Older car/lots of miles vs. newer but fewer safety features

magdalene_eve · Feb 12, 2008

Which is safer, an older car with 100,000-150,000 miles on it but lots of safety features (i.e. a Volvo), or a newer car with fewer safety features, assuming both have been well-maintained? The oldest any car would be is 6 years.

Having to think of terms of money when it comes to safety sucks.

I'm sorry if this has been asked a million times, I'm new here.

twokidstwodogs · Feb 12, 2008

magdalene_eve said:
Which is safer, an older car with 100,000-150,000 miles on it but lots of safety features (i.e. a Volvo), or a newer car with fewer safety features, assuming both have been well-maintained? The oldest any car would be is 6 years.

It depends on what the safety features in question are. Volvo started adding important safety features to cars long before other manufacturers did, but the other manufacturers quickly caught up. New Volvos generally get high marks for safety, but lots of other cars do as well or better.

What year is the Volvo and what is the other car in question? What features do they have? More airbags are nearly always better, though you have to use caution if the Volvo has side impact airbags for rear passengers. Anti-lock brakes are very important, and traction control is a great thing too. Electronic stability control is even better, though that would be more unusual in an older car.

Also keep in mind that Volvos are very expensive to repair.

Morganthe · Feb 12, 2008

It depends on how well the older car was taken care of, maintenance-wise, but usually I go with the older car for the same reasons as you. Heck, my "NEW" car 2 years ago was a 1999 Camry with 113,000 miles on it. All I've done was a tune-up, change oil, & tint the windows, everything else is going strong. Knock on wood, but there hasn't been any problems with it. I think it's over 130,000 miles now & still going strong.

I could have purchased a newer smaller American brand for the same amount, but they didn't feel 'safe' as the solid dull Camry. Besides, my 6cyl, 200hp engine pulls about 28-30 mpg when I'm doing long distance travel at highway speeds & fully loaded. Can't beat that :shrug-shoulders:

Personally, I figure about 'investing' about $1,000- 1200 in a used car to tweak it to my preferences + replacing items that need to be changed over just after I purchase it. Other than the Camry, which was purchased at a dealership, we've had to do that with all our other car purchases. We still come out ahead in comparision with buying 'new' or 'newer but less features'.

hth

southpawboston · Feb 12, 2008

what trumps age and features is actual test scores. there are brand new cars out there with side impact airbags that don't perform as well as some other, older cars without side impact airbags. it really all comes down to the actual crash results.

some old cars do great, some do poorly. some new cars do great, some do poorly.

if you are asking which older cars give you the best safety "bang for the buck", i would point you to two different price ranges: $3-5000 i would say 1996-2004 ford taurus. $5000-10000 i would way 1998-2001 volvo S70/V70. both cars did exceptionally well in their own time and compare favorably even with some newer cars.

Older car/lots of miles vs. newer but fewer safety features

magdalene_eve

New member

twokidstwodogs

New member

Morganthe

New member

southpawboston

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics