Click n Clack say, don't buy a new car.
doc marten
That it's Never cheaper even in the long run to buy a New Car.
and it you want proof.
get their book "How to buy a great used car",, you might find it on'
www.cartalk.com
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.
John A. Weeks III
<georgewkspam-ECA0...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
doc marten <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> Yes, they said it in their latest column.
> That it's Never cheaper even in the long run to buy a New Car.
> and it you want proof.
> get their book "How to buy a great used car",, you might find it on'
> www.cartalk.com
I always used to get a new vehicle every 2-1/2 years by trading
in my old Ford Ranger for a new one. I drive 30K+ miles each
year, so I use up vehicles quickly. When I traded in #7, I felt
like they really ripped me (actually, I allowed to happen) since
I got what I thought was little for a truck that looked and drove
like new. As a result, with #8, I am running the wheels off of
this one. I just turned over 248,000. Other than one ding, it
looks and drives like a spring chicken. Yes, it has had to have
some repairs along the way, but as long as the engine is strong
and the transmission works, I'll keep doing small repairs. From
my math, I figure that I have gotten over 3 new vehicles worth
of service out of this one truck compared to what I used to
get, so if it cost $14K to trade, I have saved $28K. I put
maybe $5K into it since I had it.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
SMS
> Yes, they said it in their latest column.
> That it's Never cheaper even in the long run to buy a New Car.
They are mistaken. You need to do a spreadsheet of depreciation,
reliability and predicted out of warranty repair costs, and the street
price of the vehicle new versus used.
It's true that if you're going to buy a vehicle with terrible resale
value, i.e. something from the big 3 or one of the second tier Japanese
manufacturers, you're probably better off buying used. If you're buying
a three year old Toyota or Honda you're paying a big premium for the
brand name yet you're getting no warranty. Furthermore, someone selling
a three year old Honda or Toyota is likely the type of person that paid
way too much for it when it was new, and is counting on someone that
would be overpaying for a new one to buy his or her used one.
I remember looking at some used Camrys when we bought a new one. A one
year old Camry was about $1000 more than a new one, a two year old was
about $500 more than a new one, and a three year old was about
$500-$1000 less than a new one, depending on the mileage. Even though it
was a Toyota, there was still one warranty repair we needed, something
that was a common failure on that generation of Toyota. Had we bought
the three year old model and saved $500, we would have paid for a $400
repair.
Rod Speed
> Yes, they said it in their latest column.
> That it's Never cheaper even in the long run to buy a New Car.
They're wrong, it can sometimes be cheaper in the long run to buy a new
car, particularly when the car is seeing stupid prices paid for the used cars.
> and it you want proof. get their book "How to buy a great used car",,
Just because they say it doesnt qualify as anything like proof.
Dave
> year old Camry was about $1000 more than a new one, a two year old was
> about $500 more than a new one, and a three year old was about
> $500-$1000 less than a new one,
You noticed that too? I remember being on a Honda dealer's lot, and used
Accords were priced thousands higher than new ones. WHAT?!? -Dave
ares
I always buy new because it usually gives me a good 3 years of worry free
driving. A used one
is that much closer to a big repair. And yeah, I also noticed that you can
get new Toyotas for
just a tad more than a used one so why buy used there? I was disappointed
with my last Corolla
wagon; a 90; its transmission went out at little over 82,000 miles but I
have this feeling that a
mechanic tampered with it during an oil change because the exact same thing
happened to a friend
who had an oil change there.
ares
"Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote in message
news:gkoah6$7jl$1...@news.motzarella.org...
clams_casino
This has been hashed & rehashed numerous times on this newsgroup. IMO,
it really depends on one's annual mileage & need for dependability.
Low usage drivers (especially <10k) who don't travel far from home with
mostly daytime driving will likely do best with used vehicles. High
mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to do best with new
vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k or using them as a second
car after 100k while driving them into the ground..
clams_casino
The tax & insurance costs can make such vehicles attractive to low
mileage drivers.
Daniel T.
> Yes, they said it in their latest column.
> That it's Never cheaper even in the long run to buy a New Car.
> and it you want proof.
> get their book "How to buy a great used car",, you might find it on'
> www.cartalk.com
Sure, that's almost always true, but it's also cheeper to live like a
bum, that doesn't mean I want to do it.
--
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Daniel T.
> Low usage drivers (especially <10k) who don't travel far from home with
> mostly daytime driving will likely do best with used vehicles. High
> mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to do best with new
> vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k or using them as a second
> car after 100k while driving them into the ground..
So you think a person who is driving his car 25K a year or more, and has
a car that has about 100K on it, but works perfectly, should trade it in
for a brand new car?
clams_casino
>clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Low usage drivers (especially <10k) who don't travel far from home with
>>mostly daytime driving will likely do best with used vehicles. High
>>mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to do best with new
>>vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k or using them as a second
>>car after 100k while driving them into the ground..
