Buying new vs used
Steve
Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
10 things you shouldn't buy new
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
10 things you should never buy used
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
--
Even he, to whom most things that most people
would think were pretty smart were pretty dumb,
thought it was pretty smart.
...Douglas Adams
gamer
>Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
>
>
>10 things you shouldn't buy new
>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>
>
I agree, except for cars. IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would
likely be an expensive route.
For someone who does high mileage (perhaps >20k / year), however, a new
car every 8-10 years will likely be a cheaper route.
>
>10 things you should never buy used
>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
These make much sense
Dennis
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>>Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
>>
>>
>>10 things you shouldn't buy new
>>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>>
>>
>
>I agree, except for cars. IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
> For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would
>likely be an expensive route.
>
>For someone who does high mileage (perhaps >20k / year), however, a new
>car every 8-10 years will likely be a cheaper route.
I don't get it. Say you buy a new car. If I buy the same car (same
year, same model, same miles, same remaining warranty, etc.) one year
later, then drive it for 7-9 more years, how is the your route
cheaper? With the typical steep first-year depreciation most (not
all) cars see and all else being equal, my average cost per year and
per mile is lower than yours.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
Rod Speed
> Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
Yeah, usual mindlessly silly sweeping claim stuff.
Rod Speed
> Steve wrote
>> Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
>> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
>> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
> I agree, except for cars.
More fool you on both counts.
> IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
Nope. It actually depends much more on total mileage, not annual.
> For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would likely be an expensive route.
Depends entirely on how long you keep it. I kept the last one for 35+
years and only replaced it because I was stupid enough to not fix the
windscreen leak I knew was there and had the floor rust thru eventually.
With that sort of car purchase, you dont pay a lot more for the new
car with that sort of car that you deliberately choose one thats going
to last that sort of time. It can even be cheaper to buy new if its hard
to get and you dont mind waiting till you get yours because that time
is a tiny part of the total time you will own it.
> For someone who does high mileage (perhaps >20k / year), however, a new car every 8-10 years
> will likely be a cheaper route.
Its never a cheaper route unless the used car costs more than
the new one. And the annual mileage doesnt change that.
>> 10 things you should never buy used
>> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
> These make much sense
Nope. Most obviously with ex lease laptops where they have new manufacturer's
batterys and you can inspect the laptop to check for basics like it being dropped
etc and you get a full warranty. That can save sustantial money and are very
viable when the basic specs are what you need.
And with car seats and helmets and wetsuits, anyone with a clue can check
if they are serviceable, and plenty of very decent ones are sold used.
Denominator
> Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
>
>
> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>
>
> 10 things you should never buy used
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
>
>
>
and wiping with a microfiber cloth helped. Is there a way to polish a
scratch away?
Paul
> Speaking of used CDs, somehow I've scratched a favorite CD.
> Washing it and wiping with a microfiber cloth helped. Is
> there a way to polish a scratch away?
More out there if you search. Here is one:
http://www.aeonity.com/david/how-recover-scratched-cds-dvds
gamer
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:18:17 -0500, gamer <PeterG...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
>>>
>>>
>>>10 things you shouldn't buy new
>>>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I agree, except for cars. IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
>> For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would
>>likely be an expensive route.
>>
>>For someone who does high mileage (perhaps >20k / year), however, a new
>>car every 8-10 years will likely be a cheaper route.
>>
>>
>
>I don't get it. Say you buy a new car. If I buy the same car (same
>year, same model, same miles, same remaining warranty, etc.) one year
>later, then drive it for 7-9 more years, how is the your route
>cheaper?
>
For a start, that one year old car likely has significant miles vs. the
selling price and/or is a problem car. Who in his right mind sells /
trades a 1 or 2 year old car that doesn't have problems?
There may be a few, but definitely a rarity.
>With the typical steep first-year depreciation most (not
>all) cars see and all else being equal, my average cost per year and
>per mile is lower than yours.
>
>Dennis (evil)
>
>
Fact is, many 1 year old cars (the good ones) typically sell for nearly
what a new car does. People like to quote depreciation off retail
list, but almost no one pays list. In reality, depreciation should be
calculated off the actual selling price - probably +/- a few hundred of
dealer's invoice - NOT retail list. Ever price out a 1-3 year old
Civic, Camry or Accord?
As an example, I've bought cars at the beginning of the model year
cheaper than their 1 year old, similar (new) models - typically
including more options than the model year being replaced. My current
Honda, for example, was purchased nearly $500 below invoice - the first
month it was available. A year later, the Edmonds price was essentially
what I paid, yet I had already put 30k miles on it (including the high
mileage depreciation allowance). Along that line, I was able to sell my
31/2 yr old, 130k mile Accord for nearly half its original price. I
was thrilled because in another two years, it would be high risk
maintenance for my type mileage, but the buyer was thrilled because
with only about 7k miles/yr, they could expect another 10 years.
If you do any research, you'll find that dealers often times realize
equal to more profit from a used vs. new vehicle. Buying 3-4 used cars
vs. a single car can be an expensive route, especially if they require
any level of maintenance. Now for a low mileage driver, it's a quite
different comparison. There, perhaps a 3-year old or a relatively low
mileage 5 year old can be quite a savings.
gamer
>gamer <PeterG...@cox.net> wrote
>
> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
>
>>>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>I agree, except for cars.
>>
>>
>
>More fool you on both counts.
>
>
>
>>IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
>>
>>
>
>Nope. It actually depends much more on total mileage, not annual.
>
>
Is there difference? Or is math too hard for you?
>
>
>>For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would likely be an expensive route.
>>
>>
>
>Depends entirely on how long you keep it. I kept the last one for 35+
>years and only replaced it because I was stupid enough to not fix the
>windscreen leak I knew was there and had the floor rust thru eventually.
>
>
For someone driving 5k / yr that can make sense, but is it realistic
for someone driving 20k miles / yr to expect 700k miles?
Would you take a 2000 mile trip in a 35 year old car?
>
>
>Its never a cheaper route unless the used car costs more than
>the new one.
>
Duh - Hello - that's point.
> And the annual mileage doesnt change that.
>
>
>
Tires, for example, wear by age and type of driving as well as
mileage. Someone driving 5k/year in the city will likely need new
tires sooner (per mile) than someone driving 20k/ year on interstates.
Another example - Batteries tend to wear by age - not mileage. Someone
driving 5k miles/ year will need a new battery each 4-5 years , just
as someone driving 20-30 k miles/ yr.
Cars wear by age as well as mileage - especially after 10 years old.
Furthermore, many parts are not available for cars >10 years old.
The 20k/year driver will have likely have significantly reduced per
mile maintenance costs vs. a 5k mile/year driver.
Rod Speed
> Dennis wrote
>>>> Lots of room to disagree on this stuff...
>>>> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
>>>> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>>> I agree, except for cars. IMO, that depends greatly on annual
>>> mileage. For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would likely be an
>>> expensive route.
>>> For someone who does high mileage (perhaps >20k / year), however, a new car every 8-10 years
>>> will likely be a cheaper route.
>> I don't get it. Say you buy a new car. If I buy the same car (same
>> year, same model, same miles, same remaining warranty, etc.) one year
>> later, then drive it for 7-9 more years, how is the your route cheaper?
> For a start, that one year old car likely has significant miles vs.
> the selling price and/or is a problem car. Who in his right mind
> sells / trades a 1 or 2 year old car that doesn't have problems?
Those that like new cars and can afford to turn them over at that rate.
Those that need new cars to rent out etc.
> There may be a few, but definitely a rarity.
There's a hell of a lot more than a few, and they are nothing like a rarity.
>> With the typical steep first-year depreciation most (not all) cars see and all else being equal,
>> my average cost per year and per mile is lower than yours.
> Fact is, many 1 year old cars (the good ones) typically sell for nearly what a new car does.
No they dont. That only happens when the new ones are hard
to get because of the demand for them is exceeding the supply.
> People like to quote depreciation off retail list, but almost no one pays list.
Thats wrong too, plenty do.
> In reality, depreciation should be calculated off the actual selling price - probably +/- a few
> hundred of dealer's invoice - NOT retail list.
Sure, but you still get a substantial drop in the first year anyway with most cars.
> Ever price out a 1-3 year old Civic, Camry or Accord?
Irrelevant to the rest.
> As an example, I've bought cars at the beginning of the model year cheaper than their 1 year old,
> similar (new) models - typically
> including more options than the model year being replaced.
Doesnt happen that much. And plenty of the old model year are heavily
discounted to get them out of the yard too once the year rolls over.
> My current Honda, for example, was purchased nearly $500 below invoice - the first month it was
> available. A year later, the Edmonds price was essentially what I paid, yet I had already put 30k
> miles on it (including the high mileage depreciation allowance). Along that
> line, I was able to sell my 31/2 yr old, 130k mile Accord for nearly
> half its original price. I was thrilled because in another two
> years, it would be high risk maintenance for my type mileage, but
> the buyer was thrilled because with only about 7k miles/yr, they
> could expect another 10 years.
The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> If you do any research, you'll find that dealers often times realize equal to more profit from a
> used vs. new vehicle.
Irrelevant to which saves the buyer money.
> Buying 3-4 used cars vs. a single car can be an expensive route, especially if they require any
> level of maintenance.
Different matter entirely to what was being discussed, whether its usually
better to buy a new or used car and keep them for the same time.
> Now for a low mileage driver, it's a quite different comparison.
Nope, not if the two cars are kept for the same time it isnt.
> There, perhaps a 3-year old or a relatively low mileage 5 year old can be quite a savings.
You were talking about the BUYERS annual mileage, not the seller's.
Rod Speed
>> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
>>>> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10thingsYouShouldntBuyNew.aspx
>>> I agree, except for cars.
>> More fool you on both counts.
>>> IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
>> Nope. It actually depends much more on total mileage, not annual.
> Is there difference?
Corse there is.
> Or is math too hard for you?
Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.
>>> For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would likely be an expensive route.
>> Depends entirely on how long you keep it. I kept the last one for 35+
>> years and only replaced it because I was stupid enough to not fix the
>> windscreen leak I knew was there and had the floor rust thru eventually.
> For someone driving 5k / yr that can make sense, but is it realistic
> for someone driving 20k miles / yr to expect 700k miles?
Depends on the car.
> Would you take a 2000 mile trip in a 35 year old car?
Yes, I did that routinely.
>> Its never a cheaper route unless the used car costs more than the new one.
> Duh - Hello - that's point.
No it wasnt.
>> And the annual mileage doesnt change that.
> Tires, for example, wear by age and type of driving as well as mileage.
Irrelevant to whether its significantly more expensive to buy the car new or not.
> Someone driving 5k/year in the city will likely need new tires sooner (per mile) than someone
> driving 20k/ year on interstates.
Wrong. Its the higher speed driving that uses the tires up quicker.
> Another example - Batteries tend to wear by age - not mileage.
Thats wrong too.
> Someone driving 5k miles/ year will need a new battery each 4-5 years , just as someone driving
> 20-30 k miles/ yr.
Irrelevant to whether its significantly more expensive to buy the car new or not.
> Cars wear by age as well as mileage - especially after 10 years old.
Depends on the car design.
And thats irrelevant to the choice of buying a new or one
year old car and keeping them both for 10 years anyway.
> Furthermore, many parts are not available for cars >10 years old.
Bullshit.
> The 20k/year driver will have likely have significantly reduced per mile maintenance costs vs. a
> 5k mile/year driver.
Thats irrelevant to the choice of buying a new or one
year old car and keeping them both for 10 years or 20 years.
gamer
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:18:17 -0500, gamer <PeterG...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>I agree, except for cars. IMO, that depends greatly on annual mileage.
>> For someone who drives perhaps <10k miles / year - a new car would
>>likely be an expensive route.
>>
>>For someone who does high mileage (perhaps >20k / year), however, a new
>>car every 8-10 years will likely be a cheaper route.
>>
>>
>
>I don't get it. Say you buy a new car. If I buy the same car (same
>year, same model, same miles, same remaining warranty, etc.) one year
>later, then drive it for 7-9 more years, how is the your route
>cheaper? With the typical steep first-year depreciation most (not
>all) cars
>
>
I just did a quick cost analysis (average dealer selling price) via
Edmonds. I used a V6 2dr Accord EX - a popular model that hasn't
changed much in recent years and assumed depreciation over 200k miles
(not atypical for an Accord).
Using 30k miles/yr - obviously high mileage, but not all that rare:
2007 - $26662 /200,000 = $13.3/ mile
2006 - $22320/170,000 = $13.1/mile
2005 - $19604/140,000 = 14.0/mile
2004 - $15, 943/110,000 = $14.5/mile
2003 - $15459/80,000 = $19.3/mile
These data indicate little per mile depreciation difference for brand
new vs. 1 year old with 30k miles, a marginal increase on the 2 & 3 year
old cars at 60K & 90K respectively, and a very significant jump for the
4-year old model at $120k miles.
