Buying a Used Car on a Budget

Suppose you want to buy a used car but don't have much money for one.
Your budget is in the $2,000 to $4,000 range.

Would it be better to buy a decent $3,000 car that will hopefully last 3 or 4 years until
you can afford a better car, or should you take out a loan and get a $6,000 or $7,000 car
and plan to keep it longer?

For $3,000 or so, you can probably get a 2000 Civic/Prizm/Accord/Taurus, but it will have A LOT of miles
on it and maybe a few minor issues here and there. Repairs could add to the overall cost.

For $6,000 you can probably get a Civic or Accord with a lot fewer miles and a transmission
that has more life in it, therefore fewer repairs needed.

Assume that you do not have a long daily commute and will only be driving about 2,000 miles per year.

TheThinker said: Your budget is in the $2,000 to $4,000 range.
You can get a perfectly good, ultra-reliable 1992-1995 Honda Civic for that price. I had one for years and would still be driving it today if it had A/C.

Just make sure it's stock since most are modded to hell.

ColbyS said: TheThinker said: Your budget is in the $2,000 to $4,000 range.
You can get a perfectly good, ultra-reliable 1992-1995 Honda Civic for that price. I had one for years and would still be driving it today if it had A/C.

Just make sure it's stock since most are modded to hell.

I know that $3,000 or $4,000 isn't a lot of money but I would hope the car would be at least
a year 2000 model and have air conditioning. I don't want to drive an ancient car with no A/C

TheThinker said: Yes I need a bicycle, as I won't be driving long distances very often.

Maybe get a rental with u/l miles for the longer drives?

Have you factored insurance into the equation?

At less than 2,000 miles per year your insurance costs per mile will be ugly. Ditto for tags/ annual registration.

Rentals really can be quite cost effective.

I will only get liability insurance. And yes insurance will be expensive but insurance companies
suck, I already knew that. And even though I'll average 5 or 6 miles a day, that's just an average.
Some days I might drive 60 miles, and some days I might drive none at all. You can't bike 60 miles
(unless you're Lance Armstrong)

But either way I have already made up my mind about getting a car. If it's a waste then
I accept that responsibility. All I'm asking is whether I should go for a $3,000 car
and if so, should I get a 2002 Taurus with 85k miles or stick to Civics or Corollas, even though
they make me feel a bit cramped since I'm 6'1 and have long legs.

TheThinker said: ColbyS said: TheThinker said: Your budget is in the $2,000 to $4,000 range.
You can get a perfectly good, ultra-reliable 1992-1995 Honda Civic for that price. I had one for years and would still be driving it today if it had A/C.

Just make sure it's stock since most are modded to hell.

I know that $3,000 or $4,000 isn't a lot of money but I would hope the car would be at least
a year 2000 model and have air conditioning. I don't want to drive an ancient car with no A/C
I was talking about my car not having A/C. You can find a '96-00 model Civic for around $4,000, lower-mileage, stock, and will be infinitely more reliable than a pos 02 Taurus with 85k miles.

PReMieR said: Obviously I don't know your situation and I'm just speculating, but 2,000 sounds like too few. That means if you own your car for 15 years, it will only have 30,000 miles on it. Do you know how ridiculous sounding that is?

You're right, I probably will drive between 3,000 and 4,000 miles per year.
As for the 30,000 miles in 15 years thing, that doesn't apply because in 5 years I might
have to do much more driving. Like I said I only need the car for 3 or 4 years. By then I can
afford a much newer and nicer car and will also likely be driving more.

This guy on Craigslist is selling a 2000 Honda Accord EX with 130,000 miles on it
for $4,800 firm. He says it comes with a V6 engine and leather seats.

Good deal?

ColbyS said: You can get a perfectly good, ultra-reliable 1992-1995 Honda Civic for that price. I had one for years and would still be driving it today if it had A/C.

I think that the cult of the Honda Civic has gone a little overboard. Sure they're good cars, and the mid-90s ones are simple and last a very long time but it's a stretch to assume that any car that's almost 20 years old will be "ultra-reliable."

You can get a good car for $4000. I bought a used Camry 10 years ago for less than that and I've put 200,000 miles on it since. Go for a Civic or Corolla and it will last a long time especially only driving 2000 miles a year.

