[bumby]

Isn’t the real difference the relative cost of repair? The post above yours at the time of this comment cites that battery replacement costs more than that of a new vehicle. It would be hard to find that in an ICE car (assuming it’s not an exotic or rare model).

[jqpabc123]

It would be hard to find that in an ICE car (assuming it’s not an exotic or rare model).

The cost to replace an ICE engine often exceeds the value of the car. In which case, the car is typically junked/sold for parts/salvaged.

[bumby]

Possibly the value of the car at the time of replacement, but not the value of the car when new. The other comment indicating it was 1.3x the cost of their EV when new.

[jqpabc123]

Possibly the value of the car at the time of replacement, but not the value of the car when new.

Does it really matter?

Once the cost exceeds the replacement value of the car, only a fool would pay the money to do the work.

[bumby]

Absolutely. By orders of magnitude. This is one of those HN comments that comes across as in a bubble or tone deaf.

There’s a difference in the utility and investment value. Lots of people are in the position where they can’t afford a $50k EV repair to keep a car roadworthy or $35k for a new car. Many more can stomach a $5k ICE repair. It may be the difference between getting to work and not for someone who can’t afford a new car. They will still get much more utility out of it even if it’s not worth it on paper.

Not everyone is in a position where they can just decide to buy a new car because it’s the prudent financial decision.

[jqpabc123]

Not everyone is in a position where they can just decide to buy a new car because it’s the prudent financial decision.

Regardless of your position --- salvage the old car (puts some money in your pocket) and replace it (with a similar used one if necessary) for *less* than the cost of the repairs to the old one. Take your significant other to dinner with the money you just avoided wasting on your broken old heap.

Why would a reasonable person *ever* spend more on repairs than the money required to just replace the broken car with one that works? Irrational, sentimental reasons perhaps?

Why spend $6K on repairs if you can buy a similar working car for only $5K? Why make your net "position" $1K worse with flawed logic?

What part of this sounds "tone deaf" to you?

[bumby]

>salvage the old car (puts some money in your pocket) and replace it (with a similar used one if necessary) for less* than the cost of the repairs to the old one.*

I mean, sure, if that's an option. But there's always risk in swapping out one used car for another. If I can only swing $2.5k, I'd rather put it in the vehicle that I've had for 10 years and know the maintenance background on that roll the dice with, as you say, another "old heap."

It's not about being sentimental or irrational. If you're in the situation where you have to weigh these decisions, you tend to have limited options. It's not likely one of them is "trade in my old heap for something great and reliable." In these situations, taking money that could go to your car and instead go out to dinner would be the irrational choice.

>Why spend $6K on repairs if you can buy a similar working car for only $5K? Why make your net "position" $1K worse with flawed logic?

I don't think it's flawed. I can reduce the uncertainty on my utility a lot more with $6k on my own vehicle than I can on a $5k random car. When you get to that low of a price, most cars are going to have maintenance issues. There's nothing guaranteeing that I spend $5k on something else to only have drivetrain (or other major) issues six months down the road.

[analognoise]

A 5K used vehicle might need a similar 6k repair at some nearby point.

But a 6k repair to get a new engine/transmission is almost a new car (utility wise) - you know that for the next 100k miles you're probably set w.r.t. drivetrain.

It makes sense to me?