Granted, collision insurance and in some states, taxes will be somewhat
lower for the later models, but one also needs to factor in the
increased per mile maintenance costs for the older models.
I'm sure there will be some variation depending on the actual model &
annual mileage, but I believe a similar trend will occur overall.
Conclusion is that high mileage drivers will likely benefit by buying
new. As pointed out elsewhere, a fallacy in most articles is that they
figure new-car depreciation at list vs. actual selling price.
A similar study would be interesting using 5k miles/year & extending the
years as far as Edmonds will provide data. I'd do it, but I'm headed
out for the evening - maybe tomorrow.
Jack
> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
Disagree on:
Cars, never had good luck with a used one. If you buy right, internet prices
and rebates, the same new car or truck could be less than and an old one at
the dealership.
Used software and games are usually too old and many times they ask too much
for it anyway. May not have tech support or license could not be transferred
to the new owner.
High quality hand tools are hard to find used and most used one are the low
end ones. Besides, real men don't sell their tools. <g>
> 10 things you should never buy used
She forgot used tires. With that said, when I was a student I buy used tires
at the auto wrack. Ironically, I never had problems with used tires but have
a few with new good quality ones.
Rod Speed
>> 10 things you shouldn't buy new
> Disagree on:
> Cars, never had good luck with a used one. If you buy right, internet prices and rebates, the same
> new car or truck could be less than and an old one at the dealership.
But rarely are.
Certainly I have always preferred to buy new, just because its a hell
of a lot easier to do and because I kept the previous one for 35+
years and so the extra cost is peanuts per year for that convenience.
> Used software and games are usually too old and many times they ask too much for it anyway.
Dunno, that isnt really true with say Office and XP currently.
> May not have tech support
Dont need it.
> or license could not be transferred to the new owner.
I couldnt care less about that.
> High quality hand tools are hard to find used
Yes, and those arent necessarily worth bothering with even if you can find them.
My dad had quite a few that I wasnt interested in,
just because I prefer modern hand tools instead.
> and most used one are the low end ones.
> Besides, real men don't sell their tools. <g>
They all die sometime.
>> 10 things you should never buy used
> She forgot used tires.
They can be viable for some uses like for a trailer.
> With that said, when I was a student I buy used tires at the auto wrack. Ironically, I never had
> problems with used tires
Yeah, I havent had any problem with them myself.
> but have a few with new good quality ones.
I've never had a problem with a new tire either.
gamer
I did a follow-up depreciation comparison using Edmonds data (dealers
selling price / clean condition / NOT the certified price) for a 4 dr
Accord V6 automatic. I choose it as being a popular / common car that
hasn't changed much over the past 10 years, having few options that
might make comparisons difficult. The deprecation cost/mile assumes
200k mile life (not atypical for an Accord).
10k miles/ yr cents/ mile depreciation
2007 - $26,557 - 13.3
2005 - $23,401 - 11.9
2003 - $17,838 - 11.1
2001 - $12,377 - 8.8
1999 - $8647 - 7.2
1997 - $6156 - 6.5
1995 - $4761 - 6.0
1993 - $3428 - 5.7
15k miles/yr
2007 - $26557 - 13.3
2005 - $21058 - 12.4
2003 - $16969 - 12.1
2001 - $11140 -10.1
1999 - $7224 - 9.0
1997 - $4896 - 9.8
20k miles/yr
2007 - $26557 - 13.3
2005 - $20275 - 12.7
2003 - $15770 - 13.1
2001 - $10097 - 12.6
1999 - $6506 - 16.2
As previously claimed, low mileage drivers (<10k/yr) will likely be
better off financially purchasing used cars while higher mileage
drivers (>20k/yr) will likely be better off buying new.
It's perhaps a tossup of risk vs. some savings for average drivers (15k/yr).
In addition to depreciation, while the newer models will have marginally
higher (on a per mile basis) sales tax, property tax (in some states)
and collision coverage costs, the older models will obviously have
significantly higher repair / maintenance costs (first 50k miles is
basically oil changes, but then comes the cycle of new tires, batteries,
brakes, coolant & transmission fluid changes, etc with other repairs
such as new shocks, water pump, gas pump, alternator, etc arriving after
100k miles).
Dennis
wrote:
No, just the opposite. Your own figures show lower cost per mile in
every case for a 1 year old car versus a new car, regardless of the
yearly mileage.
How can higher cost make you "better off"? I still don't get it.
>It's perhaps a tossup of risk vs. some savings for average drivers (15k/yr).
>
>In addition to depreciation, while the newer models will have marginally
>higher (on a per mile basis) sales tax, property tax (in some states)
>and collision coverage costs, the older models will obviously have
>significantly higher repair / maintenance costs (first 50k miles is
>basically oil changes, but then comes the cycle of new tires, batteries,
>brakes, coolant & transmission fluid changes, etc with other repairs
>such as new shocks, water pump, gas pump, alternator, etc arriving after
>100k miles).
The point you seem to miss is: after owning your new car for a year,
it is now a USED car. There may be some advantage to have a
first-hand knowlege of its history, but that doesn't rule out all
potential problems.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
gamer
You are correct in pointing out that the depreciation figures provided
above do show somewhat lower average depreciation costs / mile for a 1
yr (20k mile) vs. new car. I was more concerned over the overall trend
of buying used (perhaps 3-5 years out) vs. new for a low vs. high
(>20k) mileage driver.
Looking deeper, I just noticed that the Edmonds data assumes a $1300
markup over invoice / destination charge in their new car data. That
seems a bit inflated as most cars seem to sell at $300 - 500 over
invoice where with good timing, they can often times be purchased at or
below invoice. Nevertheless, there will be exceptions for no matter
what year / model one considers.
Looking back at my previous data for the 2 dr model at 30k/yr,
2007 - $26662 /200,000 = $13.3/ mile
2006 - $22320/170,000 = $13.1/mile
2005 - $19604/140,000 = 14.0/mile
2004 - $15, 943/110,000 = $14.5/mile
2003 - $15459/80,000 = $19.3/mile
Here, there is a small advantage for the 1 year old model (perhaps
$400). For the 4dr model, it's higher (perhaps a $900 advantage), but
both are quickly eaten up if one can purchase the new one at $300 vs.
$1300 over invoice Furthermore, there is significantly more risk
buying a 20k/30k mile, 1-year old car. It's likely to be either an
ex-rental, demo and/or someone's problem car. Almost no one trades a 1
year old car of which they are pleased. (3 years are quite different
in that most tend to be leased cars and tend to be better maintained.).
Now if you are saying to buy a 1 year old new / no mileage car / an end
of model year and holding it for the duration, you can potentially save
some, but I've not usually seem much difference between beginning vs.
end of the year sales (avoiding spring / summer where there seems to be
fewer sales). A disadvantage for end-of-year models is that many will
have added options & packages that add cost. New ones can usually be
found with exactly the options desired. Way too many end-of-year models
seem to have added navigation systems, upgraded DVD players, rust
"protection" packages, etc that quickly off set that end-of year
rebate. While it won't be factor if held for the duration, end-of
model year cars do tend to have a significant drop in deprecation since
it's assumed to be in service for a year, but that should only be of
concern if one trades within a few years.
My primary point is that many look at the retail list price when
comparing depreciation vs. used when one should be looking at actual
selling price. My secondary point is that when all factors are
considered, buying used is not always the cheaper / best alternative.
gamer
invoice markup, but showed a $750 dealer rebate, I revised the 2007
data below to reflect a more realistic $550 over invoice markup for the
2007 model. The overall conclusions are the same, but there is a
narrowing in depreciation cost / mile for the new vs. used comparisons
- especially noticeable at the 20k mile /year level.
> gamer wrote:
>
> I did a follow-up depreciation comparison using Edmonds data (dealers
> selling price / clean condition / NOT the certified price) for a 4 dr
> Accord V6 automatic. I choose it as being a popular / common car
> that hasn't changed much over the past 10 years, having few options
> that might make comparisons difficult. The deprecation cost/mile
> assumes 200k mile life (not atypical for an Accord).
>
> 10k miles/ yr cents/ mile depreciation
>
> 2007 - $25807 - 12.9
> 2005 - $23,401 - 11.9
> 2003 - $17,838 - 11.1
> 2001 - $12,377 - 8.8
> 1999 - $8647 - 7.2
> 1997 - $6156 - 6.5
> 1995 - $4761 - 6.0
> 1993 - $3428 - 5.7
>
>
> 15k miles/yr
>
> 2007 - $25807 - 12.9
> 2005 - $21058 - 12.4
> 2003 - $16969 - 12.1
> 2001 - $11140 -10.1
> 1999 - $7224 - 9.0
> 1997 - $4896 - 9.8
>
> 20k miles/yr
>
> 2007 - $25807 - 12.9
Dennis
wrote:
Sure, there can be lots of variations on the average -- likewise the
final price paid for a used car can be greatly influenced by how good
you are at negotiation. And there is the whole other arena of private
party sales.
>Looking back at my previous data for the 2 dr model at 30k/yr,
>
>2007 - $26662 /200,000 = $13.3/ mile
>2006 - $22320/170,000 = $13.1/mile
>2005 - $19604/140,000 = 14.0/mile
>2004 - $15, 943/110,000 = $14.5/mile
>2003 - $15459/80,000 = $19.3/mile
>
>Here, there is a small advantage for the 1 year old model (perhaps
>$400). For the 4dr model, it's higher (perhaps a $900 advantage), but
>both are quickly eaten up if one can purchase the new one at $300 vs.
>$1300 over invoice Furthermore, there is significantly more risk
>buying a 20k/30k mile, 1-year old car. It's likely to be either an
>ex-rental, demo and/or someone's problem car. Almost no one trades a 1
>year old car of which they are pleased. (3 years are quite different
>in that most tend to be leased cars and tend to be better maintained.).
And within that set of "almost no one" are enough to make some
potential good used car deals for those who are willing to search
them out.
>Now if you are saying to buy a 1 year old new / no mileage car / an end
>of model year and holding it for the duration, you can potentially save
>some, but I've not usually seem much difference between beginning vs.
>end of the year sales (avoiding spring / summer where there seems to be
>fewer sales). A disadvantage for end-of-year models is that many will
>have added options & packages that add cost. New ones can usually be
>found with exactly the options desired. Way too many end-of-year models
>seem to have added navigation systems, upgraded DVD players, rust
>"protection" packages, etc that quickly off set that end-of year
>rebate. While it won't be factor if held for the duration, end-of
>model year cars do tend to have a significant drop in deprecation since
>it's assumed to be in service for a year, but that should only be of
>concern if one trades within a few years.
>
>My primary point is that many look at the retail list price when
>comparing depreciation vs. used when one should be looking at actual
>selling price. My secondary point is that when all factors are
>considered, buying used is not always the cheaper / best alternative.
And I'm just saying that, while there can be some perfectly valid
subjective reasons for buying new over used, by your own figures the
purely objective metric of average cost does not look like a very
compelling one.
As always, YMMV.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
Dennis
wrote:
>After finding the Edmund data for the 2007 Accord assumed a $1300 above
>invoice markup, but showed a $750 dealer rebate, I revised the 2007
>data below to reflect a more realistic $550 over invoice markup for the
>2007 model. The overall conclusions are the same, but there is a
>narrowing in depreciation cost / mile for the new vs. used comparisons
>- especially noticeable at the 20k mile /year level.
Sure, but one could also play the same game by "revising" the used
car numbers to reflect private party rather than dealer sales.
And so it goes...
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
Rod Speed
> 20k miles/yr
Utterly bogus numbers. ALL types of car usage result in a saving when bought used.
The only time that doesnt happen is when the used car is more
expensive than the new one, with the actual price paid compared.
> It's perhaps a tossup of risk vs. some savings for average drivers (15k/yr).
Nope, its always a saving to buy used as long as the price actually paid is lower.
> In addition to depreciation, while the newer models will have marginally higher (on a per mile
> basis)
The per mile basis is completely irrelevant. ALL that
matters is the ACTUAL PRICE, not the per mile figure,
because that is what you save if you buy at the lower price.
> sales tax, property tax (in some states) and collision coverage costs, the older models will
> obviously have
> significantly higher repair / maintenance costs (first 50k miles is
> basically oil changes, but then comes the cycle of new tires,
> batteries, brakes, coolant & transmission fluid changes, etc
More utterly bogus maths. If you buy a car that is a year old,
or one that is new, and keep it for the same number of years
in each case, you actually get a marginally LOWER operating
cost with the new car, just because more of the period its
owned for is covered by the warranty and only have to
change the tires and battery a year earlier on average.
> with other repairs such as new shocks, water pump, gas pump, alternator, etc arriving after 100k
> miles).
That stuff only happens a year earlier with the used car
on average and many dont keep the car that long anyway.
