*monkey* wrote:...For a car with over 100,000 miles on it, it's usually more sensible just to scrap it than pay for a new transmission.
thanks for the info. though my point to adik was the cost of a reman/rebuild transmission would be greater than replacing motormounts. adik statement seemed to suggest that it was worth sacrificing transmission to save mounts, which i thought was incorrect.
When I started working in Taiwan, I didn't have lot of money to spare, but I needed a car. So I bought a 96 corona with 160,000 believable ks on the clock for $65K. My intention was (and still is) to get at least 100,000 ks out of it without spending any money unless absolutely necessary, after which time I'm prepared to junk it, or keep driving it if that's still possible, given the minimal maintenance it will have received.
So far (20,000 ks), apart from servicing, I've only had to replace the brake pads, 2 tires and a belt.
Apart from the engine vibration experienced when the car is in Drive and stationary, a six inch crack has developed in the windscreen, the paint on the hood has begun to peel and the central locking has stopped working using the key (though the central locking switch in the armrest still works). These are things that I'm prepared to live with.
The transmission seems fine, but needless to say, if it ever got to the stage where it needed to be replaced or have serious money spent on it, I would most likely just junk the whole car. Hopefully nothing like that will happen until after 260,000 ks.