Excitement We Didn't Need

[sraun]

Yesterday about 12N I went off and printed Einblatt. I stopped at Uncle Hugo's on the way home, getting home about 12:45-12:50.

About 1:45-2:15, iraunink headed out to visit the elder son. She didn't get very far - when she tried to start the car, it went click-click-chunk. I tried, same thing. We found a service station that was open - they sent the tow-truck over, took the car away, and called us back about 45-60 minutes later.

The engine has seized.

So, now we get to figure out what we're going to do about it. The car is a 1995 Chevy Lumina, and is (we believe) in OK shape with two major exceptions. The obvious exception is the engine - the other is the fact that (as I see it) it's going to need a new transmission in the nearish future. (It frequently won't go in to Reverse quickly - a wait of 10-50 seconds, or revving the engine, is required.) So, do we pay for the engine, and try to keep space in the emergency budget for a new transmission, or do we get a new (or at least new to us) car?

The service guy is going to get us quotes on Monday for an engine - one for used, one for new. I wonder if new = rebuilt?

I'm guessing that we're looking at $3000-4000 for the engine and transmission - fortunately not all at once! As information - we got the car free from iraunink's sister. They'd bought it brand new, and had put a new transmission in at about 60,000 miles. We got it at about 120,000 miles. It's been getting reasonable to good maintenance, regular oil changes, and hasn't been involved in any major accidents.

Anyone have any insight, opinions, whatever as to what we should do? I'm really hoping to have a functioning vehicle ASAP - busing to work, while possible, is a pain!

Comments

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

If you go used, it might be just as well to throw in both the engine and the transmission. The labor probably won't be much different because they have to pull them both anyway, and if they buy the pair together from a junkyard, it should actually be less work for them to drop the whole unit in rather than having to mate the engine with your transmission.
If you replace the engine now, and the transmission later, you'll probably be adding another $1000 in labor to the overall bill.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

If the engine has seized, and the transmission is going, you have a nice body with no guts. You are going to effectively buy a used car to put under this nice body. All of the parts are going to be failing in short order (gaskets, exhaust system, etc.).

If it were my car, I would write it off, and go buy a more recent used car, say a 2003 model of a similar car. It would probably cost around $5000 and come with some sort of warranty if you buy it from a dealer.

Once the powertrain fails (i.e. engine and transmission), it's dead, Jim.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

Totally seconded. I also personally wouldn't go for anything second-hand that had more than 100K on the clock, unless it had had a total engine recondition.

[Of course, my car has 170K on the clock, but it's a 1970 classic beast and cost me the equivalent of $US700, not a car that's reasonably up-to-date that you don't want to maintain much.]

Hmm

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

http://www.carsoup.com/used/summary.asp?minYear=1995&maxYear=1995&makeID=14&modelID=623

Unless the body is almost perfect... you can buy a used one for between $4,000 (65,000 miles) and $1,000 (275,000 miles) on carsoup.com

[kd5mdk.livejournal.com]

I would consider this an opportunity to upgrade to a much newer used car for not much money.

[davidwilford.livejournal.com]

IMO, you'd be best off not putting more money into a vehicle that's over ten years old and will have more such maintenance issues down the road. If you can bear taking the bus for a bit and shopping around for another used car that's not just something you can afford but is something you really like also, I'd talk with Irene about vehicles you'd prefer and start comparison shopping online.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

For once, I think the conventional wisdom is right. The kind of money you're talking about putting into fixing this car could, carefully spent, buy you a well-running not-terribly-new used car.

By way of comparison, Felicia's Saturn cost us $3700 -- and it had a newly rebuilt engine. After a year, we've put about a thousand dollars in maintenance into it, and it's running very well.

Were it me, I'd be looking at carsoup.com, particularly for cars being sold by mid-term graduating college students; that's how we picked up our gold Saturn in 2003 for $1900 -- and it's still running, 3.5 years later.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Sympathies. It's no fun to suddenly find yourself car shopping when you thought you wouldn't have to do that for quite a while. But clearly, that's what you need to do. There's no point putting $3000 into an 11 year old car. Particularly a model that goes through transmissions (and engines) at that rate. Just thank your lucky stars that you didn't replace the transmission right before the engine went out! Unless you have already spent thousands of dollars on fixing it up, I think you have come out ahead on this car transaction. You didn't even get stranded in the middle of nowhere. May all your free cars be that good to you.

We've gotten in the habit of buying cars from the "Thrifties" section of the Strib classifieds. They have a separate want-ad classification for cars under $5,000 (I think. Used to be $3,000). The laws of Darwinian selection and Supply and Demand help you out here. The most durable cars are the ones you find the most of in this category. And the more of them there are, the cheaper they are. If you go for the ones with zero snob appeal (like Dodge Caravans) you can find amazingly good deals. Good luck.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I'm going to go with the crowd here and say, given what the cost of the repairs is likely to be, just go buy something else. "A body with no guts" is what you have. (I buy cars new or gently used -- I am on my second car in 19 years of car ownership now -- and drive them into the ground, but there is always a point where it's just not worth it anymore. E.g. with the first car, the Nissan Sentra, when I was on the 3rd alternator replacement in 2 years and repeated carbeurator problems, I ditched it. But I had the car for 12 years, so it's OK.)

[sunlizzard.livejournal.com]

I, too, recommend replacement over repair. Even if the car was originally free, repairing it at this point is probably over-investing in it; just consider it as having been a blessing while it lasted (which I'm sure it was), but time to move on. However, since it's likely inevitable that you're going to have to end up car shopping....

Okay, this is unsolicited advice, but with two decades-plus in the car business, may I offer it: Don't junk the car or sell it to a wrecking yard, use it as a trade-in. Really. Don't laugh. Here's how it works.

Every vehicle has a value to someone. May not be much, but it does. So you shop GM dealers (best to go to the brand of your trade-in), find a new (or newer-used) vehicle, and ask for a deal both with and without your trade, obviously, telling them the truth--that the motor in the trade is seized. Then compare the deals. The possible advantage to you is that they may over-allow on your trade more than they would simply discount your purchase.

Accounting-wise, over-allowing for a trade is just in effect a discount on the purchase, and different cars have different profit margins with which the dealer can work. This is why you might see sizeable differences in that trade allowance from one dealer to the next (because although it's the same car being traded, it's not the same car being purchased each time), or even between different cars from the same dealer.

Just don't get caught up in the distraction of who will "give you more" for your trade. Say what your car will *really* bring is $1K to a wholesaler/rebuilder that the dealer can sell it to; anything above $1K that he'll offer you is simply the amount he's willing to discount his car. You see what I mean? So is it, for you, a better deal to "get" $4K trade-in on a $23K one year old used car, or to "get" a $2K trade allowance on a $12K three year old used car? At the end of the day, what you have to compare is the *trade difference*, simple as that: your car plus how much.

With these numbers, Car A costs you $19K and Car B costs $10K. Do your homework--are those fair prices for either vehicle, considering age, mileage, equipment, condition? Is one better than the other? (You can go online and get a price *range*--condition makes the differences--on just about any car. And by the way, Kelly Blue Book is trash, really inflated; use the NADA book!)

Good luck. I know it's a pain. I hope this helps.