Rod Speed
You need to get out more. Ours are currently shoving
the '06 badged cars out the door at substantial discounts.
> A disadvantage for end-of-year models is that many will have added options & packages that add
> cost.
Wrong again, they just have added stuff instead of reducing the price.
> New ones can usually be found with exactly the options desired.
Same with the end of year models.
> Way too many end-of-year models seem to have added
> navigation systems, upgraded DVD players, rust "protection"
> packages, etc that quickly off set that end-of year rebate.
Sure, but you dont have to buy those if you care more about price.
> While it won't be factor if held for the duration, end-of model year cars do tend to have a
> significant drop in deprecation since it's assumed to be in service for a year, but that should
> only be of concern if one trades within a few years.
Its still a saving even if you keep it for 10 years because
you obviously save the difference in the actual selling price.
> My primary point is that many look at the retail list price when comparing depreciation vs. used
> when one should be looking at actual selling price.
Yes, but you havent done that.
> My secondary point is that when all factors are considered, buying used is not always the cheaper
> / best alternative.
It is while ever the one year old used car selling price is lower than
the selling price of the new car, and that is almost always the case.
Vic Smith
Yep. And a harmless ding can knock $500 off the KBB price.
But the biggest problem is using a Honda or Toyota in such calcs.
Because of their reputation for reliability, their used prices
are not representative of the used car market.
--Vic
gamer
>a bunch of weird nonsense.
>
Thanks for your opposing viewpoints.
Coming from you, they add significant validity to my comments.
The Real Bev
> For a start, that one year old car likely has significant miles vs. the
> selling price and/or is a problem car. Who in his right mind sells /
> trades a 1 or 2 year old car that doesn't have problems?
Crazy people who buy a new car every year or two. Yes, there are such
people.
I disagree with the prohibition on shoes. I have duck feet, and I'm
perfectly happy to let other people stretch out the ball of the foot.
Another good shoe strategy is to find a serious runner with feet just
like yours -- they replace their shoes every few months, and the
requirements for serious running are much more severe than those for
normal usage. I bought 3 pair for a buck a pair from a lady who
meticulously marked the date she began using the shoes on the side and
religiously replaced them 3 months later. I wouldn't want to accuse her
of lying, but they looked brand new. I should have given her my phone
number...
--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.
The Real Bev
> High quality hand tools are hard to find used and most used one are the low
> end ones. Besides, real men don't sell their tools. <g>
But their widows do!
gamer
Agreed - there are too many variables to consider for exact
comparisons. On the other hand, you have to admit the initial $1300
over invoice is quite a bit inflated / unrealistic ( I adjusted to $550
over invoice for a more average / typical markup).
It's too late for a 1-year comparison, but I did a 2-year comparison of
my last (new car) purchase where I can provide exact numbers.
My 2005 Honda listed for $32,635 having a dealer's invoice of $29, 409
(both including a $515 destination charge).
I paid $28,833 (cash / no trade) which included a $198 documentary
preparation charge in mid January when this model was first being
released (essentially $576 under invoice). (It was a result of a
newspaper ad stating $4k off the list - no haggling required - of any
color / model on the lot).
Edmunds currently shows a $21,296 direct sell price, $22,765 retail
dealer price and a $24,042 certified used price for this model after 2
years/59k miles.
Using a 200k mile depreciation, a second buyer would be paying 15.1,
16.1 or 17.1 cents / mile for its remaining miles (with gradually
increased maintenance costs) while my first 59,000 miles (essentially
maintenance free) have been 12.7, 10.2 or 8.1 cents / mile, depending on
how one figures its value.
I'd sure hate to be paying $21 - $24k for this 2-year old car with
nearly 60k miles, but apparently it's the going rate as a used car.
gamer
>But the biggest problem is using a Honda or Toyota in such calcs.
>Because of their reputation for reliability, their used prices
>are not representative of the used car market.
>
>--Vic
>
>
Excellent point - It's been so long since I actually owned a GM / Ford /
Chrysler that I didn't realize just how bad they are for depreciation.
(Will any actually last 150k mile, never mind 200k?)
I did a similar new vs. 1 yr / 20k mile comparison (still using a 200
mile depreciation, although I'm sure that's quite a stretch for these
products) on four randomly selected models:
Ford Escape XLT AWD 3.o auto - 11.2 new / 10.5 at 1 year
PT Cruiser 4WD wagon GT manual - 11.5 new / 10.1 at 1 year
Chev Impala LT 4 dr auto 3.5L - 10.0 new / 8.7 at 1 year
Buick Lucerne 4 dr CXL V8I - 14.5 new / 13.1 at one year.
Actually, these data may yet be another example of why NOT to buy
anything except from Toyota, Honda, etc.
I stand corrected - Buying used appears to always be better for GM /
Ford / Chrysler products, assuming someone would actually consider any
of their models.
However, I still stand (modified) that with Honda & Toyota, new is
likely best for high mileage drivers.
I
SMS
> Fact is, many 1 year old cars (the good ones) typically sell for nearly
> what a new car does. People like to quote depreciation off retail
> list, but almost no one pays list. In reality, depreciation should be
> calculated off the actual selling price - probably +/- a few hundred of
> dealer's invoice - NOT retail list. Ever price out a 1-3 year old
> Civic, Camry or Accord?
Yes. It's amazing a) that sellers price these so high, and b) there are
sufficient buyers dumb enough to pay those prices.
In reality, a one year old Camry or Accord, Acura or Lexus, often sells
for _more_ used than it sells for new, and at two years it's about the
same price.
The key is that these vehicles are all in good supply, and are heavily
discounted to the knowledgeable buyer, often for well below invoice
price. Yet there are enough naive buyers that believe that they have to
pay MSRP or more for new cars, that the used marked for one to two year
old cars is very good.
Of course none of this works on vehicles that have poor resale value,
vehicles that are in limited supply, and vehicles that are not
discounted significantly.
There's a really interesting paradigm in California, for Toyotas and
Lexuses (or is it Lexii), where prices in the Southern California region
are usually significantly lower than prices in the Northern California
region. The dealers in Southern California take full advantage of this,
including free airport pick-up for buyers flying in to buy a car. I did
this once, and the savings were about $1500, minus about $250 for hotel,
meals, air-fare for two, and the cost of driving back north. My old boss
saved about $3000 on a Lexus that he flew down to pick up. I wouldn't
bother for less than $1000. Driving from LA to San Jose isn't bad at 80
MPH, but the break-in speed for new cars is significantly slower than that.
SMS
> Yep. And a harmless ding can knock $500 off the KBB price.
> But the biggest problem is using a Honda or Toyota in such calcs.
> Because of their reputation for reliability, their used prices
> are not representative of the used car market.
Well if people are so concerned about the financial side of car
ownership then they're probably also looking at reliability. Toyotas and
Hondas are heavily discounted as new vehicles, yet they are more much
more reliable than vehicles that are sold at a higher fixed price such
as Saturns.
It would be interesting to take a vehicle line known for mediocre
reliability, high initial price, and poor resale value, and do the same
calculations.
Dennis
wrote:
>gamer wrote:
>
>> Fact is, many 1 year old cars (the good ones) typically sell for nearly
>> what a new car does. People like to quote depreciation off retail
>> list, but almost no one pays list. In reality, depreciation should be
>> calculated off the actual selling price - probably +/- a few hundred of
>> dealer's invoice - NOT retail list. Ever price out a 1-3 year old
>> Civic, Camry or Accord?
>
>Yes. It's amazing a) that sellers price these so high, and b) there are
>sufficient buyers dumb enough to pay those prices.
>
>In reality, a one year old Camry or Accord, Acura or Lexus, often sells
>for _more_ used than it sells for new, and at two years it's about the
>same price.
>
>The key is that these vehicles are all in good supply, and are heavily
>discounted to the knowledgeable buyer, often for well below invoice
>price. Yet there are enough naive buyers that believe that they have to
>pay MSRP or more for new cars, that the used marked for one to two year
>old cars is very good.
And the knowledgeable used-car shopper can apply the same techniques
to pay significantly below sticker price for his used car as well.
Apples to apples.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
SMS
> Agreed - there are too many variables to consider for exact
> comparisons. On the other hand, you have to admit the initial $1300
> over invoice is quite a bit inflated / unrealistic ( I adjusted to $550
> over invoice for a more average / typical markup).
The last three vehicles I was involved in purchasing, one Camry, one
4Runner, and one Accord, all sold for well under invoice. $550 over
invoice may be realistic at the beginning of the new model year
(September), but by April all sorts of incentives and sales are in place
that reduce the price to below invoice ("invoice" is fairly meaningless
anyway). All three of those vehicles were purchased at an "All in Stock
at This Price" sale, without negotiating, except the Accord was a little
over the ad price (+$375), but still under invoice, because the "All in
Stock" was only for black Accords, which the dealer had a hard time
unloading. They wanted $750 more, but took $375 more. Maybe with a few
more hours they would have been down to $0 more.
Rod Speed
You havent established that last. Just claimed it.
And its completely bogus to be comparing the best price that can
ever be achieved with a new car with an average used car price too.
Rod Speed
So clearly you save a very substantial amount of money
buying that car 2 years old and keeping it for say 5 years
than buying the same car new and keeping it for 5 years too.
Sure, you may need a new set of tires in that time and maybe
a new battery too, and may not need that with the new car, but
you STILL save a substantial amount of money over buying new.
And you cant use those edmunds numbers for the used
car against a very aggressively prices new car anyway.
You need to find the best private sale of that car used
for it to be a valid comparison, or use more typical
actual price paid for the new car.
> Using a 200k mile depreciation, a second buyer would be paying 15.1, 16.1 or 17.1 cents / mile
> for its remaining miles (with gradually increased maintenance costs) while my first 59,000 miles
> (essentially maintenance free) have been 12.7, 10.2 or 8.1 cents / mile, depending on how one
> figures its value.
Those /mile numbers are completely irrelevant. What matters
is the substantial difference in the purchase price of the car
and whether you need to spend more on tires and battery
with the car bought 2 years old instead of new.
> I'd sure hate to be paying $21 - $24k for this 2-year old car with
> nearly 60k miles, but apparently it's the going rate as a used car.
And it saves considerable money over buying it new.
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
road), buy used. If you are going to use it at home or with family,
buy new. When I buy new, I try to buy something that will last a
looong time. My family traditionally buys USA-built V8 cars brand new
and keeps them twenty years. There's an old saying "I'm too poor to
buy cheap stuff."
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
He maintained it fabulously, spent 15min each morning on it before leaving.
ca 1994 he took it to Maaco and they refused to risk painting it, so he
painted it by brush by hand, like he did in the navy with ships. It lost its
night visibility. On the same onramp in Newark, six months apart, he got
slammed form the back, both times the insurance "totalled", and finally the
engine and transmission died. Broke his heart. Kept it in the yard another
five years.
Paul M. Eldridge
I buy Chrysler products because I believe they offer better value,
dollar for dollar, and because I can't comfortably fit most Japanese
vehicles (being rather tall, my knees keep hitting the steering wheel
every time I go to engage the clutch or hit the brakes). And because
I keep my vehicles an average of ten to twelve years, depreciation
isn't a concern to me, because at that age and with that amount of
mileage, the difference in resale value is negligible.
There's a general perception that the quality of Japanese vehicles is
vastly superior to those of North America, but that hasn't been my
experience. My 1994 Chrysler LHS is coming up to 300,000 km and there
have been no unusual problems to report and my 1997 LHS had over
250,000 trouble-free kms when I traded it in for my 300M Special. My
300 will turn five this April and its performance has been absolutely
rock solid. With proper care and maintenance, there's no reason why
any car can't last ten years or more and, generally speaking, the
longer you keep your car, the lower your total cost of ownership.
Don't misunderstand me; I think Japanese cars are great and I wouldn't
hesitate to recommend them to anyone who might be interested in buying
one. I just don't believe North American vehicles are the poor
performers some folks make them out to be.
Cheers,
Paul
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:10:19 -0500, gamer <PeterG...@cox.net>
wrote:
>Excellent point - It's been so long since I actually owned a GM / Ford /
gamer
> <>gamer <PeterG...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> It's too late for a 1-year comparison, but I did a 2-year comparison
> of my last (new car) purchase where I can provide exact numbers.
>
> My 2005 Honda listed for $32,635 having a dealer's invoice of $29,
> 409 (both including a $515 destination charge).
>
> I paid $28,833 (cash / no trade) which included a $198 documentary
> preparation charge in mid January when this model was first being
> released (essentially $576 under invoice). (It was a result of a
> newspaper ad stating $4k off the list - no haggling required - of
> any color / model on the lot).
>
> Edmunds currently shows a $21,296 direct sell price, $22,765 retail
> dealer price and a $24,042 certified used price for this model after 2
> years/59k miles.
