Remanufactured Engine

[hufhouse]

Last week, our 2000 Pontiac Montana suddenly...well, broke. I don't really know what's wrong, but there is a major clanking sound coming from the #4 cylinder and it isn't firing.

My mechanic gave me three options. Repair engine, replace engine with used, replace engine with remanufactured.

The remanufactured engine (from Jasper) comes with a 3-year, 75,000 mile warranty.

Repairing the old engine was a shot in the dark as far as cost, but the mechanic said it could cost as much as replacement with a used engine...about $2000 total. Replacing with the remanufactured engine is about twice that...about $4000.

I've decided to go with the remanufactured engine. We need a minivan for a few more years, and I like the security of the warranty. The transmission is still strong and everything on the van works well. I have taken really good care of the van.

Here's my question. What would be wrong with buying a good vehicle, driving it until it starts to use oil or until it throws a rod...say 175,000 miles...then, just plan on replacing the engine and/or transmission with a remanufactured one for a few thousand?

After all, I could never buy a 2000 Montana that is in as good of shape as mine with a brand new engine for $4000. Put another way, what could I buy for $4000 that is as good as this car will be once it's repaired?

I realize that we are all driven by marketing and we "deserve" a new car and we are a throwaway society, but doesn't it make good sense financially?

Let's get really crazy. Let's say I drop $8000 on this van right now and get a remanufactured engine, a remanufactured transmission (all warranted for three years) and had the suspension completely updated. Where else could I get a vehicle with a three-year warranty on almost the entire drive train for $8000?

I figure my only risk would be a total loss in an insurance claim. I'd never get my $8000 back.

Although I'm not happy that my engine died, I can almost see how this could save us money in the long run. After all, I was probably getting close to having to replace the van. Now, I'll probably skip purchasing one car in my lifetime for $4000.

What do you think? Am I crazy?

[MagicRat]

In a roundabout way, you are asking 'at what point does it stop making financial sense to repair a car'.
This is a good question. Most people with older cars must decide if the rest of the car has enough life left to reasonably justify a major repair.

In my opinion, when a car costs more to fix that it costs to make payments on a new similar car, or cost more than a similar used car, it's time to replace it.

Of course, this is a difficult thing to estimate. Since I have owned and driven many older cars and trucks, I make sure I know the vehicle very well, including all its problems. I can roughly guess when the problem areas will become acute and act accordingly.

For example, my '87 Mustang needed a new starter motor at about 210 k km. It was rust free, ran very well and other than worn tires, had no appreciable problems. So a new starter was justified.

My '88 Bonneville also needed a new starter at 256k km. It also needed new tires, brakes, CV joints, had a loose steering rack, an almost irreparible camshaft position sensor problem, noisy trans oil pump, nonfunctional power window, one stuck door and a severely rusted and broken subframe mount.

Although it still ran and drove when the starter broke, its accumulated problems would cost far more than buying a much better used car. So it got scrapped.

[GreyGoose006]

it also comes down to, as you said, how expensive the alternative is.
say you bought a new van. that would set you back $20,000+ easily.
a used van could cost a lot less, but have the same problems.

if you can get an engine with a 3 year warranty (most new cars come with 4-6 year powertrain. cheap cars usually have 10) then i'd go for it.

for 4000 plus instalation, you can almost have yourself a new "used" van.

[curtis73]

Let's also throw resale value in the mix. Depending on the vehicle it can actually reduce the value to some buyers. They start wondering if purchasing your used vehicle is a wise choice. Its a bit backwards, but some buyers don't want to see major repairs on the ticket.

Also it would depend on how "disposable" the vehicle is. If you put a reman engine in a 71 El Camino, most of the potential buyers of that kind of car would see the value in a "new" engine. But a new engine in a more disposable Chevy Cavalier means that if the engine has exceeded its mechanical life, the rest of it won't be far behind.

I would say in a vehicle like your Montana, I personally would do based on three conditions: 1) since its sorta disposable, make sure you realize that your investement is for your own driving reasons and don't expect to get any of it back in resale. 2) Make relatively sure that the rest of the components aren't going to need replacing within the life of the second engine. You'll kick yourself if you spend a couple grand on an engine only to have other things fail as well. Then you're left with either another several thousand of investment to keep it running. Or, if they fail 50,000 miles later, you now have a 200k mile wasted chassis and an engine that is half-used. Your vehicle is now worth $350 in the Sunday Paper. 3) Add up all the money you would spend on replacing the engine and compare it to how much a good running replacement might cost. You might be surprised at the difference.