>>
>>
>
>So you think a person who is driving his car 25K a year or more, and has
>a car that has about 100K on it, but works perfectly, should trade it in
>for a brand new car?
>
>
>
Depends on how important the dependability factor is. For me, no.
I'd keep it as my primary car until about 150k and then use it as a
secondary car.
But for perhaps a sales rep, etc making numerous calls over a wide
territory, it's probably better to stay with a car <100k. For someone
just commuting to work, I'd push for at least 150k before retiring it
to a second vehicle, passing it onto a child, etc..
Lou
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:8ZQbl.53964$3_4....@newsfe10.iad...
Again, it depends. My wife and I are way past the point where we'd have a
child to pass a car to, we've been empty nesters for over 20 years. We each
need a car for commuting to work - my commute alone is around 20,000 miles a
year, and my wife's is around 30,000. The best thing I can think of to do
with an older, miles getting up there car is trade it in, either as a
straight trade or sell it and use the money for a down payment. The last
thing the two of us need is a third car. And neither of us wants to be
caught 40+ miles from home in a car that suddenly isn't working (happened
once, that was plenty).
clams_casino
So when would you trade? What are you considering as "getting up there"?
I passed on my 2000 Accord to family member at 150k who is approaching
200k with negligible problems.
Agree that one really doesn't want to break down 40+ miles from home,
especially at night. Did that once (belt broke on my Chrysler). Now I
carry a cell phone when away from the local area.
Daniel T.
Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you had?
Unless your car had serious frame damage, there was a third choice you
weren't seeing, which was probably less expensive.
Rod Speed
> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>> Low usage drivers (especially <10k) who don't travel far from home
>> with mostly daytime driving will likely do best with used vehicles.
>> High mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to do best with
>> new vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k or using them as a
>> second car after 100k while driving them into the ground..
>
> So you think a person who is driving his car 25K a year or more, and
> has a car that has about 100K on it, but works perfectly, should
> trade it in for a brand new car?
That can make sense if unreliability has substantial real costs
in loss of business etc and the cost of the new car isnt that much.
Lou
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
> Lou wrote:
>
>>"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
>>news:8ZQbl.53964$3_4....@newsfe10.iad...
>>
>>Again, it depends. My wife and I are way past the point where we'd have a
>>child to pass a car to, we've been empty nesters for over 20 years. We
>>each
>>need a car for commuting to work - my commute alone is around 20,000 miles
>>a
>>year, and my wife's is around 30,000. The best thing I can think of to do
>>with an older, miles getting up there car is trade it in, either as a
>>straight trade or sell it and use the money for a down payment. The last
>>thing the two of us need is a third car. And neither of us wants to be
>>caught 40+ miles from home in a car that suddenly isn't working (happened
>>once, that was plenty).
>>
>>
>>
> So when would you trade? What are you considering as "getting up there"?
>
> I passed on my 2000 Accord to family member at 150k who is approaching
> 200k with negligible problems.
> Agree that one really doesn't want to break down 40+ miles from home,
> especially at night. Did that once (belt broke on my Chrysler). Now I
> carry a cell phone when away from the local area.
"Getting up there" is anything over 100k miles or so. Also, if it's not
paid off, then it's too soon regardless of the mileage. On the other hand,
I had one car were the monthly repair bills were higher than the payments on
a new car - mileage in that case was irrelevant.
The anomaly I find in discussions of this sort is that, if everyone bought
only used cars and no one bought new cars, there wouldn't be any cars after
some number of years. If you look at the big picture, the advice to buy
only used is ultimately nonsense. Buy what you need, with an admixture of
what you want, tempered by a hefty dose of what you can afford.
clams_casino
>
>
>"Getting up there" is anything over 100k miles or so. Also, if it's not
>paid off, then it's too soon regardless of the mileage. On the other hand,
>I had one car were the monthly repair bills were higher than the payments on
>a new car - mileage in that case was irrelevant.
>
>The anomaly I find in discussions of this sort is that, if everyone bought
>only used cars and no one bought new cars, there wouldn't be any cars after
>some number of years. If you look at the big picture, the advice to buy
>only used is ultimately nonsense. Buy what you need, with an admixture of
>what you want, tempered by a hefty dose of what you can afford.
>
>
>
>
My 05 Pilot is now at 100k for which I have no concerns driving it
anywhere, although I may start looking around after 150k, assuming it
holds up as expected. Hopefully it'll be several years as we hope to
continue greatly reduced driving. We were averaging about 30k / yr, but
were able to drop that to 20k in 07 and 15k in 08.
doc marten
<georgewkspam-ECA0...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
doc marten <george...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> Yes, they said it in their latest column.
