# Net Worth Evaluation for Vehicles



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Usually every 6 months or so I check Autotrader and Kijiji to see what kind of value I would get if I were to sell both of my vehicles.

I generally find a bottom range price and then subtract $500 to get a final "liquid" selling price.

I did this just now, and I had to revise my Net Worth down by $3,500.00  I keep track of my Net Worth on Mint.com. Can't get into the habit of using NetWorthIQ.

I am no longer a part of the $50k+ Net Worth Club. 

Did the value of cars just fall off a cliff recently? !!


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Yes. Cars is a cancer for personal wealth building.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Cars devalue very quickly. Dealers also add all sorts of bogus admin and finance and other fees that add nothing to the value of the car. I've come to the realization that cars are basically designed to be worthless after 10 years. Stereos and other improvements don't help matters much either. So you have to amortize your car by about 10% per year. Seems so wasteful but nobody wants to drive a 15 year old car. Stigma.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Cars devalue very quickly. Dealers also add all sorts of bogus admin and finance and other fees that add nothing to the value of the car. I've come to the realization that cars are basically designed to be worthless after 10 years. Stereos and other improvements don't help matters much either. So you have to amortize your car by about 10% per year. Seems so wasteful but nobody wants to drive a 15 year old car. Stigma.


+1 for most of the points.

Thought I'd change the "nobody wants to drive a 15 year old car" to "only a few people".

I say this as I gave my working 15 year old Escort to my brother in 2009. A combination of wanting a bigger car for long trips and wanting to provide a car for him were the reasons for getting a newer one.

Then too, there's my co-worker who had to replace his first alternator on his Camry at 18 years. If I recall correctly, he also gave the Camry to a family member at 21 years and as of May, it is still on the road.


Cheers


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I drive a 12-year-old car, but we've already established that (for Royal's purposes, anyways) I am a spending outlier. 

My bike is currently worth more than my car (and it is fueled by coffee and cookies!). 

I wouldn't include a car in a net worth statement unless it was an appreciating asset. And the figure of 10% per year depreciation is a little low - if you buy new, the first-year depreciation is more like 20% or 30% if you include fees and taxes and higher insurance costs.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I *DO* include the car's current resale value in my networth calculation. Mostly to remind myself how much of a money waste it really is. Good to see how every few months, it loses about 5-6% of it's value.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't include auto's in Net Worth calculations.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

VMR Canada is a pretty good online resource for used car pricing:

http://www.vmrcanada.com/

I simply take the wholesale value listed on the website for computing net worth.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

I include it, as a car is an asset. That is, it can be sold, it has a value. 

I think you're focusing on it a little too much though. I check once a year and leave it at that. 

At the same time, after a car (or truck) drops to about 2k in value (after about 10 years) It doesn't really fall far after that.

My 2 daily drivers have an average age of 14 years. My classic is 40 years old. I figure at this point, the appreciation of the old car offsets the depreciation of the newer ones. So year over year, the automotive aspect of my net worth doesn't change.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I don't bother with vehicles or possessions in our net worth calculations. For us, they have little impact on purchasing power, retirement date and other long term goals.

I'm not about to sell my car to go on vacation, or to retire and live off of, equity holdings in my TFSA on the otherhand...

Vacation time!


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

There isn't much question that cars are a huge waste of money.

That said, if I had money to burn - expensive cars would be my preferred method.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

Why include a car in your net worth if you pay thousands of dollars a year in insurance, gas, tickets, repairs, etc. 

Money pit/10


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

sensfan15 said:


> Why include a car in your net worth if you pay thousands of dollars a year in insurance, gas, tickets, repairs, etc.
> 
> Money pit/10


Because your net worth is exactly that. The total of EVERYTHING you own, vs. EVERYTHING you owe. By you're arguement, a house shouldn't be included due to the very same reason.

And further to the point a car can be used as collateral on a loan. To me that's the very definition of an asset and therefore should be included.

But back to the original post. Cars do depreciate quickly, and there isn't a lot you can do about it, other than not really worry about it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> Did the value of cars just fall off a cliff recently? !!


I can't seem to find it now but I was reading an article on my iPhone about how the value of used cars in the US has increased dramatically since the whole recession thing. Less people buying new

They were saying people are even paying more for used cars when you factor in the cost of financing. That's been a classic salesman pitch and exactly why they have low financing so I'm pretty skeptical of that, but I'm sure the market has gone up none the less

Most people were definitely "too good to buy a used car" only a few years ago.

I have actually managed to sell several cars and motorbikes for more than I paid, but I think that's more attributed to the amount of time I spend watching for used car deals. I've notices the value of certain vehicles like Toyota trucks and certain discountinued Japanese models hold their value like crazy

I can only wonder what my networth would be if I wasn't obsessed with motorsports. Then again, I'm sure the average person wastes a lot if they don't do their own maint as well.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

crazyjackcsa said:


> By you're arguement, a house shouldn't be included due to the very same reason.


