I'm still figuring this stuff out, but isn't liability-only usually enough if your car's older anyway? I mean, if repairs cost more than the car's worth, wouldn't comprehensive just be throwing money away? Or am I missing something here...
Liability-only can definitely make sense if your car's older and not worth much. But one thing to consider is how you'd handle it if something unexpected happened—like theft or vandalism. A buddy of mine had an older Civic, thought comprehensive was pointless...until someone smashed his window and stole his stereo. He ended up paying out-of-pocket. Maybe think about how comfortable you'd be covering those random costs yourself?
I totally get the logic behind liability-only when your car isn't worth much. I've been there myself—had an old Corolla that was basically held together by duct tape and hope. At the time, comprehensive coverage felt like tossing money out the window every month. And honestly, most of the time it probably is.
But the thing is, life has a funny way of throwing curveballs at the worst possible moments. A couple years back, my neighbor's kid accidentally hit a baseball right through my windshield. I mean, what were the odds, right? I ended up having to shell out a few hundred bucks to get it fixed, and at the time, that seriously hurt my wallet. Looking back now, comprehensive coverage probably would've paid for itself in that one incident alone.
Still, it's a balance. If you're young and broke (been there, done that), every dollar counts. You have to weigh how tight your budget really is versus how much peace of mind you want. If setting aside a small emergency fund for random car expenses feels doable to you, liability-only might still be the right call.
Just remember, whatever choice you make isn't permanent—you can always adjust your coverage later when things are more comfortable financially. You're already being smart by thinking this through carefully instead of just jumping at the cheapest option. Trust your gut and do what's best for your situation right now.
Had a similar situation myself—my first car was a beat-up '89 Mustang, barely worth the gas I put in it. Liability-only made sense at the time, but then one icy morning I slid right into a curb and bent the axle. Ever priced out axle repairs on a tight budget? Not fun. Sometimes saving a few bucks upfront can bite you later...but hey, hindsight's always 20/20, right?
"Sometimes saving a few bucks upfront can bite you later...but hey, hindsight's always 20/20, right?"
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but honestly, isn't that just part of the gamble? I mean, if your car's already beat-up and barely worth anything, paying extra for comprehensive coverage might not always be worth it. Sure, axle repairs suck big time (been there, done that), but how often does something like that really happen? Maybe it's just about weighing the odds and hoping luck's on your side...