> That it's Never cheaper even in the long run to buy a New Car.
> and it you want proof.
> get their book "How to buy a great used car",, you might find it on'
> www.cartalk.com
I heard of a guy who bought two new Mercedes and put one on blocks in
some kind of storage and just drove the other until after maybe 20
yrs. he got the old/new one out and kept the first for parts.
I'm not suggesting this to anyone, Just a true story.
I've heard Obama's old Chrysler is getting bids over $110,000
that's re-sale value.
SMS
> High
> mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to do best with new
> vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k or using them as a second
> car after 100k while driving them into the ground..
100K? You're just getting started at 100K with most Toyotas or Hondas.
Driving them into the ground starts at around 250K.
SMS
> Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you had?
It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when child
unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more difficult to deal
with in terms of putting kids into child car seats.
Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years, I don't feel that it was an
extravagant purchase.
Daniel T.
So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you bought a
car because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the old car, and
putting up with the inconvenience would have cost you less than buying
another car (whether that new car was off the showroom or just new to
you.)
Daniel T.
A very rare case I expect. Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
because their car was in the shop for a few days, (and I expect such
people don't have to worry so much about the cost of buying a new car
every 3-5 years.)
Daniel T.
> The anomaly I find in discussions of this sort is that, if everyone bought
> only used cars and no one bought new cars, there wouldn't be any cars after
> some number of years. If you look at the big picture, the advice to buy
> only used is ultimately nonsense. Buy what you need, with an admixture of
> what you want, tempered by a hefty dose of what you can afford.
I would never suggest that people only buy used cars. I think it is far
better to buy a new car... but only when you actually need a new car.
Most people buy a car (new or used) long before the one they have is
beyond repair.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Daniel T. wrote
>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>> Low usage drivers (especially <10k) who don't travel far from
>>>> home with mostly daytime driving will likely do best with used
>>>> vehicles. High mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to
>>>> do best with new vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k
>>>> or using them as a second car after 100k while driving them into
>>>> the ground..
>>> So you think a person who is driving his car 25K a year
>>> or more, and has a car that has about 100K on it, but
>>> works perfectly, should trade it in for a brand new car?
>> That can make sense if unreliability has substantial real costs in
>> loss of business etc and the cost of the new car isnt that much.
> A very rare case I expect.
More fool you.
> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
> (and I expect such people don't have to worry so much
> about the cost of buying a new car every 3-5 years.)
What I said in different words.
Particularly when the employer would be paying for the
new car, or the cost of the new cars is a tax deduction etc.
Rod Speed
>>> Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you had?
>> It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when
>> child unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more difficult
>> to deal with in terms of putting kids into child car seats.
>> Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years,
>> I don't feel that it was an extravagant purchase.
> So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you bought a car
> because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the old car, and putting
> up with the inconvenience would have cost you less than buying another
> car (whether that new car was off the showroom or just new to you.)
Yes, but there is more than just what costs the least.
I kept my previous new car for 35+ years, and when that became uneconomical
to repair because I had been stupid enough to not fix a leaking windscreen until
the floor had rusted thru, I decided that another new one should be the last one
I will need to buy and couldnt care less whether it would have been cheaper to
have bought used cars instead.
Daniel T.
> Daniel T. wrote
> > SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
> > > Daniel T. wrote
> > >
> > > > Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you
> > > > had?
> > >
> > > It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when
> > > child unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more
> > > difficult to deal with in terms of putting kids into child car
> > > seats.
> > >
> > > Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years, I don't feel that
> > > it was an extravagant purchase.
> >
> > So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you
> > bought a car because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the
> > old car, and putting up with the inconvenience would have cost you
> > less than buying another car (whether that new car was off the
> > showroom or just new to you.)
>
> Yes, but there is more than just what costs the least.
Of course, as I said before: living like a bum is cheep, but that
doesn't mean I want to live like a bum.
> I kept my previous new car for 35+ years, and when that became
> uneconomical to repair because I had been stupid enough to not fix a
> leaking windscreen until the floor had rusted thru,
Just as a side note, replacing the floor would have cost less than
buying a new car.
> I decided that another new one should be the last one I will need to
> buy and couldnt care less whether it would have been cheaper to have
> bought used cars instead.
I will go further. For someone who isn't a mechanic, and has good credit
or enough cash for a new car, buying used is often a mistake. The way a
car is treated during its first five years does a lot to determine how
long it will last and when you buy used, you likely don't know how well
the car was cared for.
The expense isn't so much in whether you buy new or used, but in how
many cars you buy in your lifetime.
JR Weiss
>
>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>
> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he
doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop for a few days. It would
be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
> Nope.
Yep.
> Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the
> shop for a few days.
