Civic Doubty

Umbra on car trade-ins 12

Dear Umbra,

I'm the not-so-proud owner of an 18-year-old Honda Civic -- great car in that it gets 39 mpg, has a decent amount of zip, and generally runs well. However, it needs some mechanical work, the paint and some of the upholstery are shot, and the AC runs on Freon. I've reached the point of analysis paralysis in deciding whether to fix this car up or trade it in. At what point do you give up the ghost on an older car? And how bad would it be if I got the old car painted?

Driven to distraction,
Renee
San Leandro, Calif.

Dearest Renee,

Passing the buck: I think this is a question for a trusted mechanic. I know we talk a lot about buying efficient items -- from toilets to fridges to, yes, cars -- and I often take my cues from the letter-writer as to whether they are ready to lay down the cash to upgrade. I figure people don't write in about buying a new car unless it's a real possibility for them. Today, though, you got me on the old "is it good money after bad, or bad money after bad?" train of thought. It's the car dilemma -- when is the money just being thrown into a bottomless transmission?

Ask Ed.

Photo: iStockphoto

You have a great car already, from an environmental standpoint, so there's no need for me to encourage you to downsize or upgrade. Because the only answer to your question about when to give up the ghost is "when you get sick of fixing the car," only you and your mechanic can predict when that will be. What you need to know is something I can't tell you, namely, when will this car fail you? Mechanics know cars, they like cars, and unless they are fancy-car snobs, they are fond of your old clunker and its endless get-up-and-go.

Take it to the mechanic and ask for a long-term prognosis. What is going to go next? What major repairs are coming down the tailpipe of time? How much will it cost to get a new coat of paint? Is there anything to do about the shot upholstery? How about the Freon in the AC -- how much would a retrofit cost? Then look around at the classifieds and see what an environmentally comparable car will cost you. After doing both of these, you'll have new information.

You'll be able to ballpark the price differences between keeping and maintaining the car and buying a new car. You'll know how exhausted you feel at the thought of keeping the car running versus the thought of vetting a parade of newer Civics. These have got to be your deciding factors.

Don't worry about the coat of paint. Paint protects the car from degradation and as such is a worthy expenditure to keep a good thing going strong.

Hondaly,
Umbra

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. anthony11 Posted 6:08 am
    31 Jul 2006

    ACIn the late 90's I had an accident in my 1989 Accord that emptied the AC system.  I elected for a retrofit to R134a.  The process was very expensive and the new system never worked worth a damn.  I suggest that an existing R12 system that's functioning well should be left alone.

    Permalink

  2. rsmith02 Posted 6:09 am
    31 Jul 2006

    18 years old is dirty"You have a great car already, from an environmental standpoint, so there's no need for me to encourage you to downsize or upgrade"
    How can an 18 year old gross polluter of a car be considered great?  It doesn't meet normal modern emissions standards let alone being better than a SULEV hybrid or a PZEV car. The worst cars on the road are like the little VW Beetles that are fuel efficient but horribly polluting.  You'd be better off on a Hummer.
    Upgrade to a newer Civic and we'll all breathe easier.

    Permalink

  3. cbc Posted 10:38 am
    31 Jul 2006

    Civic Doubty, Ask UmbraPlease, Umbra, could you answer the question.  That was a poor, poor choice.  An 18 year old car has horrible emissions, much worse than a new SUV with ULEV standards.  Is anyone paying attention to emissions or are we just worried about gas mileage?  The two must be considered together.

    Also, repainting a car?  Have you heard of VOCs?  Umbra where is your research and your broad approach to environmental issues?

    Permalink

  4. aliciabaylaurel Posted 5:59 pm
    31 Jul 2006

    My Wonderful 1988 Honda CivicI almost bought vanity plates that said 33 MPG. And it would carry almost as much stuff as a van.  But, like all good things, it came to an end (the water hose disintegrated during a long trip, the engine overheated and it threw a rod.)
    And, in 2003, there just weren't any more of those cute little wagons being made.
    So, I went to a site called fueleconomy.gov and found out the names of the currently available used cars that were economy-sized station wagons with great milage.  There were four:  Ford Escort, Mercury Tracer, Suzuki Esteem, and, um, I forget the other one.  
    I then knew what to look for in the classifieds and used car lots, and soon bought a '99 Mercury Tracer wagon that got the same milage as my Civic and carried just as much stuff.  Plus the windshield wipers didn't fall off when it rained, as they had on my Civic.

    Permalink

  5. mihan's avatar

    mihan Posted 1:45 am
    01 Aug 2006

    reduce, reuse, recycleAt 12,500 miles per year ("average"; I think that's a lot, but then I don't have a car) and 39 mpg, you release about 2.8 tons of carbon per year.
    At 35 mpg, that's 3.2 tons.
    A car requires about 4 tons of carbon to produce, or more than a year's worth of emissions. Maybe using a few pounds of VOCs is worth keeping that 4 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere.
    Umbra's advice was pretty much on the money. If you're getting a new car, it had better be pretty freaking efficient to warrant using that (extra) 4 tons of carbon.

