I don't know anything about the seal problems, but a Toyota with only 76K miles could have a lot of life left. As for $3K, I again say look at the "book value" to see what it should sell for and look at the private sale value, that should be less than what you'd have to pay at a dealer. Again, I'd look at the book on Chevy and Ford (S10 and Ranger to be in the same size range as the Toyota) and see if it is possible to get one a couple of years newer and a few miles less used for the same money. I was talking to a fisherman I "bumped" into a couple of days back. He had noted my Chevy Colorado and asked how I like it. He had a Chevy S10 of some years, don't remember, but I do remember he said he had about 300,000 on it. Yes he had replace a number of things, but he engine/transmission/drive-train was original equipment. My 1988 Dodge Ram 50, similar size, had about 100,000 on it when I traded it in (gave away) on the Chevy and the only problems I had were: Head Gasket and Carb. It was a 4WD and the drive train/clutch seemed to be in "perfect" shape. A mechanic at the dealer bought the truck, and I see it from time to time, he's still driving it to work. He said he replaced the carb, I don't know if anything else has gone. Point? 76K miles isn't a lot of miles on a vehicle if it has been maintained (mostly just oil change/filter change).

I am a huge fan of a fixer upper. I feel you get the most bang for your buck with one. If you are not a visual person and if you are the type to reject a house because it's dirty or the paint color is wrong, or you don't like the carpeting, then find someone with vision who can help you to "see" the possibilities. I have done that with three different places. Our first place back in 1987 had wall to wall mustard colored carpet, mustard walls, ceiling and trim. Underneath the floors were gorgeous hardwood floors. We painted, wallpapered, redid the kitchen, replaced the nob and tube in that house, had a gorgeous bungalow and sold it for a small profit during the recession in 1993. Our second house had half the house turned into a doctors office. We removed the doctor's suite of offices including his "lab", and created a wonderful family home, updated the appliances, updated the wiring, painted, papered, tiled, etc and sold for a profit during this last recession back in 2010. In fact ours was the only house to sell during a 6 month period in our neighborhood. 6 years ago, my new DH and I bought a condo in a good building in FL. The building was built in 1982 and everything in the condo was original! We (meaning I designed the changes and the GC did the work with his crew. I'm getting too old to do the work myself now, but did when I was young,) gutted the condo, redid everything including moving non load bearing walls and just sold it this past spring for a hefty profit. Here's a link to the condo listing. Here are a few pics of what the condo looked like originally. This was the original kitchen. I didn't move the appliances but updated them all and donated these and the kitchen to Habitat for Humanity.This was the original view looking from the kitchen to the dining room. I opened the wall up and made a walkway into the dining room instead of having to walk around the foyer. This is the view toward the front hallway and into the kitchen from the living room. This was the view from the living room to the dining room.This was the original guest bathroom. The red one in my redone pictures.And this was the master bedroom looking towards the closet and the bathroom. In my redone condo photos, it's where the chinese chair is. The closet blocked the balcony door.And this was the master bath originally. Yes you could sit down while brushing your teeth. And finally one more of the master bath. We switched the shower with the bathtub to open up the room. Funny thing is I walked into the condo and knew it was right and with some work could be perfect because the bones were there. The layout was good, the view fantastic and it met our needs at the time. My point being that with a little sweat equity if you're handy and some vision you can turn what Vanilla Ice calls a Dud into a Stud. And if things like the kitchen are workable such as the one in my picture above, you don't have to do it all right away. You can live with the kitchen as is, and update as you have the funds. We did that in both our houses.

In your situation, I like the idea of setting aside a healthy down payment into a special account, now, then adding the price of the monthly payment on a new one, for at least six months, better a year ... (possibly even two?). Then taking the kitty to buy, rather than a new one, a quality vehicle that's a year or two (possibly three?) old. Do you folks know some mechanics? Talk to them, to find out some things that you can check for, to weed out some prospects. Also get an idea of who might be willing to check out some candidates for you, then take some to them to check. If one listens to the motor,and takes one quick look, then tells you to get that piece of crap out of there - give him/her 10 bucks. If s/he checks another out a bit, then turns it down - give him/her 20 bucks. If the mechanic checks one out quite carefully and you give that person $40.00 ... ... and you get a really good vehicle after having paid less than $200.00 ... ... and you save one trip to the garage - you're money ahead! For me? I haven't bought a new vehicle for over 35 years. Figure to buy one 5 - 10 years old for under $5,000. (haven't paid close to that, for several years). Recent Mazda was almost 20 years old, $2,500.00 before tax, licence transfer, drove it 5 years. Current '05 Chev. was bought last summer, $3,800.00 or so, including taxes, licence, paid in cash ... as I'm 84, it may well be my last vehicle. You have some funding set aside for emergency/ies, kids' education, your retirement, etc., do I assume? If you don't boss your bucks ... there's a good possibility that'll they'll boss you. And often if you don't boss them in the short term ... their bossing will likely hit you, after a while. ole joyful