I usually say on most modern, unibody vehicles, when they're done, they're done. Period. When you get a big break like an engine or tranny, just let it go. My neighbor has a 94 Nissan Quest with only 125k, but the tranny died. It would have been easily 900 to reman it, but it was only worth 800 to start with. Then, once he repaired the tranny, how long until the engine goes? How about windows leaking? Or an electrical failure? Just move on. You'll almost be guaranteed dollars ahead to not sink money into a high-mileage unibody "disposable" type car. Save the major repairs on high mileage cars for those that will bring money when fixed up.

[hufhouse]

Originally Posted by curtis73

I usually say on most modern, unibody vehicles, when they're done, they're done. Period. When you get a big break like an engine or tranny, just let it go. My neighbor has a 94 Nissan Quest with only 125k, but the tranny died. It would have been easily 900 to reman it, but it was only worth 800 to start with. Then, once he repaired the tranny, how long until the engine goes? How about windows leaking? Or an electrical failure? Just move on. You'll almost be guaranteed dollars ahead to not sink money into a high-mileage unibody "disposable" type car. Save the major repairs on high mileage cars for those that will bring money when fixed up.

You're not alone, Curtis, but that's the thinking that I'm questioning here.

If your neighbor's Quest is otherwise sound, why not spend the money to fix the transmission? It's cheaper than any other option he/she has available.

But, beyond that, if you have a sound vehicle with a good interior, suspension, body, etc., and the vehicle "works" for your family, why not put $7,000-$8,000 into it and get a whole new drive train? Where else could you get that quality for $7,000-$8,000? And, a three-year warranty on the engine and transmission?

This really goes against the American way of thinking, but it is kind of "mind-expanding."

I'm the type that washes my car a lot and shampoos the carpets and keeps everything working. Why not take advantage of that care and get TWO lifetimes out of every vehicle?

If you beat on your car and everything is broken and rusted, then I would agree that it doesn't make sense. But, other than normal scratches and wear, our Montana is perfect. Interior is like new. Nothing (other than the engine!) is broken. The transmission currently runs strong.

In fact, I told my wife that if the transmission goes in the next couple of years, I'll just go ahead and replace that with remanufactured, too.

It goes against the grain, but I really think it's the best value long term. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things I'm probably skipping the purchase of one vehicle.

[MagicRat]

One more point here; part of the equation as stated earlier is the cost of subsequent repairs, after the engine is replaced.

This may not be right for you, but many people are quite knowlegeable enough to do their own repairs and maitenance.
Sure, rebuilding and replacing an engine is beyond the capabilities of most people, but more simple repairs are not.

If you are able to do your own work, such as brakes, oil changes etc. one can economically justify keeping an older car on the road, when paying a mechanic would not make financial sense.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by hufhouse

You're not alone, Curtis, but that's the thinking that I'm questioning here.

If your neighbor's Quest is otherwise sound, why not spend the money to fix the transmission? It's cheaper than any other option he/she has available.

But, beyond that, if you have a sound vehicle with a good interior, suspension, body, etc., and the vehicle "works" for your family, why not put $7,000-$8,000 into it and get a whole new drive train? Where else could you get that quality for $7,000-$8,000? And, a three-year warranty on the engine and transmission?

But, just because its the cheapest option, doesn't by any means make it the most financially wise idea. You could spend $7-8k on a $2000 vehicle and you'd have a $2000 vehicle... or you could put that $7-8k into a new used vehicle that's worth $7-8k and be money way ahead.

I agree with your thinking, but most vehicles like the one you describe get exponentially more failure prone as they get older and you have a very good chance of losing thousands of dollars compared to swapping up.

The other thing I didn't mention because its hard to quantify is the general fatigue of the car itself. Unibody cars have a limited life. They are stamped steel that is welded, bolted, and (literally in some places) glued together. Over time the welds, glue, and bolts start fatiguing and you're left with a limp-noodle chassis. An older frame-on-body car can be returned to like-new status with new parts since its completely modular. Its stiffness comes mainly from a huge heavy stamped steel frame on which you hang a body, an engine, a suspension, a transmission, etc.