There's still the loss of business involved when the car breaks at an
inappropriate moment with the customer waiting for the sales ape to
show up and getting pissed off and going elsewhere when he doesnt.
Most loss of the use of a car isnt predictable.
> It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
Soorree, fresh out of crystal balls to anticipate all car failures.
Or any balls at all in your case.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Daniel T. wrote
>>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>>> Daniel T. wrote
>>>>> Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you had?
>>>> It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when
>>>> child unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more
>>>> difficult to deal with in terms of putting kids into child car seats.
>>>> Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years, I don't feel that
>>>> it was an extravagant purchase.
>>> So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you
>>> bought a car because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the
>>> old car, and putting up with the inconvenience would have cost you
>>> less than buying another car (whether that new car was off the
>>> showroom or just new to you.)
>> Yes, but there is more than just what costs the least.
> Of course, as I said before: living like a bum is cheep,
> but that doesn't mean I want to live like a bum.
>> I kept my previous new car for 35+ years, and when that became
>> uneconomical to repair because I had been stupid enough to not fix a
>> leaking windscreen until the floor had rusted thru,
> Just as a side note, replacing the floor would have cost less than buying a new car.
Sure, I just couldnt be bothered farting around. That
car didnt have A/C so was an irritation in that regard.
We can get 10 days over 100F and its a tad hot.
>> I decided that another new one should be the last one
>> I will need to buy and couldnt care less whether it would
>> have been cheaper to have bought used cars instead.
> I will go further. For someone who isn't a mechanic, and has good
> credit or enough cash for a new car, buying used is often a mistake.
Dunno about often, sometimes, certainly.
> The way a car is treated during its first five years
> does a lot to determine how long it will last
I've never agree with that. In fact I didnt bother to change the oil in that car that
lasted 35+ years because being an OHC engine, it used enough to not need to bother.
> and when you buy used, you likely don't know how well the car was cared for.
Its certainly true that its more convenient since if something does fail soon
after you buy it, its covered by warranty. That car did need a warranty head
gasket replacement, and then the only important failure was the alternator
regulator and a petrol plastic hose that cost peanuts to replace.
> The expense isn't so much in whether you buy new
> or used, but in how many cars you buy in your lifetime.
Yeah, thats what I meant. The higher cost of the new car is peanuts over 35+ years,
well worth it for the convenience alone. Corse I did take care to buy what I believed
would be much more reliable than average too, and it turned out to be that in spades.
clams_casino
If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that
broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
The Real Bev
I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car. Clean, safe and
reliable is important -- anything else is a nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)
clams_casino
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> JR Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>>>
>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain
>>> stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop
>>> for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a
>>> particular car.
>>>
>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that
>> broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>
>
> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car. Clean,
> safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a nuisance to YOU
> -- but old is not.
>
I expect NO breakdowns. A high mileage car by itself would not be a
problem, but using one above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took
that risk & broke down - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart
realtor would take such chances.
Daniel T.
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > clams_casino wrote:
> > > JR Weiss wrote:
> > > > "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote...
> > > >
> > > > > > Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+ because their
> > > > > > car was in the shop for a few days,
> > > > >
> > > > > Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain
> > > > stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the
> > > > shop for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack
> > > > of a particular car.
> > >
> > > If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k
> > > that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> >
> > I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
> > Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
> > nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
>
> I expect NO breakdowns.
Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
> A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
> above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
> - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such
> chances.
If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you still
be gone in a moment? What if the car had 30K miles on it? Why are you
asking him how many miles he has on his car in the first place? Sounds
pretty snobbish to me.
Dave
> > > > that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> > >
> > > I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
> > > Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
> > > nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
> >
> > I expect NO breakdowns.
>
> Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
>
> > A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
> > above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
> > - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such
> > chances.
>
> If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you still
> be gone in a moment? What if the car had 30K miles on it? Why are you
> asking him how many miles he has on his car in the first place? Sounds
> pretty snobbish to me.
>
No shit. When we bought our house, we never even rode in our realtor's car.
Not that there was anything wrong with it, that I could see. It was a small
midsize Mazda sedan, 626 maybe? We followed it all over the county in our
new crossover. If our realtor had offered to drive us, I would have
accepted. But if his car had broken down, that doesn't mean I would have
taken my business elsewhere. How silly. He found us a good house in an
excellent location in our price range. I didn't expect him to do any more
than that, and I was happy that he did find us the house we wanted. I
gladly spent my own money on gas following him around while we were checking
many houses out.
I know it's sometimes common practice for a realtor to drive customers
around to look at houses. But really, isn't their real job to sell your
house, or help you find a house to buy? Or maybe both? Why fault a realtor
for having a car that is less than perfect? -Dave
Rod Speed
>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his
>>> is in the shop for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car. Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else
> is a nuisance
> to YOU -- but old is not.
