable brand car. If you enjoy newer cars, enjoy! But it won't be cheaper.
You can believe that if you want, my mother just paid $2800 to get her Citroen through another year. Throw in the 1000 a year deprecation as well and it’s far cheaper, and more importantly more predictable, to have a new car.
> it’s far cheaper, and more importantly more predictable, to have a new car
It can never be cheaper to have a new car. Do the math objectively and this is clear.
It can be more predictable, if you value that. Lease a new car, you know exactly what you're paying every month and for how long. Sure. But it'll be a lot more than an old car.
> You can believe that if you want
I don't believe, I have all my car expenses tracked since the early 90s so I know what I spend. In those 30 years I've mostly had cheap reliable old cars and a few new cars. The new cars have their joy, but they are a huge money pit. Currently my newest car is 17 years old and the oldest is 33 years old.
No new cars for me ever again, I let others pay the depreciation so I can get nearly-free transportation.
If you wanted cheap transportation, there's nothing cheaper to own than a ~$3K-4K used Honda/Mazda/Toyota. You obviously cannot have 1K/year in depreciation on a car that cost so little. New cars will be guaranteed to depreciate way more than that though.
The strategy for cheap transportation is buy that reliable car for 3-4K, drive it for ten+ years with minimal maintenance, insure for liability only. At the end of the years you can sell it for pretty much same as the buy price if you kept it clean. You can easily verify this by looking at craigslist prices for, say, a Honda Civic from the 90s to the 00s. A clean running car will only depreciate to a certain point and no more. If you buy it at the bottom of the depreciation curve you won't lose any money in depreciation. For some models, if you hold them for a while, it'll actually appreciate.
A Citroen is not a Honda/Mazda/Toyota. With an esoteric car like that, I don't doubt parts are expensive and reliability is low.
Citroen’s very common in my county - far more than a Mazda
Your experience may be that used cars are cheap. My experinece over 20 years is that’s not always the case. I’ve had good used cars and awful used cars, the awful ones costing more than my current lease even before you get into the less concrete value of reliability and comfort.
I don’t deny that used cars can be cheaper. I simply state that’s not always the case.
Why does it have to be a clunker? In what world are you buying a $12,000 car? Used? So you're guaranteed at least $2400 a year, or maybe $3000 a year(which is ridiculous) keeping an older car going.