>
>
>So clearly you save a very substantial amount of money
>buying that car 2 years old and keeping it for say 5 years
>than buying the same car new and keeping it for 5 years too.
>
>
??? Are you totally nuts? That data clearly show it would be smart
to unload the 2 year old car onto to someone gullible enough to believe
that 2 year old car is a "bargain".
(Did you know gullible is not found in any major dictionary or spell
check program?)
>
>
>
>>Using a 200k mile depreciation, a second buyer would be paying 15.1, 16.1 or 17.1 cents / mile
>>for its remaining miles (with gradually increased maintenance costs) while my first 59,000 miles
>>(essentially maintenance free) have been 12.7, 10.2 or 8.1 cents / mile, depending on how one
>>figures its value.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I'd sure hate to be paying $21 - $24k for this 2-year old car with
>>nearly 60k miles, but apparently it's the going rate as a used car.
>>
>>
>
>And it saves considerable money over buying it new.
>
>
>
>
Let me understand (YOUR analysis). The car has cost me 8-12 cents/
mile for its first 60k miles (depending on method of determining current
value) with minimal maintenance and the second buyer finds a bargain,
willing to pay 15 - 17 cents / mile plus a significant increase in
repair / maintenance costs.
Amazing.
James
wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I buy Chrysler products because I believe they offer better value,
> dollar for dollar, and because I can't comfortably fit most Japanese
> vehicles (being rather tall, my knees keep hitting the steering wheel
> every time I go to engage the clutch or hit the brakes). And because
> I keep my vehicles an average of ten to twelve years, depreciation
> isn't a concern to me, because at that age and with that amount of
> mileage, the difference in resale value is negligible.
>
> There's a general perception that the quality of Japanese vehicles is
> vastly superior to those of North America, but that hasn't been my
> experience. My 1994 Chrysler LHS is coming up to 300,000 km and there
> have been no unusual problems to report and my 1997 LHS had over
> 250,000 trouble-free kms when I traded it in for my 300M Special. My
> 300 will turn five this April and its performance has been absolutely
> rock solid. With proper care and maintenance, there's no reason why
> any car can't last ten years or more and, generally speaking, the
> longer you keep your car, the lower your total cost of ownership.
>
> Don't misunderstand me; I think Japanese cars are great and I wouldn't
> hesitate to recommend them to anyone who might be interested in buying
> one. I just don't believe North American vehicles are the poor
> performers some folks make them out to be.
>
I, on the other hand, had an absolutely miserable experience with a
1997 Chrysler Intrepid with the 3.5 l engine. I bought it from a
place that dealt only with lease trade ins. It had been owned for 3
years by an insurance agent and came with perfect maintenance records.
I bought it with 100,000 kms, fairly high but with the maintenance
records and a clean bill of health from a mechanic,
In 5 years of ownership:
Replaced: Transmission at 140,000, it was going again at 240,000,
despite better than the schedule tranny maintenance. Chrysler kept
improving the ATF to try and fix tranny problems
Replaced: PCM and ECM - these computer modules typically last forever
on other cars - very expensive parts
Replaced: A/C - replaced at 155,000 and it failed again by 195,000
Replaced: Motor mount bushings
Replaced: Intake manifold gaskets (paper! replaced with a $6.00 after
market gasket with embedded steel mesh)
Replaced: "Lazy" Valve spring which cause one cylinder to stop
That does not include normal wear items like brakes, timing belts
water pumps etc.
I saved money by getting rid of it and getting a late model Mazda MPV.
Even though I had paid off the car, my monthly costs went down as the
car was self destructing.
Now I used great mechanics, did every bit of scheduled maintenance and
more. I read up about common problems, spoke to other dealers. My
mechanics mentioned that the tranny and AC were very common problems.
I should have known when one of my neighbours, who worked at the plant
where the Intrepid was made, did not drive a Chrysler product.
James
Replaced: Twice - all wires with
Rod Speed
>> It's too late for a 1-year comparison, but I did a 2-year comparison
>> of my last (new car) purchase where I can provide exact numbers.
>> My 2005 Honda listed for $32,635 having a dealer's invoice of $29, 409 (both including a $515
>> destination charge).
>> I paid $28,833 (cash / no trade) which included a $198 documentary
>> preparation charge in mid January when this model was first being
>> released (essentially $576 under invoice). (It was a result of a newspaper ad stating $4k off the
>> list - no haggling required - of any color / model on the lot).
>> Edmunds currently shows a $21,296 direct sell price, $22,765 retail dealer price and a $24,042
>> certified used price for this model after 2 years/59k miles.
>> So clearly you save a very substantial amount of money
>> buying that car 2 years old and keeping it for say 5 years
>> than buying the same car new and keeping it for 5 years too.
> ??? Are you totally nuts?
We'll see...
> That data clearly show it would be smart to unload the 2 year old car onto to someone gullible
> enough to believe that 2 year old car is a "bargain".
Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether you save substantial money
buying a new or used car and keeping them for the same amount of time.
Your numbers proved that you do save substantial money buying used.
> (Did you know gullible is not found in any major dictionary
Fantasy. http://onelook.com/?w=gullible&ls=a
> or spell check program?)
Another fantasy, mine is happy with it.
>>> Using a 200k mile depreciation, a second buyer would be paying 15.1, 16.1 or 17.1 cents / mile
>>> for its remaining miles (with
>>> gradually increased maintenance costs) while my first 59,000 miles
>>> (essentially maintenance free) have been 12.7, 10.2 or 8.1 cents /
>>> mile, depending on how one figures its value.
>>> I'd sure hate to be paying $21 - $24k for this 2-year old car with
>>> nearly 60k miles, but apparently it's the going rate as a used car.
>> And it saves considerable money over buying it new.
> Let me understand (YOUR analysis).
Nothing to understand, and there is no analysis. Compare the price
you paid new, $28,833, with any of the 2 year old values, and even
someone as stupid as you should be able to see the substantial saving
on the price paid. And those edmunds prices arent really comparable,
you should be using the best price you can find for that car used from
a private seller to be comparing apples with apples and that would
see an even bigger saving when buying used.
> The car has cost me 8-12 cents/ mile for its first 60k miles (depending on method of determining
> current value) with minimal maintenance and the second buyer finds a bargain, willing to pay 15 -
> 17 cents / mile plus a significant
> increase in repair / maintenance costs.
Thats where you are going wrong, those /mile figures are completely
irrelevant to whether there is a substantial saving when buying used.
Yes, like I said, you can certainly claim that you may need to pay
more for tires and battery in the 5 years you keep it with the used
car over the new car, but thats nothing like the big difference in the
cost of the car new and used. And wouldnt amount to anything much
at all if you keep both cars for 10 years instead.
> Amazing.
Pathetic, actually. Presumably you actually are that thick, it cant be an act/troll.
Paul M. Eldridge
I'm very sorry to hear of all the problems you encountered with your
Intrepid. Your experience reminds me of when I owned my SAAB 900
Turbo. I won't go into all the gory details; suffice to say, my
repair costs alone could have easily paid for Budd's swanky new
Oakville showroom.... twice!
If you were to spit and swear "never again", I could completely
understand.
Cheers,
Paul
SMS
> And the knowledgeable used-car shopper can apply the same techniques
> to pay significantly below sticker price for his used car as well.
> Apples to apples.
No it's not. There are several factors at work.
First, a lot of the used cars are off-lease vehicles, being sold at the
dealer, who knows that the market prices for used Hondas, Toyotas,
Acuras, and Lexii, defy all reason, so they aren't going to deal much.
Second, the individual seller that is selling a 1-2 year old vehicle is
usually a few beers short of a six pack, and probably greatly overpaid
for the car when it was new. He's going to base his selling price on
depreciation over what he paid new, and he'll likely find someone dumb
enough to pay it.
Meanwhile, the new car dealer is being pressured by the regional
distributor to sell as many new cars as possible, with factory to dealer
incentives, factory to buyer incentives, cut-rate financing, etc. He
wants to move a lot of volume and try to make his bucks on financing,
warranties, paint sealant, fabric guard, glass etching, Lo-Jack, digital
ashtrays, etc. There's no upside in pricing his new cars high, just
because he's selling used cars for ridiculous prices to naive buyers.
gamer
>gamer <PeterG...@cox.net> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>>(Did you know gullible is not found in any major dictionary?)
>>
>>
>
>Fantasy. http://onelook.com/?w=gullible&ls=a
>
>
>
>>or spell check program?)
>>
>>
>
>Another fantasy, mine is happy with it.
>
>
>
No way - You need to double check that.
It's not in my Webster's..
Vic Smith
wrote:
>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>>But the biggest problem is using a Honda or Toyota in such calcs.
>>Because of their reputation for reliability, their used prices
>>are not representative of the used car market.
>>
>
>Excellent point - It's been so long since I actually owned a GM / Ford /
>Chrysler that I didn't realize just how bad they are for depreciation.
>(Will any actually last 150k mile, never mind 200k?)
>
You aren't one of those suckers who bought a Vega, I hope.
I junked an '88 Celebrity at 190k only because it was rusted.
It ran fine and only failed to start once in the 10 years I drove it.
Currently have a couple Chevys in the immediate family pushing 150k
and one past 160k and all running just fine. Those three current cars
have provided every type of reliable transport for a total of 18
owner-years and @220k miles. Non-regular maintenance costs total
about $500. The total purchase cost for all three was $7500.
Won't go into more detail, since this is likely in one ear and out the
other for you.
>I did a similar new vs. 1 yr / 20k mile comparison (still using a 200
>mile depreciation, although I'm sure that's quite a stretch for these
>products) on four randomly selected models:
>
>Ford Escape XLT AWD 3.o auto - 11.2 new / 10.5 at 1 year
>PT Cruiser 4WD wagon GT manual - 11.5 new / 10.1 at 1 year
>Chev Impala LT 4 dr auto 3.5L - 10.0 new / 8.7 at 1 year
>Buick Lucerne 4 dr CXL V8I - 14.5 new / 13.1 at one year.
>
>Actually, these data may yet be another example of why NOT to buy
>anything except from Toyota, Honda, etc.
>
I guess you can always come up with numbers to justify what you spent
on that Accord. Probably good for the psyche. I have my numbers too.
>I stand corrected - Buying used appears to always be better for GM /
>Ford / Chrysler products, assuming someone would actually consider any
>of their models.
>
>However, I still stand (modified) that with Honda & Toyota, new is
>likely best for high mileage drivers.
>
I agree with that. Buying a used Honda/Toyota is a pure sucker move,
unless you can get it far under market.
Frankly, you're the last person I'd look to for advice on buying a
frugal used car. You've got about twice as much money tied up in that
one Accord than I've spent in 44 years of owning cars, which I've used
for 75 mile round trip commuting, cross-country vacations, etc, etc.
But you seem happy with your purchase, so good for you.
Pleases me too, because as long as there are those willing to pay
premium prices for a name, resale prices for the cars I prefer will
provide me a big advantage. And human nature being what it is, that
won't change.
--Vic
Vic Smith
<paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hi Peter,
>
>I buy Chrysler products because I believe they offer better value,
>dollar for dollar, and because I can't comfortably fit most Japanese
>vehicles (being rather tall, my knees keep hitting the steering wheel
>every time I go to engage the clutch or hit the brakes). And because
>I keep my vehicles an average of ten to twelve years, depreciation
>isn't a concern to me, because at that age and with that amount of
>mileage, the difference in resale value is negligible.
>
One of the attractions of the Honda/Toyota cultists is the weird
resale value thing. They must always become dissatisfied with them
and unload them, I guess.
I have never sold or traded in a car, but given them away or junked
them, always because of rust. Well, I junked a '71 Nova with a 307
when I burned a valve. It was a tinny POS anyway. And I did sell
a '74 Dart to my father-in-law, but I try to forget that because I
still feel a little guilty about it. It rusted out on him immediately
after he bought it. Never saw rust progress so quickly.
--Vic
Vic Smith
wrote:
>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> Yep. And a harmless ding can knock $500 off the KBB price.
>> But the biggest problem is using a Honda or Toyota in such calcs.
>> Because of their reputation for reliability, their used prices
>> are not representative of the used car market.
>
>Well if people are so concerned about the financial side of car
>ownership then they're probably also looking at reliability.
Yes, because most people are herd animals when it comes to cars, and
it's easy to just move along with conventional "wisdom."
There is no possibility that a Honda/Toyota owner can beat a car savvy
used Chevy/Buick owner on reliability or finances. The latter owner
may do more specific critical maintenance (eg, alternator/water pump),
but will have an equally reliable car. Financially the Chevy/Buick
will win hands down.
>Toyotas and
>Hondas are heavily discounted as new vehicles, yet they are more much
>more reliable than vehicles that are sold at a higher fixed price such
>as Saturns.
>
Saturn is as cultish as Honda/Toyota.
