I love, love, love your show and column. I just inherited a 2006 Jeep Commander with 60,000 miles on it. It's in almost mint condition. But I have been driving a 2003 Subaru Forester since buying it new in 2002. It has 150,000 miles. It's had expensive repairs in the past couple of years, but it seems OK now. Would you sell the Subaru and keep the Jeep, or keep the Subaru and sell the Jeep? I don't drive more than 5,000 miles per year. I would so appreciate your advice. Thanks. - Cherie
Ray: Keep the Jeep, Cherie.
At 150,000 or perhaps a bit earlier, most Subarus have engine seals that are leaking oil, leaking head gaskets, a water pump that needs replacing, and certainly a timing belt that has to be changed. If you haven’t done all of that stuff yet, you’re looking at $2,500 in the near future.
Plus, at that age, lots of stuff can go wrong, unpredictably. Your transmission may develop issues. Your suspension, exhaust and brake components will be rusting out or failing. And this is the age at which a car tries to send its owner little SOS messages. Like when the rearview mirror falls off, or the glove box stops closing.
The Jeep has only 60,000 miles on it. So it’s far more likely to last you many years.
Since you’re driving only 5,000 miles a year, the Jeep’s mileage is less of an issue, and an expense, than if you drove 20,000 miles a year.
If you want another opinion (and after writing to Car Talk, I don’t blame you), take both cars to a mechanic you trust, and ask him to check them out as if they were used cars that you were thinking of purchasing. He’ll check everything and give you a full report on what he finds. Then you can use that information to make an informed decision.
I can tell you’re emotionally attached to your old Subaru. But based on mileage alone, I’m guessing judges would pick the Jeep in a unanimous decision.
But whatever you decide, put aside the proceeds from the sale of one car to pay for future repairs on the other. Then you’ll be covered no matter what you do.
Why can VW suddenly play music without a key?
Dear Car Talk:
I have a ‘97 VW Jetta that doesn’t require the key to be in the ignition for the radio and CD player to work, or for the seatbelt alarm to go off. When it was newer, nothing would turn on without the key in the ignition. Why all the laxness now? - Lisa
Ray: VWs were famous for that in the old days, Lisa. They were designed so you could play the radio without having the key in the ignition. I think the head of VW’s replacement-battery sales division came up with that idea.
I can’t remember when they finally changed it - it might have been prior to 1997. But in any case, your seat-belt warning chime shouldn’t be coming on with the ignition off.
That tells me that the problem is your ignition switch, which is worn out. VWs also were famous for needing ignition switches.
It’s not the ignition lock, where you insert your key; it’s the switch behind the lock that gets turned. It’s easy and relatively inexpensive to replace: It’ll probably cost you $100 or less.
And then you can sit in your car for hours, contemplating the sheer beauty of the 1997 Jetta, without having to listen to that darn ding-ding-ding anymore. Good luck, Lisa.
About the Author