Cost of ownership of old vs. new

[jg09]

I've been saying for years that it's more cost effective to buy an older vehicle than going out and buying a new one. I finally crunched some numbers and got some definitive figures. I compared my 1969 Ford F-250 to a 2wd, regular cab long bed 2015 Ford F-250 with the gas engine (essentially today's version of the same truck). Here are the numbers:

2015 Ford F-250
Loan payment: $455 (4.9% APR, 72 months)
Insurance: $175
Fuel (average 1,000 miles a month at the current $2/gal rate): $145
Repairs and maintenance (based on cars.com analysis): $65
Total monthly cost: $840

1969 Ford F-250
Loan payment: $0
Insurance: $70
Fuel (average 1,000 miles a month at the current $2/gal rate): $250
Repairs and maintenance: $100
Total monthly cost: $420

[Kurt Combs]

You are saving the old truck from being recycled and at the same time creating jobs in the USA. The parts you use to maintain it might be rebuilt or made in China, but they are sold by the local parts store. My transmission was rebuilt locally and I have some maintenance done at the local shop, all contributing to the local economy. And, my truck is going up in value, not down.....

[HIO Silver]

I'd rather put $455 a month into new parts than sending it to a bank.

Owning an old truck is actually 'greener' than buying a new truck.. the original labor and material cost has been amotized over 40+ years already. We buy remanned or salvaged parts. .. we're not using newly mined iron ore and inputting new energy to make components either.

Think of it this way.... a truck built in 1970 is 45 years old and it weighs 4200 lbs.... a typical owner gets a new car every seven years... using 3200 as a basis, they've'consumed' 22400 lbs of material over the same time period. We're still driving the same 4200 lbs. Who is more environmentally friendly?

[Ranchero50]

The counter is we are driving 1960's trucks with minimum crash worthiness. I know I prefer to commute in my 10 year old Lincoln LS vs. my 45 year old '70 F-350 truck.

The truck I use when I need a truck, the car when the mundane will do. The truck get's 17 mpg, the car 21 mpg. I like them both equally for the job they perform but know I'd much rather total the '05 than the '70 for more than emotional reasons.

[Dave Severson]

Great comparisons! I'm retired so the amount of miles I drive is negligible and the fuel mileage is almost a moot point....I filled my "daily driver" 30 year old 4 banger pickup with gas in October, still have over 1/2 tank! Hot Rodders and restorers were probably the first to do the recycle thing anyway, as a poor broke kid we'd scour the junkyards for the parts we need and today we still do it! I do have to admit to buying some high dollar goodies for my toys over the years, but probably not as much money as car payments and higher insurance would have cost for 6 months on a new truck! I still go drag racing, my "toter" is a recycled dually from the 80's with a freshened up BBF, gas mileage is nothing to brag about but it only gets used a couple times a month for a 120 mile round trip to the drags and back...

Besides, the older stuff still has a bit of style to it, I have a heck of a time picking out what brand anything is when I see them on the street anymore. Think I'll be sticking with my old stuff, too!

[Bowman-428]

You know I been kicking around selling my 2000 F-250 4x4 powerstroke and getting a pre '78 4x4 for just these reasons . I think I will , who wants it ?

[duaneo]

The counter is we are driving 1960's trucks with minimum crash worthiness. I know I prefer to commute in my 10 year old Lincoln LS vs. my 45 year old '70 F-350 truck.

The truck I use when I need a truck, the car when the mundane will do. The truck get's 17 mpg, the car 21 mpg. I like them both equally for the job they perform but know I'd much rather total the '05 than the '70 for more than emotional reasons.

Excellent points! I shudder to think of getting into an accident in either the truck or the impala for both safety and emotional reasons. As much as I love driving the mini, and I have an emotional attachment to that car, I'd much rather be in it in an accident than either of my other vehicles.

Like most people on this forum, I definitely don't fit the "new car every seven years" mold. As much as I'd like a new mini, it's hard to justify car payments over maintenance costs.

