Ok, I know this sounds like a shallow question, but my car is a really really ugly Buick, and I'm a fairly nice-looking girl and sometimes I feel like people's first impression is that I'm white trash or something based on my car. It's really embarrassing because I'm trying to find a job and I always try to park in the back of the lot and hope no one sees me at these ritzy spas (I'm a massage therapist).
My mom is willing to GIVE me her old Ford Explorer ('97 Eddie Bauer edition), but only if I give her my Buick so she can sell it. Problem is, my Buick was falling apart on the outside but has been better-maintained and has new tires ($2500 of work just this year). The Explorer has no foreseeable repairs and the tires have a good bit of life left, I just don't know its history...for example the shocks are in bad shape but that's not really an urgent repair.
My mom won't help me with the repairs with either car, so what should I do???
2006-12-12
02:06:28
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Cars & Transportation
➔ Buying & Selling
My Buick's a '93; it would be a 4-year upgrade. The Buick will probably need another transmission in the next 1-2 years, maybe could stretch it out to 3 years.
2006-12-12
02:13:57 ·
update #1
I was talking to a dealer a few weeks ago about something similar to what you were saying - and basically it got summed up like this: Take a 87 Hyundai, put nice tires and paint on it - it's still an '87 Hyundai. Meaning, even though you put a lot of money and effort into it, it doesn't make the car any more valuable.
The second thing is: you never get a second chance to make a first impression. I get the impression at these ritzy spas that part of the earnings are from tips? You certainly don't want your clientele spying you outside of the spa sporting a less than special vehicle (or, how can you take care of someone's back problems if you can't take care of your own car?).
The final thing is - very rarely do you get to put a ton of money into a car and that just be that. It's usually a slippery slope into more and more repairs. I personally ended up dropping 8K into a car before I realized I could've traded the stupid thing in and taken the 8K as a down payment on a *new* car. This was many many years ago, however.
2006-12-12 02:13:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Prakash V 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Wow, my first car was an '88 Buick. There was nothing bad looking about it. No Explorer is ever going to look better than any Buick, unless the Buick is seriously poor shape...like the doors are held on with duct tape. Anyway, though it goes against everything I believe in, I would suggest the Ford. It sounds like that's the one that'll cost you the least in the long run. Keep that till you can afford to buy something worth having. Transmissions are expensive. How did you manage to kill the one in the Buick?
2006-12-12 03:20:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by czimme3 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I use to own a 1984 Buick Riviera it was a sweet ride! No dents no noticeable scratches nice chrome wheels and the interior only had one cigarette burn because of the previous owner. BUT it didn't run for ****! It was a huge money pit. By the time I got rid of it, I probably spent close to $20,000 just to keep it running in the course of 3 years. So ask yourself this, is it important to have a nice flashy vehicle that you don't know if it runs well or not, or better to have something a little more beat up looking but run decent?
And besides if these "people" are gong to judge you by what you drive you're better off not knowing them. If it decides your future job with a place it's best not to work for them, because what should matter is your job QUALIFICATIONS. It would really be their loss.
2006-12-12 02:26:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by rokthunder 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Take both. A nice running good looking car, but running is always better than looks. Alot of the newer cars are based solely on looks and nothing else. So whenever you plan on getting a vehicle ask someone who has had one for atleast 50,000 miles where you can truly know how good they run. I reccomend anything made by GM. The 90's Fords really don't run as good as they should especially expeditions. Now if you want a suv something like an Envoy or a Tahoe would be better.
2006-12-12 03:28:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Supes 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
A Lexus IS300 is a great choice if you can find one cheap enough. They are reliable, quick, and fun to drive. But they usually run around $9000. Eclipse, Talon, Galant, 300zx. They are not reliable and they will be costly to own. But the 300zx is a great choice for having a unique, fast car. If you ever get the money to fix one up and give it proper maintenance, it would be worth getting. The GTI and Jetta are fun cars, but they are known for having electrical problems. Fuses blowing, light bulbs running out fast, fuses causing transmission to do crazy things not letting you shift gears. These problems are not what I would call expensive, but they do get annoying. Other "fast" cars for around $6000-7000 are the mid-late 90's BMW M3 E36. Just watch for suspension problems with them. Also look for the 92-98 Lexus SC300 or SC400. The SC300 has a 220HP Inline-6 engine. It is RWD. And it is offered with a manual standard transmission. The SC400 has a 250HP V8, but only comes in automatic. These are reliable cars with lots of potential and they are pretty rare.
2016-05-23 08:35:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Generally, I'd rather be driving in a reliable wreck than to be stuck on the side of the road in a classy car. But in this case I would think you'd be able to determine the service history of the Explorer since you know the current owner. You might also take into consideration which one will be worth more in a few years.
2006-12-12 02:14:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
When I was stationed in Okinawa, I had a nice looking sports car with customizations and everything that didn't run worth anything. It kept having problems.
I traded it for a grey four door midsize with one door risting out badly and the trunk with a little rust on it. It never gave me any problems.
In other words, I would go with the ugly but working car myself.
2006-12-12 02:16:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dennis_Yates 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The car that runs better is always cheaper to own than the car that may look better but does not run as well. The way I look at things, it is better to have a fat bank account than to have a phat car.
2006-12-12 02:15:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Al G 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
You don't say what year your Buick is, but I think I would go ahead and trade with her on the info you gave.
2006-12-12 02:10:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
[shakes head]
No one will see you to get that first impression if your “pretty” car is in the shop!
Get the better running car. You said you are an attractive girl - believe me that’s all you need if you are worried about first impressions.
2006-12-12 02:17:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