Is it cheaper to keep a vehicle until you run it into the ground or to buy a new one every 2-5 years?

I bought my used 2003 Ford Focus back in 2006. Owned until 2014. I started having to take it to the shop more often than I could afford. So I bought a newer Subaru Forester which I hope to keep for a good 10 years or more.
I noticed that a lot of people buy new vehicles every few years. Is it so they don't have to worry about the cost of repairs you would have with keeping an aging car? Or is buying a new car every 10 or 15 years better?

If you JUST look at the $$$, it's cheaper to keep it as long as you can. But, that doesn't take into account a time factor. You'll need another car while the 'older' one is in the shop, & if you can establish a cost for your time wasted, that could change the outcome.

It's never cheapest to buy new. Depreciation is scary in the first 2 or 3 years. Cheapest is to buy a used 2 or 3 year old car and run it until something major goes wrong. That could be at 4 years or 20 years.

Your problem was buying a Ford. They're not known for long term reliability. Had you had a corolla instead, it'd still be fine now.
It's cheaper to run a car into the ground, then to buy one once every few years because there's no car payments, and you have the option of not buying full coverage insurance. Maintenance cost will be the same for an old car compared to a new car, that is following the schedule in your owner's manual. In the old car, you'll have to replace things here and there but the cost will still be much less than car payments.

My husband does most the repairs and maintenance on our vehicles. We have a Silverado from 1996 that runs great. My Honda is 2001 and his Honda is 2000. He also has a 1973 Honda motorcycle. It's been very cost efficient for us to just keep driving our cars until the wheels fall off.
I do not understand why people need a new car every 2-5 years. Cars should not be considered "disposable" like that. It makes no sense.

Sure a new car is less maintenance, but check what the depreciation is costing you.

If you buy a new car for ~$30K, drive it for 3 years, then trade it for $15K, then it's cost you $5,000 a year in depreciation.

That would pay for a lot of maintenance on your older vehicle.

And depreciation on an older vehicle is much less. If you buy a car for $10,000 and drive it for 10 years, then scrap it, you can only be loosing $1,000 a year a year to depreciation. So even if you spend $2,000 a year on maintenance, you are still ahead.

There's the reliability factor to consider. Your old car may not be as reliable, and spend more time in the shop. Not so good if you NEED it for work. But if you live in a household with several vehicles and/or good public transport if needed, you can usually live with this. My and the wife's cars are 8 and 11 years old, still perfectly reliable (Toyotas) and if one needs service we can swap around vehicles and drop each other off as needed. The 2 used cars are arguably cheaper to own than 1 new one.

The more you trade cars, the more money you lose. Thousands each time.

Because you pay retail and they only give you wholesale for your old car.

Ideally keep it unless and until it needs a motor or a transmission. And even then it might be worth fixing.

I drive a 94 model because I'm a tightwad and I don't drive a lot. I figure I have saved over $20-40k compared to someone who buys new cars every 4-5 years with insurance & payments.

And I have no plans to get a new one unless the motor or transmission go out.

If you take care of it. Its better to keep it & not have payments. My Dodge Dakota sport has 152,000 miles on it & still running good. Mike