He said THAT BROKE DOWN, not JUST old.
And while I dont care myself, the salesfools all do believe that its
important for most of their customers that the car isnt an old bomb etc.
They're likely right with most of their customers.
And you dont get to pay a lower commission on the sale if he's driving a wreck most of the time.
Rod Speed
> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> clams_casino wrote
>>>> JR Weiss wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain
>>>>> stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the
>>>>> shop for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack
>>>>> of a particular car.
>>>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at
>>>> 150k that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>>> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
>>> Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
>>> nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
>> I expect NO breakdowns.
> Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
He's not saying that breakdowns dont happen, JUST that if a realtor
was stupid enough to keep driving an old car AND got a breakdown,
then he'd change realtors. Most would do exactly the same thing.
Plenty would even if it was an impeccibly maintained old Merc or Mustang etc too.
Doesnt matter if some customers didnt care about the breakdown, what
matters is that most would care and would dump that particular realtor.
>> A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
>> above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
>> - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such chances.
> If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you still be gone in a moment?
Plenty would. In spades in the current very competitive real estate market.
Just because there's no need to fart around with a realtor who is unlucky
enough to end up with a dud car, or stupid enough to not buy a reliable car
in the first place when he's got that sort of a job where reliabiity matters.
> What if the car had 30K miles on it?
Makes no difference for most. Which is why a realtor needs
to minimise the risk of a breakdown, however that is done.
Just because its so easy to change to one of his competitors and because
most arent interested in farting around due to a broken realtor's car.
> Why are you asking him how many miles he has on his
> car in the first place? Sounds pretty snobbish to me.
Its just how the vast bulk of the house purchasers operate and realtors need to allow for that.
Just like they need to keep the car clean, even tho in a logical sense that doesnt matter a damn.
Rod Speed
Regardless of whether it makes sense or not, its something realtors need
to allow for, because so many of their customers do care and because its
so easy to dump them and get another when the shit hits the fan.
What would you have done if the realtor's car had broken down ?
Towed it to the nearest garage etc or give up on that particular realtor ?
Shaun Eli
difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over
again.
The risk in buying a used car is that you really don't know why the
person is selling it-- it may that the seller intended to keep the car
a long time but opted to sell it because it had a lot of problems. Or
if the seller intended to keep it only a few years he/she didn't take
particularly good care of it, knowing it'd soon be someone else's
problem.
My car's 13 years old and has 95,000 miles on it. My problem with
getting rid of it's something different. I'm a stand-up comedian and
the car I drive is central to one of my routines. I'm sure I could
continue to tell the same jokes with a new car, but I like being able
to answer the questions about my car by saying "Yes, it's true, and
it's parked right out front."
Shaun Eli
www.BrainChampagne.com
Brain Champagne: Clever Comedy for Smart Minds (sm)
Rod Speed
> If you're buying a car and keeping it a long time then the price
> difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
> new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over again.
Correct, but even if you do turn them over at something like that
rate, or say every 5 years, there can STILL be some situations
where a new car can be justified. The original claim that there
are NO situtions where that is true is just plain wrong.
There's a reason most rental operations turn their cars over at a decent rate.
> The risk in buying a used car is that you really don't know why the
> person is selling it-- it may that the seller intended to keep the car
> a long time but opted to sell it because it had a lot of problems.
Yes, particularly if its only a year or two old.
Corse its also possible that they just dont like the car and
thats for a reason that you dont have a problem with too.
> Or if the seller intended to keep it only a few years he/she didn't take
> particularly good care of it, knowing it'd soon be someone else's problem.
Yes, but there isnt any real evidence that modern
new cars need to be looked after very carefully.
> My car's 13 years old and has 95,000 miles on it. My problem
> with getting rid of it's something different. I'm a stand-up comedian
> and the car I drive is central to one of my routines. I'm sure I could
> continue to tell the same jokes with a new car, but I like being able
> to answer the questions about my car by saying "Yes, it's true, and
> it's parked right out front."
An unusual consideration.
SMS
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> JR Weiss wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>>>
>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>>
>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid
>>> if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop for a few
>>> days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
>>>
>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that
>> broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>
> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
Technically he's spending the seller's money, though you could argue
that the price of the property is higher due to the realtor's
commissions, and that the realtors are less likely to cut their
commission to close a deal if they have better cars that cost them more
money.
Maybe choosing a listing agent with a crappy car would make sense if
that agent cut their commission. However I find the realtors with the
lowest commission (<4%) are more likely to be selling in such high
volume that they can afford a better car.