TheThinker said: I will only get liability insurance. And yes insurance will be expensive but insurance companies
suck, I already knew that. And even though I'll average 5 or 6 miles a day, that's just an average.
Some days I might drive 60 miles, and some days I might drive none at all. You can't bike 60 miles
(unless you're Lance Armstrong)

But either way I have already made up my mind about getting a car. If it's a waste then
I accept that responsibility. All I'm asking is whether I should go for a $3,000 car
and if so, should I get a 2002 Taurus with 85k miles or stick to Civics or Corollas, even though
they make me feel a bit cramped since I'm 6'1 and have long legs.

long legs are even better for walking!

edit: added quote

elleve said: Have you ever bought a car before?

Questions I would be asking wouldn't be the obvious engine type and leather seats..

Ask about previous accidents?

Is the title clear?

Is it a salvage/junk title?


Get the VIN number, check the title for issues and then get the car inspected prior to purchasing.

Edit: For someone with the username "TheThinker", you really didn't think this through much.

Yes I DID think this through. I know all about Carfax, getting the car inspected by an independent
mechanic, looking at the service and maintenance records. I know about all that.
I'm just asking if you think $4,800 is a good price for a 2000 Accord with 128k miles.
I have to decide on whether the price is good before paying for a Carfax report, test driving the
car, and getting it inspected.

Cheap Car now; better car later. Either buy what you LOVE, or what you need. If you don't LOVE the Accord, buy the Civic.

Neither do I. Plus a V6 accord is a gas hog (relative to a Civic).

You're 6'1" and you think a Civic will be too cramped? Seriously? I'm 6'4" and I weigh 250 pounds, and I find my 1985 Camry to be roomy. Driving 2000 miles a year, you're not going to be spending much time in the car anyway. Slide the seat back and stop complaining. You should be looking for a car that will be reliable and in decent cosmetic shape, nothing else. Pretty much any 1980s or 1990s stock Toyota, Honda, or Nissan with under 100K should do the trick. These cars are routinely available for very cheap. The insurance on them is also dirt cheap, especially if you have a decent driving record.

Part of why I like my car so much is because for a car of its size (176 inches in total length) the interior is extremely spacious. The back seat has as much leg room as a generation 3 Camry (1992-1996, 188 inches in length) and much more interior room than the similar-sized 1993-1997 Corolla.

TheThinker said: This guy on Craigslist is selling a 2000 Honda Accord EX with 130,000 miles on it
for $4,800 firm. He says it comes with a V6 engine and leather seats.

Good deal?

There's most likely a tranny issue with that. I can't find my thread, but I started one here a few months ago because my 2001 Honda Accord EX V6 transmission died. Search google, it was part of a large class action lawsuit where Honda extended the warranties to 7 years/90000 miles or something like that (but obviously wouldn't apply to a car with 130,000 miles).

This class of Honda has major transmission problems - don't bother.

You can get 97-01 altima\ maxima for $ 1-2k\ 3-4k respectively. Have about 200k on mine and still going strong.

2000-2006 Taurus. You can find one for less than $4k, and they're reliable. I had a friend in undergrad that had a 2002 model and put that thing through the paces and it never quit.

I personally had a 1997 Cavalier that I bought for $1500. I drove that car up and down the east coast with zero issues. 150k miles and only oil changes, brakes, tires, and a squeaky belt along the way. I kinda miss that car...

SUCKISSTAPLES said: You are looking at the wrong years for Japanese cars. The best most reliable were late 80s to mid 90s. Teh 2000s hondas had tranny problems, toyotas had engine sludge etc.

Find some mint condition early 90s camry that some old people are selling for $2k. Old people are the best to buy immaculate cars from.

Also any mid 90s to early 2000s GM fullsize cars with the 3800v6 are dead reliable and get 30mpg

+1. Everyone I knew who had a car with the 3800 were more than pleased with the reliability. A guy I knew had a Regal Supercharged with the 3800. It was one helluva car and rock solid.

Ditto on the Honda tranny issues as well and Toyota sludge. I may be a bit biased towards American cars, but if you don't want to be rollin around in a late 80s or early 90s ride, look for GM cars with the 3800 (there's a more than a few to choose from ) and Ford models from 2000 and later.

PMonkeyDishwasher said: So how did the car you bought the last time you posted this question work out?

I believe you had another thread before that one, I just don't feel like searching the archived threads.

Geez, a guy can't start a new thread on the same damn thing every year? Come on, it's not like it was last December.