If I were tracking my net worth (which I don't as I don't see any point in it), I wouldn't use the current market value of my house, because that's just speculation. The actual value of my house is what someone would pay for it if I put it on the market now. If the market value is $400K but nobody offers me more than $350K, how useful was my net worth analysis?

Similarly, I don't see much point in using the current book value of your car, because if you sold it today you might not get that much for it.

I've never understood the value of monitoring your net worth, unless you're using it to motivate yourself to save more money or to get out of debt. It's really only important to your heirs: if I die today and all my stuff had to be sold, my heirs would want to know my net worth. But knowing my own current net worth doesn't really tell me anything useful as far as I can tell.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

brad said:


> If I were tracking my net worth (which I don't as I don't see any point in it), I wouldn't use the current market value of my house, because that's just speculation. The actual value of my house is what someone would pay for it if I put it on the market now. If the market value is $400K but nobody offers me more than $350K, how useful was my net worth analysis?


I disagree. One tracks net worth to get a handle on financial progress. Here's an example. Let's say I have $400,000 in the bank and that's all I have. If I go out and buy a home for cash, why would my net worth be suddenly zero? Yes, there is a some guesswork involved in estimating the value of one's house and it is best to make a conservative estimate but it doesn't make much sense to completely ignore cars and homes in a net worth statement.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

True. Plus when the bank tries to determine your networth, they do ask you the value of your car as well as value of real estate. Then they ask you what you still owe on these items. If it's good enough for the bank (in this case) then it's good enough for me to consider these things as part of net worth.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I'm with Brad. I just don't see a lot of value in knowing your net worth.

I used to calculate my net worth a long time ago, but at that time, my NW was really just a proxy for my debt. As I paid it off, the net worth went up and it was quite motivating.

Now, most of my net worth is in my house (which I can't accurately value or control) and the stock market which I definitely can't control.

Net worth is an interesting number and it doesn't hurt to calculate it, but I'm not sure what you are supposed to do with it.

As for Ram's example - I might be meeting my goals in terms of savings, but if the housing market & stock market drops - my net worth will drop as well. How is that a measure of my progress?


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

brad said:


> If I were tracking my net worth (which I don't as I don't see any point in it), I wouldn't use the current market value of my house, because that's just speculation. The actual value of my house is what someone would pay for it if I put it on the market now. If the market value is $400K but nobody offers me more than $350K, how useful was my net worth analysis?


I agree that it is based on speculation, but I have two points:

1) The likelyhood that you will sell for more than market value is roughly symetrical to the likelyhood that you will sell for less (i.e., you will not accept much less for the house because you believe that it is its market value and someone will not pay you much more because the market value is such). Therefore, I believe this cancel's each other out and it is not a good argument for weighting against including in the networth. 

2) If you do not include house value in networth, would your include you portfolio of stocks or bonds or...etc ? Because, according to your definition of speculative, these are also speculative items (i.e., you will not get today's price when you sell them down the line).


On topic:

I do include my vehicle value in my networth because, if I needed the cash, I would be willing to sell to reach my goals.

I agree that there is no point in including something in your networth that you have no intention of selling (or borrowing against) ever under any circumstances.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

brad said:


> It's really only important to your heirs: if I die today and all my stuff had to be sold, my heirs would want to know my net worth. But knowing my own current net worth doesn't really tell me anything useful as far as I can tell.


It's important to me to know if it's growing or not. If it's declining, I'm in trouble and not getting closer to retirement.

When I didn't track it, I never really knew how much of my cash I could afford to spend or had any goals

It's probably not a big deal if your lifestyle is stable and you can't control anything. When I have a constantly changing lifestyle from moving and money to spend, I find it very useful


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

brad said:


> I've never understood the value of monitoring your net worth, unless you're using it to motivate yourself to save more money or to get out of debt. It's really only important to your heirs: if I die today and all my stuff had to be sold, my heirs would want to know my net worth. But knowing my own current net worth doesn't really tell me anything useful as far as I can tell.


That's like saying tracking your spending is only important to your accountant.

And even if you don't think you track it, you probably do.

It's a road map and a tracking tool.

12 months ago I had 35k in cash in the bank. Now I have 32k in the bank. with that knowledge, it appears I've fell behind by 3k. 

But I've prepaid 4k on my mortgage this year and paid off another 4.5 with regular payments. Which would appear when I calculate my net worth.

And it's great in a p*ssing contest too.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I have seen one or two articles saying used car prices are up, and one or two they are down... and I don't see any evidence of either across the board.