>It would be interesting to take a vehicle line known for mediocre
>reliability, high initial price, and poor resale value, and do the same
>calculations.
It would be best to first define reliability.
Then match it with comfort and economy. Initial price has absolutely
nothing to do with buying a used car.
But for most people ego is what guides their car purchase.
That includes me, but when it comes to cars, my ego is vested in
picking frugal and reliable cars that offer comfort and economy.
--Vic
SMS
> You aren't one of those suckers who bought a Vega, I hope.
> I junked an '88 Celebrity at 190k only because it was rusted.
I think that the Vega was constructed from compressed rust.
I remember my stepfather trying to decide between a '72 Beetle and a
Vega. He bought the Vega, argh. It rusted away in less than two years.
Paul M. Eldridge
Back in the 70's every car, both foreign and domestic, rusted badly.
I seem to recall Ford drew the most fire; at least in these parts one
seldom mentioned "Ford" without the "rusty" prefix.
Oddly, my dad owned a '74 Dodge Dart and it held up extremely well,
even here in Nova Scotia where they salt roads in July. When dad
moved back to the U.K. in 1980, it was passed on to my eldest brother
who continued driving it for several more years, until it was stolen.
The RCMP told my brother these cars are often taken for their
slant-six engines, as apparently they make great inboard motors. Go
figure, eh?
I was watching Harrison Ford's "Firewall" the other night and seeing
the '74 Dodge Dart brought back lots of great memories.
Cheers,
Paul
Chloe
news:ij4ns2hdbiile0e0l...@4ax.com...
><snip>
> Don't misunderstand me; I think Japanese cars are great and I wouldn't
> hesitate to recommend them to anyone who might be interested in buying
> one. I just don't believe North American vehicles are the poor
> performers some folks make them out to be.
Heh. I only believe that based on repeated personal experience over a period
of about 25 or 30 years.
Vic Smith
<paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hi Vick,
>
>Back in the 70's every car, both foreign and domestic, rusted badly.
>I seem to recall Ford drew the most fire; at least in these parts one
>seldom mentioned "Ford" without the "rusty" prefix.
>
True. Just bad steel/galvanizing I think.
>Oddly, my dad owned a '74 Dodge Dart and it held up extremely well,
>even here in Nova Scotia where they salt roads in July. When dad
>moved back to the U.K. in 1980, it was passed on to my eldest brother
>who continued driving it for several more years, until it was stolen.
>The RCMP told my brother these cars are often taken for their
>slant-six engines, as apparently they make great inboard motors. Go
>figure, eh?
>
It was a legendary engine, and ran perfectly for me.
Chevy made a good slant six then too, but it doesn't have the stellar
reputation of the Chryco.
I've heard different accounts of the '74 Dart rusting. Mine was a
"Swinger" which I guess was their name for 4-door hard-top, and
but for the rust was a decent car, if a bit slower in acceleration
than what I was accustomed to. It replaced a '67 Buick Skylark
which I had paid $475 for and driven the previous 3 years before
a kid plowed into it and totaled it. The Dart cost me $1400 and I
drove it about 3 years before selling it, I think for $1000.
It rusted very fast in the rear end. There was only slight blistering
on the quarters when I sold it to my father-in-law. A year later the
trunk had to be lined with plastic sheeting to keep the wheels from
throwing water in there, as the quarters were open flaps. A year or
so after that it had affected the rear suspension mounts so severely
it had to be junked for safety reasons. That was about 1983 or 1984,
so the same fate may have awaited yours. They do salt heavily in
Chicago, but only for a few months.
Another owner of the same car told me here in a newsgroup that
his had rusted out on the front end while the back was rust free!
>I was watching Harrison Ford's "Firewall" the other night and seeing
>the '74 Dodge Dart brought back lots of great memories.
>
Funny, there's a Harrison Ford movie - Patriot Games - where I always
notice an '88 Celebrity, which brings back good memories for me.
--Vic
Don K
news:28hns21ekhpm3uqkf...@4ax.com...
> Hi Vick,
>
> Back in the 70's every car, both foreign and domestic, rusted badly.
> I seem to recall Ford drew the most fire; at least in these parts one
> seldom mentioned "Ford" without the "rusty" prefix.
I had a '65 VW beetle and it never had a rust problem.
Maybe that was due to its sealed floor panel that help prevent
salt water splashing up from the roads.
When a snow drift was just the right depth, you could even use
it as a sort of toboggan to ride over the drift instead of plowing
thru it.
Don
The Real Bev
> Hi Vick,
>
> Back in the 70's every car, both foreign and domestic, rusted badly.
> I seem to recall Ford drew the most fire; at least in these parts one
> seldom mentioned "Ford" without the "rusty" prefix.
What is this "rust" of which you speak? It sounds interesting. Where
can we Southern Californians get some?
Mostly we buy rusted-out eastern cars for the still-good engines.
--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.
Rod Speed
> Back in the 70's every car, both foreign and domestic, rusted badly.
Bullshit, the VW beetle didnt.
gamer
>>
>>
>>
>I agree with that. Buying a used Honda/Toyota is a pure sucker move,
>unless you can get it far under market.
>Frankly, you're the last person I'd look to for advice on buying a
>frugal used car. You've got about twice as much money tied up in that
>one Accord than I've spent in 44 years of owning cars, which I've used
>for 75 mile round trip commuting, cross-country vacations, etc, etc.
>But you seem happy with your purchase, so good for you.
>Pleases me too, because as long as there are those willing to pay
>premium prices for a name, resale prices for the cars I prefer will
>provide me a big advantage. And human nature being what it is, that
>won't change.
>
>--Vic
>
>
>
For me, a frugal car purchase is primarily the lowest cost/mile that
provides a level of moderate comfort with ample / comfortable head
room. Gas mileage is a secondary / reduced concern since it's the
minor cost of running most cars (vs. depreciation & maintenance costs).
A 10-20k mile, second-hand GM or Ford might start out cheaper, but IMO
they are typically high cost on a total per mile basis. A few may
exceed 200k miles, but they are the exception rather than the norm vs
typical for Hondas & Toyotas.
I've most always driven my cars til they nearly "die" (sold off a few,
but never traded). My GM, Ford and Chrysler products, however, have
all failed by 150k miles. A Cavalier totally died at 75k - worst and
most expensive car I ever had(on a n inflation adjusted basis). Having
a Honda that provides 200-250k miles knocks that higher upfront purchase
price quite low on a total per mile basis (more frugal IMO) . While I
no longer seriously consider GM, Ford or Chrysler products, I did test
drive several before my last two purchases, plus I've driven a number of
rentals in recent years. Perhaps it's the rental aspect, but I'm
always amazed how poorly GM & Ford passenger cars drive within 5-10k
miles - much worse (and typically noisier) than a 200+k mile Honda
products.
It took me a while to make the switch , but having been on both sides,
it'll be hard for me ever to seriously consider another GM, Ford or
Chrysler product. It seems that most who swear by their GMs, Fords &
Chryslers have never owned a Honda or Toyota product, yet most Honda
and Toyota owners are dissatisfied GM/Ford or Chrysler owners.
Along this line, I've tried searching for data on average life
expectancies of various models, but keep coming up naught. I'm sure
there is insurance and/or tax data that would provide such, but it just
doesn't seem to exist.
Rod Speed
>> Fantasy. http://onelook.com/?w=gullible&ls=a
>>> or spell check program?)
Nope, I did check that mine is happy with it.
> It's not in my Webster's..
You should demand a refund.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=gullible
Vic Smith
wrote:
I had a '64 and by '74 I had to junk it because the drivers seat
was sagging into the rusted out floorpan. The jacking mounts were
long gone. The '64 had 6V electric. I think they went to 12v in '65,
and maybe they did that "sealed floor panel" then too.
Had a lot of fun with that bug, and did my first engine rebuild on it
too. Change that oil every 1500 miles and the engines were good for
about 60k miles before the jugs wore and blow-by would have it
smoking.
Lotsa fun scraping ice off the inside of the windshield as you drove
down the street. But hey, I was young enough.
--Vic
Dennis
wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>
>> And the knowledgeable used-car shopper can apply the same techniques
>> to pay significantly below sticker price for his used car as well.
>> Apples to apples.
>
>No it's not. There are several factors at work.
>
>First, a lot of the used cars are off-lease vehicles, being sold at the
>dealer, who knows that the market prices for used Hondas, Toyotas,
>Acuras, and Lexii, defy all reason, so they aren't going to deal much.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a number of other
reliable car makes beyond Toyota and Honda do exist. The only reason
that some here keep cherry-picking favorable data from those two
groups is that you seem to think it bolsters your argument. Not all
that convincing to someone with even a little auto knowledge and
experience however.
And believe it or not, even the legendary Toyota may occasionally be
bought used for a fair price. I know this because I currently drive
such a car to work every day.
>Second, the individual seller that is selling a 1-2 year old vehicle is
>usually a few beers short of a six pack, and probably greatly overpaid
>for the car when it was new. He's going to base his selling price on
>depreciation over what he paid new, and he'll likely find someone dumb
>enough to pay it.
Another generalization based solely on speculation and an attempt to
make the data fit your argument. There are plenty of reasons that
people dispose of cars early. And there are plenty of used cars sold
for reasonable prices. The knowledgeable frugal shopper can find
them. If you can't or don't want to, great -- more opportunities for
the rest of us.
>Meanwhile, the new car dealer is being pressured by the regional
>distributor to sell as many new cars as possible, with factory to dealer
>incentives, factory to buyer incentives, cut-rate financing, etc. He
>wants to move a lot of volume and try to make his bucks on financing,
>warranties, paint sealant, fabric guard, glass etching, Lo-Jack, digital
>ashtrays, etc. There's no upside in pricing his new cars high, just
>because he's selling used cars for ridiculous prices to naive buyers.
Naive buyers may pay higher prices. Who cares? That leaves the good
deals for those of us with some car-savvy.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
Paul M. Eldridge
I believe Darts and Valiants had serious problems with their front
fenders. As I recall, you would almost always find severe rusting
around the minipole antenna.
This is going back some thirty years, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. No
doubt the whole car was a ticking time bomb with respect to rust, but
for some reason I do recall the front fenders were particularly
problematic. Any other old-school, rust-belt Chrycos out there who
can confirm this?
The frame on my '74 Dodge Challenger fell victim to rust, so we
eventually parted ways back in 1982 (probably the only time I ever
cried). The Challenger wasn't the best car I've ever owned (neither
was it the worst), but I can honestly say no other car ever meant more
to me than that old bucket of bolts.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul M. Eldridge
Funny how we easterners venture out west to buy the good bodies while
our western brethren come here to raid the mechanicals.
Here in the Maritimes we use a tremendous amount of road salt on our
highways but, thankfully, rust isn't nearly the problem it was back in
the '70s.
Cheers,
Paul
The Real Bev
> Hi Bev,
>
> Funny how we easterners venture out west to buy the good bodies while
> our western brethren come here to raid the mechanicals.
>
> Here in the Maritimes we use a tremendous amount of road salt on our
> highways but, thankfully, rust isn't nearly the problem it was back in
> the '70s.
Maybe it would profit somebody in Omaha to set up some sort of exchange
venue...
> <bashle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is this "rust" of which you speak? It sounds interesting. Where
>> can we Southern Californians get some?
>>
>> Mostly we buy rusted-out eastern cars for the still-good engines.
--
Roger Shoaf
In December 2003 I purchased a Mercedes Benz 300 SD for $1,250 out the door
from a used car dealer. I promptly had to replace the tires $250 and the
battery $100. I had a fan belt fail. $20 I put in a set of glow plugs.$75
I do not pay comp or collision insurance. I commuted with this car 30k per
year for the first two years.
I have paid no interest on a car loan, and my license plates are less than
$50 a year.
Let us assume that the car suffered a catastrophic problem after 60k miles.
It cost me 3 cents a mile plus fuel, oil changes and liability insurance.
Now compare that to your brand new Honda. Oh yeah, add in the cost of the
license fees, the finance charges, and the comp and collision insurance you
have to buy to protect the risk to the finance company. Also, what does it
cost you for your first 60k miles of regular service?
BTW I am still driving the car.
--
Roger Shoaf
About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.
"gamer" <PeterG...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pLJyh.18$G32...@newsfe13.lga...
> After finding the Edmund data for the 2007 Accord assumed a $1300 above
> invoice markup, but showed a $750 dealer rebate, I revised the 2007
> data below to reflect a more realistic $550 over invoice markup for the
> 2007 model. The overall conclusions are the same, but there is a
> narrowing in depreciation cost / mile for the new vs. used comparisons
> - especially noticeable at the 20k mile /year level.