Is anyone still listing their houses for 6%?
clams_casino
>>>>>If
>>>>>
>
>I know it's sometimes common practice for a realtor to drive customers
>around to look at houses. But really, isn't their real job to sell your
>house, or help you find a house to buy? Or maybe both? Why fault a realtor
>for having a car that is less than perfect? -Dave
>
>
>
>
That's any different than buying meat from a grocer where the power goes
out? Any different from attending a concert where the place burns
down due to negligence by the owners?
Sorry, having properly maintained tools are an important part of doing
business.
clams_casino
>If you're buying a car and keeping it a long time then the price
>difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
>new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over
>again.
>
>
>
Of course, every time one buys a used car, there is a markup paid to the
seller plus there is likely overdue maintenance required. Buying four
or five used cars can often times be more expensive than buying one new
car. Then again, reduced insurance and taxes may offset much of the
premium paid for multiple purchases of used cars. Then again, if one
only drives about 10k / yr, a used car is likely the best option since
they can enjoy the reduced insurance & taxes while only replacing the
car perhaps once in ten years. For a high mileage driver, however,
buying a used car every 3-4 years can have its cost.
Daniel T.
> Shaun Eli wrote:
>
> > If you're buying a car and keeping it a long time then the price
> > difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
> > new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over again.
>
> Correct, but even if you do turn them over at something like that
> rate, or say every 5 years, there can STILL be some situations
> where a new car can be justified. The original claim that there
> are NO situtions where that is true is just plain wrong.
>
> There's a reason most rental operations turn their cars over at a decent rate.
Not all rental operations turn their cars over at a decent rate, only
the ones who charge a premium so you can rent a newer car do so. In
other words, yes they have a reason, but it has nothing to do with cost
of ownership.
If the only factor is cost of ownership, then maybe there are a few
extreme cases where buying new (whether truly new, or just "new to you")
every 3-5 years is justified, but in general no.
Daniel T.
> Daniel T. wrote
> > clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> > > The Real Bev wrote
> > > > clams_casino wrote
> > > > > If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at
> > > > > 150k that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
> > > > Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
> > > > nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
> > >
> > > I expect NO breakdowns.
> >
> > Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
>
> He's not saying that breakdowns dont happen, JUST that if a realtor
> was stupid enough to keep driving an old car AND got a breakdown,
> then he'd change realtors. Most would do exactly the same thing.
>
> Plenty would even if it was an impeccibly maintained old Merc or
> Mustang etc too.
>
> Doesnt matter if some customers didnt care about the breakdown, what
> matters is that most would care and would dump that particular
> realtor.
Exactly!
> > > A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using
> > > one above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk &
> > > broke down - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor
> > > would take such chances.
> >
> > If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you
> > still be gone in a moment?
>
> Plenty would. In spades in the current very competitive real estate
> market.
>
> Just because there's no need to fart around with a realtor who is
> unlucky enough to end up with a dud car, or stupid enough to not buy
> a reliable car in the first place when he's got that sort of a job
> where reliabiity matters.
>
> > What if the car had 30K miles on it?
>
> Makes no difference for most. Which is why a realtor needs to
> minimise the risk of a breakdown, however that is done.
Right, the number of miles on the car is irrelevant. So, the real
question is, does that 150K mile car have a higher likelihood of failure
than the 30K mile car? That all depends on how the former was
maintained, and not merely on how many miles are on it.
Daniel T.
> When we bought our house, we never even rode in our realtor's car.
> Not that there was anything wrong with it, that I could see. It was a small
> midsize Mazda sedan, 626 maybe? We followed it all over the county in our
> new crossover.
My realtor's has a smart car. He had it before smart cars were cool. It
has a wrap on it. Needless to say, we didn't ride with him.
clams_casino
>
>
>Right, the number of miles on the car is irrelevant. So, the real
>question is, does that 150K mile car have a higher likelihood of failure
>than the 30K mile car? That all depends on how the former was
>maintained, and not merely on how many miles are on it.
>
>
>
Agreed, but since I don't feel it's my duty to do a study on a
realtor's upkeep on their vehicle. I'd go with the odds. A newer,
better built auto of good reputation has significantly reduced risk
to breakdowns vs. older, high mileage cars. Then again, if I was
stranded by a breakdown in either situation, I'd be finding a more
reliable realtor. If I was a realtor (sales per, etc who is heavily
dependent on the reliability of a car), I'd be sure my car was in top
working order, minimizing any risk to breakdowns. A flat tire is one
thing (assuming they are not bald). A bad battery, failed fan belts,
broken alternator, bad wheel bearings, etc are a sign the realtor is
not taking his job seriously.
max
<daniel_t-C815C3...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>
> > When we bought our house, we never even rode in our realtor's car.
> > Not that there was anything wrong with it, that I could see. It was a small
> > midsize Mazda sedan, 626 maybe? We followed it all over the county in our
> > new crossover.
