Should I buy a new car? 98k miles

[Crispedoff]

So my little old car, 2006 plate with 98k miles has started to make a funny little noise. After a quick Google and a phonecall to a mechanically minded friend, it seems likely to be the timing belt that's gone. My friend said when you replace this it is likely that other connected components could need replacing to, so to budget for around £350.
My car passed its MOT in summer with a few advisories relating to the brakes, which I've had looked at since.

I'm currently saving for a house, and spending 5k on a car isn't ideal right now, although I would love a newer car.

So AIBU (or foolish) to fix my car, when it is so old and is worth £250 at resale value? Or should I repair the car I have so I don't put a hefty 5k dent in the house pot?
I'm just worried I'm throwing money away if it turns out I'll have to replace the car in the next 12months anyway, or that I'll be stuck in a panic trying to panic if I have a huge bill to foot if I suddenly need a new cat when we buy our first house next year.

Thank you, I really need to hear opinions on this one!

Timing belts are supposed to be replaced from time-to-time, on many cars. It's not cheap maintenance, but it is part of servicing, something that needs to be done before it breaks. (Because if it breaks, engine is scrap.)

Would you get rid of your car if it needed four new tyres? Timing belt replacement should be a similar cost.

I wouldn't drive it for now. If it goes it'll kill the engine basically and if your cars only worth £250 then that is clearly an uneconomic repair to replace the engine.
Petrol engines don't last as long as diesels. I replaced my last diesel at 240,000 miles and it was good for plenty more after a refurb which the new owner planned to do.

My car was supposed to have a timing belt that would last the life of the car, when it was launched. Since then, the manufacturer has apparently changed their mind about it's longevity, and I have to change it every five years, even though the original service schedule doesn't mention it. I do a very low mileage, probably less in five years than the average car does in one. But if I didn't change it at the scheduled age, when would I?

Timing belts have a life span. We've got a VW Polo with 100k on the clock that we've had since it was 18mths old. It's had 2 timing belt changes. If they go then the car stops dead and you're faced with a huge bill.

I'd take it to the garage and see what they say. My Honda CRV is an 04 plate and has done 161k miles, and though the alternator died last week it is totally an economic repair as the opinion of the RAC bloke and garage is that its got years left in it yet

Timing belt is just a routine thing in the lifespan of a car though. If you leave it too late it knackers your engine, but your mechanic/you should be keeping an eye on the time/mileage so as to replace it in due course before that.

I certainly don't think a timing belt change comes under the "replace the whole car!" if its otherwise pretty sound.

This thread makes for terrifying reading

Get it repaired.

This thread makes for terrifying reading

Eh?
Why?

Is it a "OMG , cars can just 'go' like that?"
or an
"OMG do people really not understand the copmlexities of the internal combustion engine"?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's the first one and not a thinly veiled sexist eye rolling comment ?

Do not drive if your timing belt needs replacing. If it goes, then the engine is wrecked.

I drive a 99 Toyota Corolla with 175,000 miles on the clock. I got the timing belt done last week for €180. If your car is reliable then get it done and keep it. Why spend a lot of money on a newer car if you don't have to.

Speaking as someone who recently through good money after bad on an old car (it was actually my wife's car which had a lot of sentimental attachment to), I would say scrap it and get something else. 100k on a small Kia is a lot and it will start to be 'one thing after another' until the inevitable happens (at which point your savings point may well have been munched by constant repairs).

As others have said though, if it IS the timing belt then don't drive it at all. It won't have 'gone' (you'd know if it had!) but it may be on its way out and that could leave you stranded (potentially dangerously).

*thrown...not through (more coffee needed!)

I believe the timing belt is supposed to be replaced a 6 years/60,000 miles. If yours wasn't, you're living on borrowed time. If it fails the engine is likely to be wrecked.

Anybody buying the car should know that as it affects the value.

If you buy a different car it will also have maintenance and repair costs.

OOI, what is this funny noise?

I've never heard a timing belt. But I've heard lots of other car noises.

I have a 2006 car with 100k mileage and we consider if the “new” car. :/.

I would repair.

I have a 2006 Honda CR-V. which I've had for over 11 years. I got the timing belt changed a couple of years ago but I don't intend changing it very soon as it's incredibly reliable. Passed every MOT without fail although I always get it serviced before the MOT.
I honestly would be more wary of buying another car with unknown history unless I was buying a nearly new (less than 2 years) car.
Timing belts always need replacing after a certain mileage but it doesn't mean the rest of it will fail.

Has you cam belt a snapped or is it's just noisy?
Cam belts are a replaceable item so other things shouldn't need to be replaced too.

Consumable rather than replaceable I meant, like tyres or brakes

The calculation isn't that the repair is worth more than the value of the car - the key factor is the cost of replacement.
I drive an 04 car, worth about 1000. Every couple of years it needs a big job like clutch or timing belt. Every time we scratch our heads and winder if it's worth it.
Car keeps going, is solid and reliable. The cost of a new car is significantly more that the repair and as pp have said unless you j ow it's history could end up with a less reliable car than the one you have.
Have done a back of the envelope calculation - the cost of buying my car (7k many years ago) plus all the maintenance costs is about half, on a per annum of driving basis, than if I was to get a loan/lease/pcp etc new/nearly new car.

That said if I had 10k I would buy a 'new' car next time a big job is needed, but I don't so financially and practically it makes sense to fix my trusty old one.

Why spend 5K on a new car when you can fix yours for £400? I do not understand this thinking, I had an old L reg, I spent a few hundred fixing it over the years, it was my most reliable car I've ever had and I had it for 10 years. Its funny how people go on about saving the environment but when it comes to cars everyone wants something new and shiny!

you don't need to spend 5k on a newer car. £1000- 1500 will get you a decent reliable car, but I would fix the Kia.

I believe the timing belt is supposed to be replaced a 6 years/60,000 miles.

It depends on the car - for my Fiesta it was the earlier of 10 years or 10k miles.

Could you do without a car for a time?

I'd fix and keep. Cars only ever lose value, so I do believe in driving them till they're dead. I had to have cam belt and timing belt replaced on mine this year, which was £££ but then it's got 113K miles on already and I know it's going to keep going! Looking after your car's engine is a much better investment than buying new cars every couple of years.

What would you buy if you got a new car? If the annual depreciation on the new car would be greater than the repair cost of your current car, repairing would work out cheaper.