Keep in mind autotrader is asking price, and the spread of asking $ vs. accepting $ might very well "flow" with the used car market. Dealers might be just posting more realistic prices in the ads. and then selling for close to that

I suspect gas guzzlers are dropping in price - have heard the used F150 trucks are dropping in used markets, because this new 3.5L V6 Ford has in the 2011's is so much better on fuel than the previous model engine. The old 4.2 V6 had a serious drinking problem.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

This is very important, esp when you want to buy a house and need to approach a lender for a mortgage. The bank will calculate your networth to help them decide how much you can afford to pay and how much they will lend you.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm going to see if I can get by without a car until I can afford an Audi R8, a Lamborghini or a nice Bugatti. Until then, I can rent a car dirt cheap the odd time I need to get out of the city.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

We paid about $30,000 OTD for our 2010 SUV. Now it will be valued at high $19,000 tomorrow when I do our update... sickening really. Not much you can do, other than buy used, take bus/train or autoshare, bike, walk etc.

We depreciate about 1.6% per month and this is on target with market prices when I check kijiji. 

I would suggest depreciating every month to amortize it, rather than taking a big hit down every half year or year when you check prices.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> It's important to me to know if it's growing or not. If it's declining, I'm in trouble and not getting closer to retirement.


This is exactly one of the reasons I don't track it, because I still have a lot of my RRSP investment in index funds, so when the market goes down my net worth would go down. But that doesn't mean I'm in trouble or not getting closer to retirement, it just means that the value of my shares is down; it has no relevance to their value when I get closer to retirement. I don't pay much attention to the current value of my investments because it's meaningless, I just try to increase the number of shares I own and ensure that I maintain a diversified portfolio. But all of my investments are long-term.

I did track my net worth when it was negative (when I was in debt), and it really was a strong motivator, but once I got out of debt I couldn't see any reason to keep tracking it. As Four Pillars said, my biggest assets are the ones whose values are out of my control: my house and my investments. I track my monthly income and my monthly spending, and that's useful to me, but my net worth? Nah. I do remember the bank asking me for all that information when I applied for a mortgage, and I provided it, but I see no reason to keep tracking it.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

brad said:


> I wouldn't use the current market value of my house, because that's just speculation. The actual value of my house is what someone would pay for it if I put it on the market now.


... what? 

What someone is willing to pay for your house _is_ the Market Value for your house.

What other houses in your area are selling for is the Market Value for _those_ houses.

Any price that you receive lower than your asking price is a miscalculation on your part in regards to what you thought the real Market Value of your home was.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> What someone is willing to pay for your house _is_ the Market Value for your house.


I guess I meant the assessed value, whatever the house currently shows for on the listings (which frankly I've never looked at because we don't intend to sell our house until we're too old to stay in it).

The point, though, is that I don't know what someone will be willing to pay for my house until I put it up for sale. Just because a realtor or a listing tells me I can sell it for x, or a similar home in my neighbourhood went for y, doesn't mean I can count on my home selling for that amount.

Everyone's situation is different: if you need to sell your house quickly you may end up deciding to accept a lower offer than you asked. Not everyone holds out to get their asking price - I remember in Vermont I had friends who put their house on the market for 8 years waiting for an offer that met their asking price!


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

I admit to being meticulous (obsessive) about tracking my net worth. It is purely a motivational tool I use to prove to myself that I can retire from the rat race in my 40's. As long as my graph chart on Networth IQ continues to climb I know that I am inching closer to the goal. Its scary how hell-bent I am in acheiving this.

So I had better stop lusting after a particular $70k Audi coupe. Buying that would pretty much torpedo my progress... but its so sexy.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Jon_Snow said:


> So I had better stop lusting after a particular $70k Audi coupe. Buying that would pretty much torpedo my progress... but its so sexy.


Audi S5?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Networth really is just a single snapshot of a particular point in time. It literally changes by the minute, so I don't see the point into taking so much time in tracking it to very high degree of accuracy. What is the benefit of having such detailed information?

Don't get me wrong, I do track it roughly, and find that over time it will give me a general trend to see how I am doing. Generally, my networth should be constantly increasing over time. Unless, I'm looking to borrow money such for a mortgage or something, or am looking to liquidate some of my holdings then I don't really need to be that accurate. Unless I'm dead as some one else mentioned. 

I don't include my vehicles, or personal items as they are depreciating assets. I don't include my jewelry, expensive art work, watches, etc as even though they have resale value, I'm not sure if I would ever sell it, or if there is really any buyers for it. I don't factor consumer goods part of my net worth. My reason for tracking net worth is to help me monitor that I am on track for retirement which is a long time from now. My vehicle won't be around by that time, and I'm not going to sel the other stuff to fund my retirement. 