    Permalink

  6. rsmith02 Posted 7:42 am
    01 Aug 2006

    Drive them until they drop?"If you're getting a new car, it had better be pretty freaking efficient to warrant using that (extra) 4 tons of carbon."
    Even if that's true, is carbon dioxide the only pollutant we should be concerned about?  Health-harming, ozone-forming nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (from gasoline, not paint) and other pollutants are also important to me.  
    By your logic we should be driving Chevy Novas, the original Civics, VW Rabbits or other fuel-efficient cars, rebuilding them piece by piece (how much carbon is used to make replacement parts?) until they completely die.  In the meantime they will put out ridiculous amounts of air pollution.
    Here's my new car (2000 Civic) versus my old car (1989 Voyager).  You can use this site to check out other cars as well.

    http://www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/rate/compareresults.php?milage_id=EWG018...

    Permalink

  7. reh Posted 9:57 am
    01 Aug 2006

    Not as simple as you make itrsmith & cbc, your fiery rhetoric wounds me (me being Renee who sent the original query to Umbra, and breathes fire at the sight of a Hummer.) If it were that simple, I'd have dumped the old car and bought a new one. I am as concerned about low emissions as I am about high mileage. However, if you look on http://www.fueleconomy.gov and compare the greenhouse gas emissions on a 2006 Honda Civic (both manual and automatic) and my 1988 model, the emissions for my car are actually slightly lower than the 2006 models. And on smog tests, it consistantly performed better than our 93' Saturn (since replaced by a Prius). Methinks you are assuming because the car is old it must be worse on emissions. If you can refer me to some credible information that shows the '88 Honda is a "gross polluter" I would appreciate it. I tried to do my research before writing Umbra and couldn't find any info to verify your beliefs.

    Permalink

  8. rsmith02 Posted 6:55 am
    02 Aug 2006

    gross pollutersHi Renee,

    We're not trying to wound you.  I too care about these issues as I work on global warming and air quality, although my specialty isn't transportation.
    Emissions standards have gotten progressively stronger over the last decade, with the newer California standards being quite stringent.  Your 1988 car doesn't meet any of these modern standards.
    The form of pollution you looked at, global warming-causing carbon dioxide, is directly correlated to fuel economy.  Again, a Model T or '73 bug might have great global warming emissions because of good fuel economy, but that doesn't mean their overall environmental impact is reasonable, especially in a place like California with serious air quality problems.
    "Gross polluter" might be harsh, but here's what I found on the site I linked to above:

    http://www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/rate/report_old.php?...
    "The 1988 Honda Civic emits 88 times more harmful volatile organic compounds that threaten the health of asthma sufferers than the 2000 Mercedes-Benz SL500 (the cleanest 1985-2000 small car).."
    88 times!  My 2000 Honda Civic is "only" 6 times worse according to the site based on Smog Check data.  Not good if you have a smog problem...
    I made some guesses about your car for the site above, feel free to correct it.
    Here's your car versus mine:

    http://www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/rate/compareresults....
    I'd rather have a 2006 PZEV, but my car is reasonably low-polluting and I try not to drive it.

    Permalink

  9. rsmith02 Posted 7:11 am
    02 Aug 2006

    Another resourceThe EPA also has a Green cars guide.  It seems a bit less sophisticated than the other site.
    Here's my 2000 Civic (first result)

    http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-HONDA-Civic-00.htm
    Here's a new 2006 Civic Hybrid:

    http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-HONDA-CivicHybrid-06.h...

    Permalink

  10. reh Posted 11:34 am
    02 Aug 2006

    Thanks for the info.Thanks for the additional info rsmith, and also for mentioning PZEVs in an earlier post.
    I was surprised by the range of PZEV vehicles listed when I stumbled onto the http://www.driveclean.ca.gov site today, and will look at these as a possible replacement car.

    Permalink

  11. rsmith02 Posted 1:54 am
    03 Aug 2006

    Drive cleanMy pleasure.  You're fortunate to live in CA and have all of these cleaner vehicle choices.  It will be a couple of years before we get these cars in Connecticut.
    Driveclean is a good website:

    http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/driveclean/vtype_clean...
    I hope Umbra reads this thread.

    Permalink

  12. Hodbrid Posted 3:03 pm
    16 Aug 2007

    HondaAlthough there were a lot of new editions of cars in the market we could also make our old cars looks brand new with some creativity and lots of patience. What I did to my Honda is a totally old style of redressing a car. I just painted it anew. I put emphasis on its body since its the one more exposed to the external environment...I also added a new Honda axle assembly since it needs replacement...Well anyway, here is also a review about Honda's new editions. Maybe this could give some better idea...
    The new, 2007 Honda CR-V is more powerful, more stylish and more comfortable than the previous-generation 2006 models. Its new suspension geometry delivers an improved ride and better, more responsive handling.

    Buyers choose from three models, the LX, the EX and the EX-L. The latter comes trimmed in leather and can be fitted with an optional navigation system that incorporates a rearview video camera for safe and easy backing. All have four doors and seat five.

    The engine, still an inline four cylinder, employs variable intake valve timing to optimize horsepower and torque for acceleration and cruising speeds. The transmission is a new, five-speed automatic. Real Time all-wheel drive is offered on all three models. The U.S. EPA rates the front-wheel drive CR-V at 23/30 city/highway miles per gallon and the all-wheel drive at 22/28.

    Thus, buyers looking for peppy performance, snazzy styling and easier financing have better choices. But for Honda loyalists looking for something better than their current CR-V or an SUV to step up into from their Civic, the '07 is the logical way to go.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement