[Phaedrus68]

When discussion about cars and related costs comes up with some members of my family, there usually crops up the argument that at some point, the amount that needs to be spent to keep the car running is higher than the value of the car, so doesn't it make more sense to cut your losses and just get a newer car that won't need the same amount of cash input to keep it running.

I imagine that discussion/argument takes place all over the world.

I've only ever been at the market-position to buy used cars - 5-10 years old, €2000-€5000 price range.

My current car (2000 V70 2.5, 176,000m) is the nicest car I've owned. I loved my Discovery and my HiLux Surf, and my Corolla estate was a real go-forever car, if a little bland. But my V70 is - to me, even at 15 years old, with 176,000m on her - a posh car, a luxury car, a fancy car.

And I want to keep it. I want to keep it on the road, running well. But at this stage, what's needed to keep it running will start costing more than its value, probably many times.

Personally, I'm fine with that - if I had permanent full time work, I might actively seek and save for an XC70, but that's not where I am right now.

I hate the idea of scrapping a car that could be kept not just running, but running well, probably for considerably less than the cost of replacing with a significantly younger, significantly lower-mile car.

I like the idea of well-kept, smooth-running high-mile cars. I hate the discard-and-replace mentality that's so dominant in so many areas of life these days.

So what's the general feeling - spend your money on keeping your loved-and-trusted high-miler going? Or spend that money on replacing it with a younger, lower-mileage car?