>
>
>
>
> > gamer wrote:
> >
> > I did a follow-up depreciation comparison using Edmonds data (dealers
> > selling price / clean condition / NOT the certified price) for a 4 dr
> > Accord V6 automatic. I choose it as being a popular / common car
> > that hasn't changed much over the past 10 years, having few options
> > that might make comparisons difficult. The deprecation cost/mile
> > assumes 200k mile life (not atypical for an Accord).
> >
> > 10k miles/ yr cents/ mile depreciation
> >
> > 2007 - $25807 - 12.9
> > 2005 - $23,401 - 11.9
> > 2003 - $17,838 - 11.1
> > 2001 - $12,377 - 8.8
> > 1999 - $8647 - 7.2
> > 1997 - $6156 - 6.5
> > 1995 - $4761 - 6.0
> > 1993 - $3428 - 5.7
> >
> >
> > 15k miles/yr
> >
> > 2007 - $25807 - 12.9
> > 2005 - $21058 - 12.4
> > 2003 - $16969 - 12.1
> > 2001 - $11140 -10.1
> > 1999 - $7224 - 9.0
> > 1997 - $4896 - 9.8
> >
> > 20k miles/yr
> >
> > 2007 - $25807 - 12.9
> > 2005 - $20275 - 12.7
> > 2003 - $15770 - 13.1
> > 2001 - $10097 - 12.6
> > 1999 - $6506 - 16.2
> >
> >
> > As previously claimed, low mileage drivers (<10k/yr) will likely be
> > better off financially purchasing used cars while higher mileage
> > drivers (>20k/yr) will likely be better off buying new.
> >
> > It's perhaps a tossup of risk vs. some savings for average drivers
> > (15k/yr).
> >
> > In addition to depreciation, while the newer models will have
> > marginally higher (on a per mile basis) sales tax, property tax (in
> > some states) and collision coverage costs, the older models will
> > obviously have significantly higher repair / maintenance costs (first
> > 50k miles is basically oil changes, but then comes the cycle of new
> > tires, batteries, brakes, coolant & transmission fluid changes, etc
> > with other repairs such as new shocks, water pump, gas pump,
> > alternator, etc arriving after 100k miles).
>
Denominator
> Denominator <fl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>
>> Speaking of used CDs, somehow I've scratched a favorite CD.
>> Washing it and wiping with a microfiber cloth helped. Is
>> there a way to polish a scratch away?
>
> More out there if you search. Here is one:
> http://www.aeonity.com/david/how-recover-scratched-cds-dvds
Apparently my answer didn't propagate, so I'll try again.
The above site gave a link to the page the instructions came from. That
page had 57 user comments. Two had experienced cracking when they used
Brasso.
CDs are polycarbonate. So are headlights. GM warns that some cleaners
can cause polycarbonate lenses to craze, i.e. become covered with fine
cracks. Ammonia damages polycarbonate and Brasso contains ammonia.
That could explain why two users reported damage to CDs.
I wonder if watch crystals are polycarbonate. When scratching has made
watches hard to read, I've used fine steel wool followed by toothpaste
followed by plastic windshield polish. Maybe I'll try that if I have a
scratched CD I could afford to lose.
The abrasive in most toothpastes is chalk, but not all toothpastes
polish CDs equally well. I tried my gel toothpaste and got a slight
improvement. Bon Ami is chalk. It cured the problem.
I think I'll keep some blackboard chalk on hand in the future. It can
be applied exactly to a scratch.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>>
>For me, a frugal car purchase is primarily the lowest cost/mile that
>provides a level of moderate comfort with ample / comfortable head
>room. Gas mileage is a secondary / reduced concern since it's the
>minor cost of running most cars (vs. depreciation & maintenance costs).
>
Depreciation means nothing if you drive your cars as you say below.
>A 10-20k mile, second-hand GM or Ford might start out cheaper, but IMO
>they are typically high cost on a total per mile basis. A few may
>exceed 200k miles, but they are the exception rather than the norm vs
>typical for Hondas & Toyotas.
>
It is *not* typical for Hondas/Toyotas or any other car to reach 200k.
Most cars hit the boneyard for various reasons before that.
A 10-20k car is usually a one or two year old car. The best used car
values are 5-8 year old cars with 50-70k or so. If selected with care
they can readily be had for $5000 or less and go another 100k with no
significant issues and still have plenty left. Using your magic 200k
mark, even if you had to buy 2 it's still only 10 grand.. There's just
no question that carefully buying used results in tremendous savings
if one knows and concentrates on certain used cars. I know the
Chevy/Buick 3.1's and 2.4's pretty well so I stick to those for now.
Others might find similar values in Ford or Chryco or whatever.
I don't find good value in used Honda/Toyota, because their commonly
perceived reliability edge keeps their prices non-competative.
Hey, if I had a lot of money I'd turn my nose up at used cars and buy
new cars left and right. Actually I can afford most any new car, but
prefer to spend my money on other things, like a boat and vacations
in warm sandy places where fish are jumping. Sometimes I think I
should forgo the legwork and just go to a dealer and get a new car.
Nah.
But I certainly understand why somebody buys new, and I enjoy their
delight vicariously.
>I've most always driven my cars til they nearly "die" (sold off a few,
>but never traded). My GM, Ford and Chrysler products, however, have
>all failed by 150k miles. A Cavalier totally died at 75k - worst and
>most expensive car I ever had(on a n inflation adjusted basis). Having
>a Honda that provides 200-250k miles knocks that higher upfront purchase
>price quite low on a total per mile basis (more frugal IMO) . While I
>no longer seriously consider GM, Ford or Chrysler products, I did test
>drive several before my last two purchases, plus I've driven a number of
>rentals in recent years. Perhaps it's the rental aspect, but I'm
>always amazed how poorly GM & Ford passenger cars drive within 5-10k
>miles - much worse (and typically noisier) than a 200+k mile Honda
>products.
>
>It took me a while to make the switch , but having been on both sides,
>it'll be hard for me ever to seriously consider another GM, Ford or
>Chrysler product. It seems that most who swear by their GMs, Fords &
>Chryslers have never owned a Honda or Toyota product, yet most Honda
>and Toyota owners are dissatisfied GM/Ford or Chrysler owners.
>
Yep, if you're satisfied you don't make a switch.
You'll also find that those who got burned by domestics don't look
back once they switch. Some of them got trashed by GM or Ford
30 years ago but it's like yesterday to them. Can't say I blame them.
Personally, the only car I resent was a '67 VW squareback I once
bought. Total POS and the only car I feel gave me a negative return.
But remember, I only buy used. If I were to buy new I would sure test
drive Hondas and Toyotas because they're fine cars. A good chance I
could end up with one. And I would buy a new U.S. made Honda/Toyota
before I would buy a new Mexican or Canadian made GM.
>Along this line, I've tried searching for data on average life
>expectancies of various models, but keep coming up naught. I'm sure
>there is insurance and/or tax data that would provide such, but it just
>doesn't seem to exist.
>
Heh heh. I've been in plenty of this type discussion and one time
noticed I was seeing more domestic brand cars and fewer foreign of a
certain make and vintage. I think it was late '80's Cavaliers and
Civics. Since according to published sales statistics Civics widely
outsold Cavs it made me think that Cavs were outliving Civics, but
that could be a local anomaly. Chicagoans own a higher percentage
domestic than say, San Diego..
The sales stats are a good national number, but how do you find what's
actually on the road? State vehicle registration. Of course you need
all states. By googling I actually found a company that has all this
data - they apparently pay or bribe the states to get it. I think it
was a marketing outfit, but can't remember the name. I called them
to find out what an ad hoc db retrieval would cost. Total for all
states for each model and year of all currently registered vehicles.
Not much end data at all. Figure 50 bytes max per every separate
named vehicle/year. There will be spelling and data entry variations
among the states causing some duplication that will have to be cleaned
up, but still not much data.
I was a programmer and data analyst, and from talking to the company
rep quickly realized they weren't set up to do db queries, but
basically used flat files, including tapes. Visions began appearing
in my head of a team having staff meetings, writing up half-assed
specs with a 50% fudge factor, assigning the specs to recent grads so
they could get some COBOL practice, orders to ops to load tapes from
the library, and so on. And billing me for every single minute of it.
I politely said good-bye. But that was a few years ago, and maybe
they can better handle it now. I don't have enough drive to attack it
again, but you might.
But to that point you can get a rough but interesting approximation of
some things by using autotrader.com. For instance, in the search plug
in the car of your choice, all years, any distance from your zip, and
in the extended search over 100,000 mileage if you want to lessen the
retrieval. Sort the results to highest mileage first. You can easily
see how many cars listed with autotrader have over 200k miles.
Even some Cavaliers. It's a very small number for any of them.
Hardly scientific, but revealing and fun if you like data.
It's difficult to draw conclusions from limited data. You'll find
almost 3 times as many Civics for sale (any mileage) as Cavaliers
(stopping at 1996, last year for the Cav.)
Assuming this is truly representative, besides the total sales
figures, you have to know state sale figures to find a way to adjust
for rust and/or cold. California is heavily skewed to Jap marques and
doesn't suffer salt or sub-zero temps.
Chicago, Detroit and other rust belt cities were - not sure if still
true now - skewed to domestics.
Maybe a data sampling of California Cavaliers can provide a rust
adjustment factor.
Autotrader itself might be more used in some national areas than
others. Don't know that, and there's plenty more questions a
statistician would want answered even with good state registration
data, but finding those kinds of answers would be a fun project
compared to working with insurance data.
--Vic
gamer
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:08:40 -0500, gamer <PeterG...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>For me, a frugal car purchase is primarily the lowest cost/mile that
>>provides a level of moderate comfort with ample / comfortable head
>>room. Gas mileage is a secondary / reduced concern since it's the
>>minor cost of running most cars (vs. depreciation & maintenance costs).
>>
>>
>>
>Depreciation means nothing if you drive your cars as you say below.
>
I'm using the term depreciation as the cost/mile over the life of the
car - perhaps there is a better wording.
In that respect, depreciation (cost of purchase / total lifetime
mileage) is the most costly part of owning any car, regardless of how
long one owns it.. After that, it varies significantly by driver. I'm
aware, for example, of some that pay more in insurance in a year than
for gasoline.
While 100- 150K miles was an expected upper limit in past years (and
seems to be still typical for a majority of GM, Ford, etc vehicles),
I've since found Honda/ Toyota/ Nissan have raised that bar
significantly to perhaps 250K+. Thus, paying a bit more a vehicle that
will deliver 250k tends to be much cheaper in the long run vs. buying
one that typically lasts only 150k.
Of course, everyone has a different "sweet spot" for ideal pricing,
depending on one's requirements. I'm sure I'd pick a different vehicle
if my driving was primarily commuting vs. the primary interstate driving
that I current do. Then again, I do have a 10-year old vehicle that I
use for most of my local driving.
gamer
Doesn't work for me - are you sure that link works?
gamer
>OK how about this example.
>
>In December 2003 I purchased a Mercedes Benz 300 SD for $1,250 out the door
>from a used car dealer. I promptly had to replace the tires $250 and the
>battery $100. I had a fan belt fail. $20
>
You put a set of 4 tires on a Mercedes for $250 (unlikely a Mercedes
recommended replacement - highly risky)? Or $250/ tire (more typical of
a recommend replacement)?
> I put in a set of glow plugs.$75
>I do not pay comp or collision insurance. I commuted with this car 30k per
>year for the first two years.
>
>I have paid no interest on a car loan, and my license plates are less than
>$50 a year.
>
>Let us assume that the car suffered a catastrophic problem after 60k miles.
>It cost me 3 cents a mile plus fuel, oil changes and liability insurance.
>
>Now compare that to your brand new Honda.
>
> Oh yeah, add in the cost of the
>license fees, the finance charges, and the comp and collision insurance you
>have to buy to protect the risk to the finance company. Also, what does it
>cost you for your first 60k miles of regular service?
>
>
Primarily just oil changes, which I do myself. At 30/65/100k, I let
the dealer do their standard vehicle review & at 65k I let them do the
standard transmission & coolant fluid changes. At 100k there is a
timing belt / water pump change with a plug replacement.
>BTW I am still driving the car.
>
>
>
No question that 3 cents/ mile is much better what I'm paying.
My last Honda (and I expect the same with my current one) went 100k on
its original tires (might have realized another 10k, but it was December
and I wanted better tread for the winter plus I was able take advantage
of a "winter sale"), 130K on brakes & battery. In fact, other than
standard maintenance, all I needed before 100k was a headlight. The
alternator finally went at 140k, but the gas pump is still working fine
at 150k. (Water pump& belts were replaced when they replaced the
timing belt at 110k). I also had no finance charges. I do carry
collision for the first three years, but my total insurance for 2 cars /
2 drivers is <$1k/yr . Nevertheless, it did cost me 10 cents/ mile
just for depreciation with a minimum for standard maintance / repairs
(perhaps 2-2.5 cents/ mile - primary costs being the timing belt & tire
replacement). As typical, most of the maintenance / repairs were
backloaded at 100-150k.