If it makes you feel better, then certainly do it, but I'm actually considering selling my wife's Tercel because it needs a clutch and tires, and its worth $3500. For $3500 sale price plus what I would spend on repairs, I can buy her a nice BMW E30 3-series in better condition. No lie.

[UncleBob]

this is one of the frustrating things about paying a shop to work on your car. Everything is expensive. Cars are complex and there are many things that can and do fail and there is no real time line that you can paint to show when it suddenly becomes uneconomical to fix it vs buying something else.

Working at a shop, we give estimates all the time on stuff and have people leave with the words "well, I'm selling it if its going to be that expensive!". In fact, its such a common statement, and too often, they DON'T sell it, that we translate it to mean "I/we don't believe you".

When you consider that just maintenance items can run you over $1000 on many vehicles, hell....just brake work can be over that, its very easy to get way upside down in a vehicle that has some miles.

It can make lease options look pretty attractive. You lose money in the long run no matter what, but if you look at a lease compared to the resale depreciation, and maintenance costs....they don't look so bad.

Me, I do all my own work which greatly reduces the cost. Its one thing to buy a $1000 used engine and install it yourself. Quite another to pay a shop $3-4K to do the same thing.

Every vehicle and problem has to be judged by the person in the situation. Too often, if it was me, I wouldn't fix them if I was in their shoes. But thats not my call....I just do the work

[GreyGoose006]

really, the choice is yours. because of the way the car was designed and built, it has a shorter lifespan than older cars. i doubt that the whole thing will fall apart within the next 100K miles, but soon after that, i would start looking for a new van. seeing as how it is only really 6 years old, i think it probably still has a lot of life in it.

[hufhouse]

Let me put this another way....

Other than the risk of a total insurance loss, what is wrong with spending more than the value of an otherwise good vehicle to bring its drive train back to new condition with a warranty? What's so bad about being "upside down" if you aren't planning to sell for a few years?

I think we are so conditioned to think that we can't spend more than the value of a vehicle to fix it that we automatically retreat and spend thousands more on another vehicle.

In my current situation, I have four options.

1. Repair the engine or replace it with a used engine. Either way, I see this as a "pig in a poke" type of gamble. I'll still be shopping for another car soon. Cost = $2,000 and I still have to go to option 3 below.

2. Replace the engine with "new" engine with a warranty. Cost = $4,000. Three-year, 75,000 mile warranty. The best case scenario is that the other major components hold out for another 3-4 years. Worst case scenario is that I dump ANOTHER $4,000 into major repairs. OK, let's say I do and the total cost = $8,000. I've got a new drive train. Could I find that on any other used van? So what if I have to fix a window motor or the air conditioning? That could happen on any car.

3. Take my losses and purchase a reasonably good used van. Cost = $8,000-$15,000. Still a "pig in a poke" and the cost is considerably higher. After all, I'm not going to go out and buy a van with high mileage like my own Montana, because I wouldn't trust somebody else's engine with 95,000 miles on it. And, I could probably never find one with a new engine!

4. Buy new. Cost = $25,000-$30,000. Not even a possibility in my world.

[GreyGoose006]

i totally agree with your logic.

i think that the reman engine is the way to go.
it may hurt the value, but who cares. the whole thing may fall apart, but again, it will be cheaper than a new van.
if you are mostly gentle with your car, it can last a very long time.

curtiss and others do have good arguments, but since you mention that you wont be selling the car and will drive it till it dies, then it makes sense to just replace the broken parts.

the actual reason that curtis and others are objecting to this is that although it seems likely that you could get two lifes out of your car, it wont happen in reality.

see, cars now are meant to be disposable. they are designed so that when the weakest component (engine, tranny, body, whatever) fails, the rest will go soon after. this helps minimize short term cost and the price that the buyer pays.

problem is, the actual cost is much higher, as these old degraded, worthless vehicles will be clogging the landfills. they are designed for one time use. parts are not replaceable, or easily removable. they are disposable. the actual cost of these vehicles comes into play many years down the road, but nobody really pays attention to it as it only affects such trivial things like the environment.

i'd say, fight the power and replace the engine. then take your old engine and send it off to be rebuilt, or sell it on craigslist or something. dont just let it get thrown away.