When someone owns an older, fully paid-off car that runs well, upgrading to a newer vehicle usually means higher short-term costs—loan interest, increased insurance, and depreciation.
At the same time, newer cars offer advanced safety features such as automatic emergency braking, blind-spot monitoring, lane-keep assist, and rear cross-traffic alert.
How should this trade-off be evaluated?
When does paying more for added safety qualify as wise risk management, and when does it become unnecessary spending?
When does upgrading a paid-off car for safety make financial sense?
byu/Solid-Elk3327 inFrugal
Posted by Solid-Elk3327
4 Comments
It can’t be answered generally.
A 20 year old Volvo may be safer than a brand new Kia.
Do the research on the particular cars and make the best choice you can afford with your budget.
I’ll take older, simpler, paid-off, cheaper to fix, fewer things to go wrong. No turbos, no sun roofs, Honda or Toyota only. No CVTs either.
Agree with others that it is really case specific.
My last swap, I changed from a 1995 Nissan Pathfinder to a 2018 Subaru. The Pathfinder had a rusted frame that I could poke through with my finger.
Kids can play a role. You want that 20 year old rusted under carriage or 5 star crash rated