Finding a car for $1250 is truely remarkable / atypical, as most at that
price are a step away from being junked. My comparisions were intended
to cover average cost of ownership, not a highly exceptional set of
circumstances as you have apparently realized. I'm guessing gas
mileage for an older Mercedes is fairly costly, although the overall
cost would still be quite remarkable.
On the other hand, my 30k miles / year are primarily long distance
interstate trips. I'd be highly reluctant to drive a $1250 vehicle on
a 1k mile trip. Obviously, increased risk is a trade off in your
exceptional savings.
Chloe
news:11709951...@news01.syix.com...
> OK how about this example.
>
> In December 2003 I purchased a Mercedes Benz 300 SD for $1,250 out the
> door
> from a used car dealer. I promptly had to replace the tires $250 and the
> battery $100. I had a fan belt fail. $20 I put in a set of glow plugs.$75
> I do not pay comp or collision insurance. I commuted with this car 30k
> per
> year for the first two years.
>
> I have paid no interest on a car loan, and my license plates are less than
> $50 a year.
>
> Let us assume that the car suffered a catastrophic problem after 60k
> miles.
> It cost me 3 cents a mile plus fuel, oil changes and liability insurance.
>
> Now compare that to your brand new Honda. Oh yeah, add in the cost of the
> license fees, the finance charges, and the comp and collision insurance
> you
> have to buy to protect the risk to the finance company. Also, what does
> it
> cost you for your first 60k miles of regular service?
>
> BTW I am still driving the car.
DH and I own an older Mercedes and a newish Honda CR-V.
I'm happy the Mercedes worked out to be a more frugal option for you than a
new Honda. However, anybody who thinks a Mercedes is *likely* to be an
inexpensive car to operate and maintain--even if somebody were to hand you
one free--is woefully naive and misinformed.
Chloe
news:d6pns2hmhghuii5ok...@4ax.com...
><snip>
> As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a number of other
I sat here and racked my brain trying to figure out what you're thinking
of--but all I could come up with was Nissan <g>.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
First of all when Americans began buying Japanese cars because of the first
oil crisis, all the American-name small cars were really Japanese, or made
with mostly Japanese parts. Second, the quality reports on the big American
V8 cars are actually quite good. Japanese quality is upfront quality. In
their culture, you sold something that broke the first week and your head
flew off. Our culture was more into breaking things in, like a horse or a
mule. A few problems up front didn't matter, so long as it lasted.
Furthermore, back during the first oil crisis Japan had a reputation as a
peacenik nation without a real army. The peacenik hippies loved the idea of
buying Japanese on anti-war grounds.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
gamer
>I have to say I never bought the Japanese quality story.
>
>
>
You've obviously never owned one. Denial does have its price.
Most all who currently own them seem to be previously dissatisfied GM /
Ford / Chrysler owners. Most all that continue to "not buy the
Japanese quality story" have never owned one.
Of course, if nothing else, the superior foreign quality has had some
effect on forcing GM, Ford & Chrysler to improve their quality.
I no longer refer to "domestic" manufacturers as Honda, Toyota, etc
represent a high percentage of the US production while a high percentage
of the GM/Ford/Chrysler models are assembled or contain a high
percentage of imported parts.
SMS
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:23:40 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> And the knowledgeable used-car shopper can apply the same techniques
>>> to pay significantly below sticker price for his used car as well.
>>> Apples to apples.
>> No it's not. There are several factors at work.
>>
>> First, a lot of the used cars are off-lease vehicles, being sold at the
>> dealer, who knows that the market prices for used Hondas, Toyotas,
>> Acuras, and Lexii, defy all reason, so they aren't going to deal much.
>
> As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a number of other
> reliable car makes beyond Toyota and Honda do exist.
For mass-market non-luxury cars, Toyota and Honda are about it.
> The only reason
> that some here keep cherry-picking favorable data from those two
> groups is that you seem to think it bolsters your argument.
The two best selling mid-size cars in the U.S. are the Accord and the
Camry. The two best selling compact cars in the U.S. are the Civic and
Corolla. It's entirely reasonable to use data from these vehicles.
> And believe it or not, even the legendary Toyota may occasionally be
> bought used for a fair price. I know this because I currently drive
> such a car to work every day.
It's possible, but rare. Finding a private party that is selling a 1-2
year old Honda or a Toyota at a price that is at least $2000 less than
the street price of a new one is very difficult.
SMS
> One of the attractions of the Honda/Toyota cultists is the weird
> resale value thing. They must always become dissatisfied with them
> and unload them, I guess.
I don't really care about resale value, as I keep my cars a long time.
But the reason the resale value is so high is because of the reliability
and longevity. The reason for the reliability and longevity is more than
just the quality of the components, it's inherent in the design.
Dennis
wrote:
>Finding a car for $1250 is truely remarkable / atypical, as most at that
>price are a step away from being junked. My comparisions were intended
>to cover average cost of ownership, not a highly exceptional set of
>circumstances as you have apparently realized.
But see, that's the whole point. The truly frugal shopper takes the
time to seek out the uncommon values. Most of the rest of the herd
just walks into the dealer and buys new.
BTW, two years ago I bought a used car from a private party for
US$1100. 20K miles later, it is going strong, with only normal
maintenance (by your metric, ~$0.055/mile and dropping). If the last
car of this make and model that I owned is any indication of future
reliability, I can expect another 70-80K good miles from this vehicle.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Rod Speed
> I have to say I never bought the Japanese quality story.
> First of all when Americans began buying Japanese cars
> because of the first oil crisis, all the American-name small cars
There werent any of those.
> were really Japanese, or made with mostly Japanese parts.
> Second, the quality reports on the big American V8 cars are
> actually quite good.
Still pathetic compared with imported Jap cars.
> Japanese quality is upfront quality.
Yes, the original jap cars didnt last all that well. Thats changed now tho.
> In their culture, you sold something that broke the first week and your head flew off.
It was nothing like that.
> Our culture was more into breaking things in, like a horse or a mule.
Or that either. And the japs had horses anyway.
> A few problems up front didn't matter, so long as it lasted.
Irrelevant to manufactured goods.
> Furthermore, back during the first oil crisis Japan had a reputation as a peacenik nation
Like hell they did. Few had forgotten what they had got up to in WW2.
> without a real army.
You did manage to get that bit right.
> The peacenik hippies loved the idea of buying Japanese on anti-war grounds.
Like hell they did. And what really got the jap economy going after the war was
supplying the US troops with low end manufactured stuff used in the korean war.
Dennis
Well, for example my personal experience has been nothing but good
with 2 Nissans and 2 Mazdas. Most of the groups that report on
vehicle reliability seem to generally have good things to say about
them as well. I have also had reasonably good experiences with 3
Chevrolets, although over much shorter periods of ownership. I have
in the past owned a Honda and currently own a Toyota, so I have some
experience with the vaunted "Gold Standards" to compare with. :-)
Perhaps insignificant, sample-size-wise, but it certainly influences
my choices.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm a hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case. -George Carlin
Rod Speed
> Vic Smith wrote
>> gamer <PeterG...@cox.net> wrote
>>> For me, a frugal car purchase is primarily the lowest cost/mile that provides a level of
>>> moderate comfort with ample / comfortable head room. Gas mileage is a secondary / reduced
>>> concern since it's the minor cost of running most cars (vs. depreciation & maintenance costs).
>> Depreciation means nothing if you drive your cars as you say below.
> I'm using the term depreciation as the cost/mile over the life of the car
That /mile is essentially irrelevant when the vast bulk of the
cost is the loss of value of the car from the original purchase.
> - perhaps there is a better wording.
Loss of value, what most mean by depreciation.
> In that respect, depreciation (cost of purchase / total lifetime mileage) is the most costly part
> of owning any car, regardless of how long one owns it..
That isnt true with high mileage per year with gas guzzlers bought say 10 years old.
> After that, it varies significantly by driver. I'm aware, for example, of some that pay more in
> insurance in a year than for gasoline.
And there is FAR more variation with gas guzzlers used for
long distance daily commutes and gas sippers used a couple
of times a week for quite short distances, for shopping etc.
> While 100- 150K miles was an expected upper limit in past years (and
> seems to be still typical for a majority of GM, Ford, etc vehicles),
> I've since found Honda/ Toyota/ Nissan have raised that bar
> significantly to perhaps 250K+. Thus, paying a bit more a vehicle
> that will deliver 250k tends to be much cheaper in the long run vs.
> buying one that typically lasts only 150k.
Yeah, that's what I did with the car that lasted 35+ years, deliberately
paid more new for one that would last longer than the cheapest crap
available new, and one that had a very significant safety advantage
over the cheapest crap available new. I never did need the safety
advantage, but I decided that it would cost peanuts per year to have that.
> Of course, everyone has a different "sweet spot" for ideal pricing, depending on one's
> requirements.
And the unquantifiable stuff like the vastly more choice with new cars, particularly
with the optional stuff. Impossible to put a value on your time that that saves.
Not possible to put a value on your time with the advantage of never
having to do any maintenance on a new car in the warranty period either.
> I'm sure I'd pick a different vehicle if my driving was primarily commuting vs. the primary
> interstate driving that I current do. Then again, I do have a 10-year old vehicle that I use for
> most of my local driving.
Yeah, thats the other thing that hasnt been considered in the maths,
having two older cars instead of just one if you do need high reliability
in the sense of normally having at least one car thats usable if you
need to be able to get to work reliably etc. Tho even that is
complicated if you live close enough to work so that you can always
cadge a lift or use a taxi or public transport or bike if you need to.
Rod Speed
Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.
Rod Speed
> Roger Shoaf wrote
>> OK how about this example.
>> In December 2003 I purchased a Mercedes Benz 300 SD for $1,250 out the door from a used car
>> dealer. I promptly had to replace the tires $250 and the battery $100. I had a fan belt fail.
>> $20
> You put a set of 4 tires on a Mercedes for $250 (unlikely a Mercedes recommended replacement -
> highly risky)?
Corse it isnt risky, nothing special about the tires a merc requires.
> Or $250/ tire (more typical of a recommend replacement)?
The recommendation is completely irrelevant.
>> I put in a set of glow plugs.$75 I do not pay comp or collision insurance. I commuted with this
>> car 30k per year for the first two years.
>> I have paid no interest on a car loan, and my license plates are less than $50 a year.
>> Let us assume that the car suffered a catastrophic problem after 60k
>> miles. It cost me 3 cents a mile plus fuel, oil changes and liability insurance.
>> Now compare that to your brand new Honda.
>> Oh yeah, add in the cost of the license fees, the finance charges, and the comp and collision
>> insurance you have to buy to protect the risk to the finance company. Also, what does it cost
>> you for your first 60k miles of regular service?
It isnt frugal to buy a car using car flogger finance.
> Primarily just oil changes, which I do myself. At 30/65/100k, I let
> the dealer do their standard vehicle review & at 65k I let them do the standard transmission &
> coolant fluid changes. At 100k there is a timing belt / water pump change with a plug
> replacement.
>> BTW I am still driving the car.
> No question that 3 cents/ mile is much better what I'm paying.
> My last Honda (and I expect the same with my current one) went 100k on its original tires (might
> have realized another 10k, but it was
> December and I wanted better tread for the winter plus I was able
> take advantage of a "winter sale"), 130K on brakes & battery. In
> fact, other than standard maintenance, all I needed before 100k was a
> headlight. The alternator finally went at 140k, but the gas pump
> is still working fine at 150k. (Water pump& belts were replaced
> when they replaced the timing belt at 110k). I also had no finance
> charges. I do carry collision for the first three years, but my
> total insurance for 2 cars / 2 drivers is <$1k/yr . Nevertheless,
> it did cost me 10 cents/ mile just for depreciation with a minimum
> for standard maintance / repairs (perhaps 2-2.5 cents/ mile - primary
> costs being the timing belt & tire replacement). As typical, most
> of the maintenance / repairs were backloaded at 100-150k.
> Finding a car for $1250 is truely remarkable / atypical, as most at that price are a step away
> from being junked.
Not true of Mercs, essentially because the bulk of those who buy
them new with the exception of taxis outside the US dont drive
them into the ground and want another new car quite quickly.
The main downside with Mercs is that the cost of parts can take
the breath away if you need them, but the obvious alternative is
to just bin it if that happens and buy another for $1250.
> My comparisions were intended to cover average cost of ownership, not a highly exceptional set of
> circumstances as you have apparently realized.
No he didnt with Mercs, and you can check that for yourself price wise.
> I'm guessing gas mileage for an older Mercedes is fairly costly,
You're wrong.
> although the overall cost would still be quite remarkable.
Yep, its always been one of those less well known niches.
There's a reason they get used for taxis outside north america.