I only mentioned the "nuclear bomb" as a wild, obvious example of something the government doesn't want in the hands of private citizens, followed by several more down-to-earth examples that were more relevant. (Actually, I'm not even sure whether it's illegal to possess or use a nuclear weapon, although I assume it is). I wouldn't support any restrictions on SUV ownership; indeed if such a thing existed it would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an SUV as opposed to a tall station wagon or a van. But I do support mandates that require reasonable fuel economy, adequate safety for both its occupants (meaning crashworthiness and vehicle stability) and other motorists (limited weight, standard bumper height etc.). The problem with 4WD off-road vehicles is that they are inherently poorly suited for routine on-road driving. In order to provide the needed ground clearance and wheel travel for off-road use, an SUV must have its body raised well into the air, creating a high center of gravity, and in turn a high susceptibility to rollovers. The most capable off-road vehicle available, the Hummer, counteracts this tendency by being very wide, but its width makes it an impractical vehicle for normal roads (and parking spaces). Another approach is to use a hydraulic suspension that can lower the vehicle by several inches at highway speeds, and raise it for off-road or inclement weather use. That is what the Range Rover uses, but it adds about $2000 to the cost and thus isn't widely available. But another serious problem has no easy workarounds. In order to climb or descend steep grades, vehicles like the Jeep or Land Rover must have high bumpers to prevent them from scraping the ground when you begin the ascent or reach the bottom of a steep grade. These high bumpers don't line up with normal car or van bumpers, causing considerable damage to any car they hit. And since heavy SUVs have lots of momentum, that damage is compounded. It doesn't help that SUV brakes and cornering ability are generally subpar compared to cars, again because of the combined effects of weight, high center of gravity, and tires optimised for digging into muck. All of which are good reasons to avoid this type of vehicle unless you really need the off-road capability. No, I don't want the government telling me I don't drive on dirt trails enough to warrant buying an SUV, but I'm also responsible enough to buy a vehicle better suited to my needs if I only drive on public roads. And that goes double if I use my car to transport children. Most buyers of SUVs never take them off-road. Asked why they bought them, they cite roominess, 3 rows of seats, luggage space, bad-weather traction, and the good view of the road ahead from the high seating position. All of these things are available from a 4WD station wagon (except the high seating position) without the negatives associated with off-road trucks. Or you can get a mini van, which is considerably roomier than a like-sized SUV and offers the same high seating position, but with better gas mileage and stability. Some even offer 4WD. Responding to the marketplace, many auto manufacturers are introducing vehicles that look like SUVs but are actually built on car platforms with lighter overall weight and lower center of gravity, rather than the old-school SUVs that are essentially modified pickup trucks. In addition to their safety and environmental advantages, these quasi-SUVs offer a smoother, quieter ride and a more car-like driving experience. As for those reported 100mpg cars, they don't exist, nor is there any conspiracy amongst the auto or oil industries to suppress them if they did. There have been numerous people over the last few decades who've claimed the technology exists to build a 100 mpg car. Of these, exactly zero have produced a viable blueprint for such a car, much less built a working prototype that achieved 100 mpg. The auto industry has spent billions of dollars trying to develop more fuel efficient cars, and they would jump at any technology that could produce such high mileage (especially Ford, which just reported a $5.1 billion loss for the past year and would welcome anything that could boost sales). The best gas mileage currently available is from the Honda and Toyota hybrid electric/gasoline engines, which are good for about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight. But nearly every aspect of that car was compromised in order to deliver high gas mileage. The car seats only 2 people, has no real trunk, lacks air conditioning, and has a maximum capacity of 385 lbs., including luggage. The Toyota (and an upcoming hybrid-powered Honda Civic) are more practical, but their mileage is about 10mpg less. The hybrid engine adds thousands of dollars to the car's price, yet Honda and Toyota lose money on every car they sell. So why do they make them? Because selling a few thousand 50mpg cars allows them to sell additional big, gas-guzzling Lexuses (which have high profit margins) whilst keeping their corporate-average fuel economy above the Government standards. Surely they would build 100mpg cars if they knew how, even if they lost money on every one. Or they would apply that technology to their SUVs so they would get better mileage and thus not face sales restrictions. I don't know how the oil industry would react to ultra-efficient cars, but there's little they could do to stop manufacturers from building them.