Cheers,
Duane

[jg09]

Safety is certainly a concern with these old rigs. It's something I think about when I'm driving my daily driver

[1972hiboy]

aw man, I had a 74 maverick. 250-l6 buckets seats and a column shift. I drove that car back and forth from home to highschool and driving around town for a full week before needing to tank up. Got fantastic mileage and was comfortable. I wish I still had it.

[jg09]

aw man, I had a 74 maverick. 250-l6 buckets seats and a column shift. I drove that car back and forth from home to highschool and driving around town for a full week before needing to tank up. Got fantastic mileage and was comfortable. I wish I still had it.

Mine's got the 250 as well. It's not a bad little motor, although mine needs new lifters. I love this little car. I picked it up for $700 from a younger couple who weren't mechanically inclined and didn't see it as a realistic "everyday" kind of driver. I put maybe $50 into it and have been mostly trouble free since. It wears the original license plate from the the dealership it was purchased at up here in the Northwest WA and included the window sticker, loan paperwork, and all the literature that came with the car when it was purchased in 1973. I pretty much stole it for what I picked it up for.

[junkyardjeff]

I was looking at new F150s last year trying to duplicate a new version of the 87 XLT I bought in 89 and just could spend the 33,000 dollars,I decided to make my 66 F100 my good truck.

[Kurt Combs]

A new vehicle is safer in many situations, but not all. If it is a low speed, not in cab gas tank splitting, accident I'll take my truck. I was rear-ended back in 1985 while driving a Ford Fiesta. Minor damage to the vehicle, but the shoulder strap seat belts caused me to injure my shoulder and neck that hurts to this day. In the truck I might have suffered "whip-lash" but I don't think so. You definitely do not want to roll a old vehicle, especially a truck. Don't get T-boned or you might have to deal with an exploding gas tank, but I don't think I have ever heard of anyone suffering that fate.

Now the part we have not discussed in this thread. As an old-school shade-tree mechanic, I can work on my 1972 F-250. I have a timing light and enough tools to swap a engine and tranny. I can do the brakes and repair all sorts of body parts (on the truck not on me). I get a great deal of satisfaction working on and maintaining my truck. I like to drive it to work and love the fact that it is now old enough to get compliments. The satisfaction factor it a big deal to me, I love my truck and it has now been in the family now for ten years. It was my daughters first ride as a high school cheerleader (got some strange looks getting in and our of "Bruce" and she tells me I can't sell Bruce.

So I would say more satisfaction per mile in an old truck that you have saved and fixed-up. Your mileage may vary!

[duaneo]

Here's a scary video for you. 2009 vs 1959 in an offset head on collision (crash test).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U#t=102

Cheers,
Duane

[hillcountryflt]

We were considering pickup options back in September/October for the daily homeowner stuff. My 71 F100 was not (and is not) ready for prime time at the time. Visited with our favorite sales lady at the Ford dealership. Looked at some options. If we went new, the wife wanted backup camera, etc.
I had been told about a supposedly pristine 69 f100 for about $3,500. Well it was not that pristine, but pretty good. So I went with the $3,500 truck over the $35,000 truck. I have probably spent about a $1,500 or so on the 69. But it's a reasonable daily driver at 14 mpg around town and it will haul the stuff I need to haul.

[jg09]

Here's a scary video for you. 2009 vs 1959 in an offset head on collision (crash test).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U#t=102

Cheers,
Duane

Some friends of mine and I watched that video over and over and concluded that it's debatable whether or not the Bel Air had a motor and trans (the NHTSA claims it had its straight six still in it, but that's hard to believe based off how it crumpled). The angle that they hit was also optimized so that the Bel Air's frame wouldn't work the way it was designed to in an actual head on. While I have no doubt that new cars are safer than old cars, I think you'd be hard pressed to see a new car just completely eat an old car to the extent that the one in the video did.