> On the other hand, my 30k miles / year are primarily long distance interstate trips. I'd be
> highly reluctant to drive a $1250 vehicle on a 1k mile trip.
Its fine with a decent reliable car.
> Obviously, increased risk is a trade off in your exceptional savings.
There is no risk.
Rod Speed
No they arent. There's a reason Mercs are used for taxis outside north america.
gamer
>On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 08:12:24 -0500, gamer <PeterG...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Finding a car for $1250 is truely remarkable / atypical, as most at that
>>price are a step away from being junked. My comparisions were intended
>>to cover average cost of ownership, not a highly exceptional set of
>>circumstances as you have apparently realized.
>>
>>
>
>But see, that's the whole point. The truly frugal shopper takes the
>time to seek out the uncommon values. Most of the rest of the herd
>just walks into the dealer and buys new.
>
>BTW, two years ago I bought a used car from a private party for
>US$1100. 20K miles later, it is going strong, with only normal
>maintenance (by your metric, ~$0.055/mile and dropping). If the last
>car of this make and model that I owned is any indication of future
>reliability, I can expect another 70-80K good miles from this vehicle.
>
>
>
>
I'm sincerely amazed that someone could find a runnable car for $1k.
I've sold several (7-10 year old models) for about that price that
would not run (needing extensive repairs)/ would no longer pass
inspections & went straight to junk yards for parts. I'm definitely
impressed.
Then again, I did have a neighbor where I last lived who was still
driving an Accord daily at 370+k miles. It's book value was somewhere
around $1k, but I'd should never pay that price.
Dennis
wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:23:40 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> And the knowledgeable used-car shopper can apply the same techniques
>>>> to pay significantly below sticker price for his used car as well.
>>>> Apples to apples.
>>> No it's not. There are several factors at work.
>>>
>>> First, a lot of the used cars are off-lease vehicles, being sold at the
>>> dealer, who knows that the market prices for used Hondas, Toyotas,
>>> Acuras, and Lexii, defy all reason, so they aren't going to deal much.
>>
>> As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a number of other
>> reliable car makes beyond Toyota and Honda do exist.
>
>For mass-market non-luxury cars, Toyota and Honda are about it.
Nope, as noted in other postings in this thread. No everyone shares
your bigotry.
Do you ever buy store brands at the supermarket?
>> The only reason
>> that some here keep cherry-picking favorable data from those two
>> groups is that you seem to think it bolsters your argument.
>
>The two best selling mid-size cars in the U.S. are the Accord and the
>Camry. The two best selling compact cars in the U.S. are the Civic and
>Corolla. It's entirely reasonable to use data from these vehicles.
Not when you are specifically discussing seeking out the overlooked
bargains. (You know -- like miscellaneous frugal consumers often do?
:-)
>> And believe it or not, even the legendary Toyota may occasionally be
>> bought used for a fair price. I know this because I currently drive
>> such a car to work every day.
>
>It's possible, but rare. Finding a private party that is selling a 1-2
>year old Honda or a Toyota at a price that is at least $2000 less than
>the street price of a new one is very difficult.
$2000 seems like an arbitrary figure, given the range of prices out
there. But terms like "difficult" and "rare" don't scare me. The
deals are out there and I have a track record of finding them. But,
by all means do take a less challenging approach if that suits you.
Everyone takes a different approach to frugality and values different
things.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
gamer
>gamer <PeterG...@cox.net> wrote
>
>
>
>
>>I'm guessing gas mileage for an older Mercedes is fairly costly,
>>
>>
>
>You're wrong.
>
>
>
Guess it's relative, but I just did a quick check of predicted mileage
on the new Mercs (easy to find). They seem to fall primarily in the 12
/ 20 range - probably a 15 mpg average - about the same as large SUVs.
Quite poor / costly IMO. My Accord has averaged 27 over its 150k
miles. I'm also guessing 10 year old models will be worse than the
newer ones.
This is bringing back memories of my 74 Ford Torino. It had a large
28.5 gallon tank. Unfortunately, it averaged just under 10 mpg.
Expensive, even when gas was only about $1. I think its city EPA rating
was something like 8.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> terms like "difficult" and "rare" don't scare me.
No, it is the term "classic" that send chills up my spine.
Rod Speed
>>> I'm guessing gas mileage for an older Mercedes is fairly costly,
>> You're wrong.
> Guess it's relative,
Nope, there's a reason that Mercs are used for taxis outside north america.
> but I just did a quick check of predicted mileage on the new Mercs (easy to find). They seem to
> fall primarily in the 12 / 20 range - probably a 15 mpg average - about the same as large SUVs.
Have a look at the diesel Mercs.
> Quite poor / costly IMO. My Accord has averaged 27 over its 150k miles. I'm also guessing 10
> year old models will be worse than the newer ones.
You guessed wrong, again.
> This is bringing back memories of my 74 Ford Torino. It had a large 28.5 gallon tank.
> Unfortunately, it averaged just under 10 mpg. Expensive, even when gas was only about $1. I think
> its city EPA rating was something like 8.
Mercs aint like that. Essentially because they come from europe
which has had much higher gasoline prices ever since the war.
gamer
On eBay, rare and l@@K send chills up mine.
Roger Shoaf
> Roger Shoaf wrote:
>
> >OK how about this example.
> >
> >In December 2003 I purchased a Mercedes Benz 300 SD for $1,250 out the
door
> >from a used car dealer. I promptly had to replace the tires $250 and the
> >battery $100. I had a fan belt fail. $20
> >
>
> You put a set of 4 tires on a Mercedes for $250 (unlikely a Mercedes
> recommended replacement - highly risky)? Or $250/ tire (more typical of
> a recommend replacement)?
Sam's Club, GoodYear tires. As to the recomendations of Mercedes, they were
the correct size. 14 inch radials. Why would you spend $250 on one tire?
>
> > I put in a set of glow plugs.$75
> >I do not pay comp or collision insurance. I commuted with this car 30k
per
> >year for the first two years.
> >
> >I have paid no interest on a car loan, and my license plates are less
than
> >$50 a year.
> >
> >Let us assume that the car suffered a catastrophic problem after 60k
miles.
> >It cost me 3 cents a mile plus fuel, oil changes and liability insurance.
> >
> >Now compare that to your brand new Honda.
> >
>
>
>
> > Oh yeah, add in the cost of the
> >license fees, the finance charges, and the comp and collision insurance
you
> >have to buy to protect the risk to the finance company. Also, what does
it
> >cost you for your first 60k miles of regular service?
> >
> >
>
> Primarily just oil changes, which I do myself. At 30/65/100k, I let
> the dealer do their standard vehicle review & at 65k I let them do the
> standard transmission & coolant fluid changes. At 100k there is a
> timing belt / water pump change with a plug replacement.
>
> >BTW I am still driving the car.
> >
> >
> >
> No question that 3 cents/ mile is much better what I'm paying.
I think that was the point. There is no reason to suck up all that
depreciation just for a car that gets you from point A to point B.
Prior to the Benz I drove a Mercury Topaz I paid $500 and drove it for 4
years. Before that it was a $100 Opel Kadet station wagon, and before that
a 64 Plymouth Valiant. $400.
>
> My last Honda (and I expect the same with my current one) went 100k on
> its original tires (might have realized another 10k, but it was December
> and I wanted better tread for the winter plus I was able take advantage
> of a "winter sale"), 130K on brakes & battery. In fact, other than
> standard maintenance, all I needed before 100k was a headlight. The
> alternator finally went at 140k, but the gas pump is still working fine
> at 150k. (Water pump& belts were replaced when they replaced the
> timing belt at 110k). I also had no finance charges. I do carry
> collision for the first three years, but my total insurance for 2 cars /
> 2 drivers is <$1k/yr . Nevertheless, it did cost me 10 cents/ mile
> just for depreciation with a minimum for standard maintance / repairs
> (perhaps 2-2.5 cents/ mile - primary costs being the timing belt & tire
> replacement). As typical, most of the maintenance / repairs were
> backloaded at 100-150k.
>
> Finding a car for $1250 is truely remarkable / atypical, as most at that
> price are a step away from being junked. My comparisions were intended
> to cover average cost of ownership, not a highly exceptional set of
> circumstances as you have apparently realized. I'm guessing gas
> mileage for an older Mercedes is fairly costly, although the overall
> cost would still be quite remarkable.
>
> On the other hand, my 30k miles / year are primarily long distance
> interstate trips. I'd be highly reluctant to drive a $1250 vehicle on
> a 1k mile trip. Obviously, increased risk is a trade off in your
> exceptional savings.
A thousand miles is no big deal. If I was at all concerned like when I went
on vacation, I would just rent a car.
As to no finance charges, If you take $27K out of invested money for a car,
you are not earning anything on your money.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>While 100- 150K miles was an expected upper limit in past years (and
>seems to be still typical for a majority of GM, Ford, etc vehicles),
>I've since found Honda/ Toyota/ Nissan have raised that bar
>significantly to perhaps 250K+. Thus, paying a bit more a vehicle that
>will deliver 250k tends to be much cheaper in the long run vs. buying
>one that typically lasts only 150k.
>
ignore the fact that there are comparatively few cars of any make that
achieve 200k before seeing the boneyard.
I referenced autotrader.com as evidence of that, and while that's far
from the last word, it certainly more substantial than your repeated
and unsupported claims like "I've since found Honda/ Toyota/ Nissan
have raised that bar significantly to perhaps 250K+."
keeping them in repair to reach 200k might be a losing proposition.
For example, how many of these cars need expensive maintenance of one
sort or another to reach 200k? You have to ask questions like this.
But for your needs you may still have chosen the right car, even if
not for the reasons you suppose.
Remember though that "used" car is part of the subject here and even
an unreasonable Honda/Toyota-head such as Steve says of 1-3 year old
Civic, Camry or Accord prices "Yes. It's amazing a) that sellers price
these so high, and b) there are sufficient buyers dumb enough to pay
those prices," and "market prices for used Hondas, Toyotas,
Acuras, and Lexii, defy all reason."
>Of course, everyone has a different "sweet spot" for ideal pricing,
>depending on one's requirements.
Cost per mile driven is a hard number determined after the fact and
has nothing to do with a pricing "sweet spot." A mileage sweet spot
is relevant to expected repair costs, although that's far from exact
science.
>I'm sure I'd pick a different vehicle
>if my driving was primarily commuting vs. the primary interstate driving
>that I current do. Then again, I do have a 10-year old vehicle that I
>use for most of my local driving.
Yep. Our local driver for nearly 9 1/2 years is a '90 Corsica which
cost me $2500. My cross-country car for the past 3 years is a '97
Lumina which cost me......$2500. Repair costs have been minor and
inconsequential.
Gamer, I'm not disagreeing with your choice, especially since you seem
to have an outrageous commute. Just saying there's different views
on what's frugal when it comes to cars.
--Vic
BB
> I have to say I never bought the Japanese quality story.
Consumer ratings were the main source of evidence of this in the 80s. The
American car industry was a mess, and quality was bad. Things have changed
quite a bit since then, and ratings are much closer.
The last real problematic American car I was was a 1970s Chevy Vega. We've
had two Toyotas that were just as awful.
We've had to have some minor work done on three American vehicles since
1990, costing $0-500 each (some covered by free extended warranties), but
we saved several thousand dollars over Japanese vehicles at purchase time
so it was a much more frugal choice (and its not as if the Japanese
vehicles are always entirely problem-free either). Slightly used American
cars would be an even better deal, because used Japanese cars cost almost
as much as new ones.
--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
BB
> Funny how we easterners venture out west to buy the good bodies while
> our western brethren come here to raid the mechanicals.
I used to know someone whose father supported his retirement by raiding
junkyards and driving parts between the south and northeast, just like
that. That was back when salt was used on roads a lot, so northeast cars
were junked with good engines.
Anthony Matonak
Have they stopped using salt?
Anthony
Paul M. Eldridge
Not here in Nova Scotia. It may be that the other alternatives don't
work as well due to our local climate or it could come down to cost
(I'd put my money on the latter). But happily for us, rust proofing
has advanced a long way over the past 30 years.
Cheers,
Paul
Chloe
news:45ce1aa3$0$1412$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
There's so much of it on my little cul-de-sac right now that the pavement is
blue. Swear to god. DH said his car skidded in it when he accellerated after
backing out of the driveway.
My guess is that somebody in city government gets "gifts" from the supplier,
depending on the size of the annual order :(
Barbara Bomberger
Hey there, long time no talk to.
I'll throw Subaru into the ring.............my next car will be a
tribeca, after a forrester and a legacy.
>
Dennis
I was going to add Subaru, but my only experience with one was of
mixed success -- it kept going for many miles as my transportation
during most of my college years, but it seemed like it took a lot of
minor tinkering. Of course it was an early '70s model, fairly
primitive by today's standards, and I expect that they have improved
considerably since then.
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.