>
> My realtor's has a smart car. He had it before smart cars were cool. It
> has a wrap on it. Needless to say, we didn't ride with him.
explicate wrap please.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
Shaun Eli
them for a pretty decent price considering what they paid for them (or
at least they used to, until recent economic conditions). They're not
a great example of why we ought to or not buy new cars and trade them
in after ajust a few years.
As far as 'little maintenance required' on cars, there are things
people can do to screw up a car:
Run the tires underinflated-- this not only causes premature tire wear
but is also more likely to lead to a flat when you're driving. And it
may put undue strain on the suspension system.
Run the car low on oil.
Bash into a lot of curbs.
Run the car too hot with not enough coolant.
You can also do stuff that weakens components, like trying repeatedly
to use the windshield wipers when the blades are frozen stuck, or
hitting the power door lock to unlock the car while holding the lock
down (or similarly for window or seat motors...).
I like driving a new car but I sort of have the same pride in
ownership in my now old car because the car I'm driving has always
been mine. Maybe it's because I have two older brothers and wore a
lot of hand-me-down clothes as a kid...
Daniel T.
> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
> >
> > > When we bought our house, we never even rode in our realtor's
> > > car. Not that there was anything wrong with it, that I could
> > > see. It was a small midsize Mazda sedan, 626 maybe? We followed
> > > it all over the county in our new crossover.
> >
> > It has a wrap on it. Needless to say, we didn't ride with him.
>
> explicate wrap please.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/27/Business/Is_US_ready_to_get_Sm.shtml
If you need to buy a house in the Tampa Bay area, I highly recommend him.
Vic Smith
<missin...@BrainChampagne.com> wrote:
>
>The risk in buying a used car is that you really don't know why the
>person is selling it-- it may that the seller intended to keep the car
>a long time but opted to sell it because it had a lot of problems. Or
>if the seller intended to keep it only a few years he/she didn't take
>particularly good care of it, knowing it'd soon be someone else's
>problem.
>
That's what a test ride and inspection is for. But you have to know
something about cars, and it's best to know that car specifically.
Not hard to do with the internet now, as everybody is out there
reporting the problems they have with their cars.
In the past talking to high volume mechanics would put you on the
right track.
I've bought used cars all my life and never encountered one that had
"hidden" problems. Any "problem" was evident and I knew what it would
cost me to fix it, and got that taken off the price.
Of course with a new car you have a warranty to fix problems for a
while.
My advice is to buy used only if you do some homework.
Then there's no real difference in reliability, and a huge difference
in cost.
If you have no interest in learning about car reliability/longevity
just buy new. But stick with proven models, not new stuff.
If I was a wealthy man or had no interest in knowing car mechanicals
I would always buy new and trade in when the warranty expired.
--Vic
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Daniel T. wrote
>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>> The Real Bev wrote
>>>>> clams_casino wrote
>>>>>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at
>>>>>> 150k that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>>>>> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
>>>>> Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
>>>>> nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
>>>> I expect NO breakdowns.
>>> Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
>> He's not saying that breakdowns dont happen, JUST that if a realtor
>> was stupid enough to keep driving an old car AND got a breakdown,
>> then he'd change realtors. Most would do exactly the same thing.
>> Plenty would even if it was an impeccibly maintained old Merc or Mustang etc too.
>> Doesnt matter if some customers didnt care about the breakdown, what
>> matters is that most would care and would dump that particular realtor.
> Exactly!
So it makes sense for a realtor to have a relatively new
car, just because so many customers operate like that.
>>>> A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using
>>>> one above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk &
>>>> broke down - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor
>>>> would take such chances.
>>> If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you
>>> still be gone in a moment?
>> Plenty would. In spades in the current very competitive real estate market.
>> Just because there's no need to fart around with a realtor who is unlucky
>> enough to end up with a dud car, or stupid enough to not buy a reliable
>> car in the first place when he's got that sort of a job where reliabiity matters.
>>> What if the car had 30K miles on it?
>> Makes no difference for most. Which is why a realtor needs
>> to minimise the risk of a breakdown, however that is done.
> Right, the number of miles on the car is irrelevant.
No it isnt. There is an increased risk of breakdown even with a full maintained old car.
> So, the real question is, does that 150K mile car have
> a higher likelihood of failure than the 30K mile car?
Corse it does.
> That all depends on how the former was maintained, and not merely on how many miles are on it.
Wrong. It isnt really practice to maintain a car so that a 150K miles car has the same risk
of breakdown as a 30K miles car. AND the customer is much more likely to brush the realtor
off like a dead fly if if the 150K mile car breaks down than the 30K mile car, even if it was
possible to achieve the same breakdown risk, and it isnt possible to do that anyway.
