....................





....................
Last edited by Genoveve; 10-11-2014 at 07:04 PM.





It depends. Fixing a transmission on a 20 year old beater makes little sense. Fixing the transmission on a car that has a bunch of other problems is not smart either. But, a commuter car that gets good mileage, is paid for and otherwise in good shape, then fix the transmission and drive it a couple of hundred thousand miles.
HTH
Z
I have the same thing happening at the moment, my engine which had done 120,000 miles has been replaced for one that's done 60'000 and a new cam belt.
Also because it was in an accident it's having to have a new radiator, etc.
It worked out way cheaper than replacing the car.





I invested in replacing the transmission in my Subaru WRX at 150,000 miles. It's now up to 175,000 miles and still drives almost as well as a new Subaru WRX that would have cost 10+ times as much as the transmission replacement.
As Zofia pointed out already, some key 'ingredients' in making an intelligent decision about major repairs versus replacement are ... the condition of the vehicle's frame and body ... the condition of the vehicle's other 'major' components ( engine, electrical system, air conditioning / heat / radiator ) etc.
Another factor of course which adds an 'intangible' economic factor is whether or not you actually like the vehicle well enough to want to keep driving it for another 3+ years !!! Obviously, if you don't plan on driving the same vehicle for another 3+ years, it's financially impossible to justify the major investment in an engine / transmission replacement.
I would add another comment ... that swapping out bad transmissions and engines in exchange for complete certified 're-manufactured' units, as opposed to attempting major repairs on existing transmissions and engines or installing 'used' transmissions and engines of unknown history and internal condition, is IMHO a far 'safer' course of action in terms of return on investment. See
Bookmarks