There are some exceptions, certainly there would be a few customers who
would like to be driven around in an impeccibly maintained old Merc or Mustang
etc, but there wont be enough of them to matter for the average realtor. So any
realtor with a clue would have a relatively new car, and that doesnt necessarily cost
that much with the sort of miles they travel and the tax deductability of the car etc.
Just like car rental operations mostly do have relatively new cars for the same reason too.
Rod Speed
>>> If you're buying a car and keeping it a long time then the price
>>> difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
>>> new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over again.
>> Correct, but even if you do turn them over at something like that
>> rate, or say every 5 years, there can STILL be some situations
>> where a new car can be justified. The original claim that there
>> are NO situtions where that is true is just plain wrong.
>> There's a reason most rental operations turn their cars over at a decent rate.
> Not all rental operations turn their cars over at a decent rate,
Yes, thats the reason I included the word most.
> only the ones who charge a premium so you can rent a newer car do so.
Yes, but you dont see realtors slug you a lower
commission if they drive you around in an older car.
> In other words, yes they have a reason, but
> it has nothing to do with cost of ownership.
Of course it does. Its just that that lower cost is passed on to the renter with
the rent a wreck operations and isnt with realtors stupid enough to drive a wreck.
> If the only factor is cost of ownership, then maybe there are
> a few extreme cases where buying new (whether truly new, or
> just "new to you") every 3-5 years is justified, but in general no.
I was JUST commenting on the original claim that there is NEVER
a situation where buying new makes sense. That is just plain wrong.
I have previously said that it usually does make sense to buy used,
but that it doesnt necessarily cost that much more to buy new, and
the in some cases its actually cheaper to buy new, and if you keep
the new car for a very long time like I do, the extra cost of buying
new is peanuts for the convenience of having initial problems covered
by the warranty for 5 years or so.
Rod Speed
> The car rental companies get their cars very inexpensively and sell
> them for a pretty decent price considering what they paid for them (or
> at least they used to, until recent economic conditions). They're not
> a great example of why we ought to or not buy new cars and trade them
> in after ajust a few years.
No one said anything about a great example, what was being discussed
was the original silly claim that there is NEVER any situation where buying
new instead of buying used makes sense. That is clearly just plain wrong.
One operation I used to work for turned their cars over at quite a high
rate, basically yearly for all but the unusual specialised vehicles, just
because the tax system at that time meant that that was the cheapest
way to do it, essentially because those cars got the best price and
tax wasnt due on used cars, just new ones, and they were tax exempt
on new cars too.
> As far as 'little maintenance required' on cars,
> there are things people can do to screw up a car:
> Run the tires underinflated--
That has no effect on a properly designed car, just on the life of the tyres.
> this not only causes premature tire wear but is also
> more likely to lead to a flat when you're driving.
The modern reality is that flats are rare now and when they happen
they are usually either a defect in the tyre or stupid driving behaviour.
> And it may put undue strain on the suspension system.
Thats just plain wrong. As long as they arent very flat, its
easier on the suspension if they arent at the correct pressure.
> Run the car low on oil.
Yes, but you have to be pretty stupid to do that, like ignore the oil warning light.
> Bash into a lot of curbs.
> Run the car too hot with not enough coolant.
You have to be pretty stupid to do that too.
> You can also do stuff that weakens components, like trying repeatedly
> to use the windshield wipers when the blades are frozen stuck, or
> hitting the power door lock to unlock the car while holding the lock
> down (or similarly for window or seat motors...).
Any properly designed car shouldnt be affected.
> I like driving a new car but I sort of have the same pride in ownership
> in my now old car because the car I'm driving has always been mine.
Towards the end of the life of my 35+ year old car, I did find it a bit of
a downside getting out of a work car into my old one, particularly after
a long trip away out of town in a work car. But then I'm not a slave to
my possessions and didnt even bother to clean the car inside or outside.
The new car I replaced it with hasnt ever been cleaned in 2.5 years and
has an absolutely filthy roof because it lives under trees, not in a garage.
The local salesfool asked me if they could borrow my car to show to a
prospective sale, because they dont always have one of those on the
floor and the silly salesfool managed to stuff that up and didnt show up
early enough to have the car cleaned. Bet she wont be doing that again |-)
doc marten
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
I knew a realtor who drove the clients around in a vintage Mercedes.
quality and stoic value. Values that some appreciated.
It's not hard to keep a quality car dependable and the money you save
you can have a back-up twin. and a mechanic to fetch you in the clone
while he/she waits for the tow. If necessary.
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.
clone
<daniel_t-083E5A...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
and was it made on a Friday or a Monday. and was it a first year model
maybe a one year edition. Harder for find parts for a one yr wonder.
ya know.
I'm into old cars and rust is my nightmare. everything else just bolts
in.
--
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in
a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin
but by the content of their character."