I have a pretty steady plan for my finances, and it really doesn't go off track. So every month my mortgages go down a little, and the investments go up and down, and hopefully back up, more goes into savings... life just hums along. I do update my network, when there have been some major changes, or if I make larger adjustments to my financial plan. This way I have a new benchmark to start with. 

I actually do consider when we buy a vehicle (always outright) that my networth has going down by the full amount. That's a pretty good incentive for me to really scrutinize the purchase.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Sure Jon - but in 10-15 years that car will probably be in the scrap yard or had several accidents in its life. In 2 years you'll be lusting after some future great car.

I say go for a late model mid-range car, practical, not a gas guzzler and try to get 5-10 years out of it. That in itself will keep your wallet fairly empty, much less going for luxury.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> Audi S5?


Yep, that would be the one. Or the RS5, which comes to north america late this year I believe. Would be a dumb move since I have a perfectly good Toyota pickup which still looks great 11 years later. But I find myself a little weary of always doing the financially prudent thing.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> Networth really is just a single snapshot of a particular point in time. It literally changes by the minute, so I don't see the point into taking so much time in tracking it to very high degree of accuracy. What is the benefit of having such detailed information?


I agree that once you've built up a bit of assets, net worth is very volatile even when you compare over multiple years. Therefore, it becomes less useful. I still do it once a year because it helps me track down all the different accounts and update it in a little notebook. I mostly manage our family finances, so this record keeping will turn out to be important should something happen to me.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> Sure Jon - but in 10-15 years that car will probably be in the scrap yard or had several accidents in its life. In 2 years you'll be lusting after some future great car.
> 
> I say go for a late model mid-range car, practical, not a gas guzzler and try to get 5-10 years out of it. That in itself will keep your wallet fairly empty, much less going for luxury.


you live once, might as well enjoy it instead of calculating your net worth everyday and save every penny until you die.... there are a lot of things that are a waist of money but you need to balance it... it's the same thing with everything, why buy new plasma tv if your 20 year old one works fine? why put granite counter tops if regular once do the job? why go to a restaurant with your wife/gf if you can eat at home for 1/4 cheaper? I can keep going....


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

blin10 said:


> you live once, might as well enjoy it instead of calculating your net worth everyday and save every penny until you die....


Yeah, but there's a big difference between splurging on a new TV or going out for supper at a restaurant versus spending $70K on a car when you could get a perfectly reliable car for $20K. Just think of all the great things you could do with the $50K difference.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

brad said:


> Yeah, but there's a big difference between splurging on a new TV or going out for supper at a restaurant versus spending $70K on a car when you could get a perfectly reliable car for $20K. Just think of all the great things you could do with the $50K difference.


Exactly. You could buy a second $50,000 car.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

bwahahahahahaha!


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Four Pillars said:


> Exactly. You could buy a second $50,000 car.


That's for making me spit out my coffee.... 



brad said:


> Yeah, but there's a big difference between splurging on a new TV or going out for supper at a restaurant versus spending $70K on a car when you could get a perfectly reliable car for $20K. Just think of all the great things you could do with the $50K difference.


True, but if that's what one wants to do with their money, who's to say, providing they are meeting their other goals.

It's actually the same car that my spouse is looking at. I've managed to hold him off, as it too small for what we want, so I have at least 8 years before we need to look at it.

Really though, $70K seems like a lot of money, but if you're not using it for something else then why not? I enjoy my work, and so does my spouse, we make good income, and when the kids are out, the things that we will want to do some are expensive. We will have planned for it, there is a balance between enjoying your money and saving too much.


----------



## DrStan (Apr 5, 2009)

I agree that personal effects shouldn't be figured into net worth (unless they include very valuable items such as expensive works of art). I do use a lowball estimate for my car's value in my net worth calculation, but that's just to remind me of my annual depreciation cost (owned 8 years, depreciated $24K from original cost = 3K per year in depreciation less what I wrote off as business portion). Same goes for a lowball estimate of house value based on recent sales in the area.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> True, but if that's what one wants to do with their money, who's to say, providing they are meeting their other goals.


I didn't mean it as a judgment, just an observation that it's worth thinking about the other things you could do with $50K than spending it on a car. I have no problem with splurging, but I guess I take a pragmatic view of cars as simply a means for transportation; if someone were to give me $20 million today and I needed a new car, I'd still spend no more than $20K or $25K on it. But that's just me and my own personal priorities, I recognize that many people love a nice car.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I got over new cars in the mid-90s. My last car was a four year old Escape for $12500.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I hope that my spouses love for new expensive cars will pass (perferably before we have to buy 'his' vehicle). I kind of guessing it won't if his family is an indication.

The only good thing, is in the past, we've always gotten really good deals from the US, so we can resell with out losing nearly as much.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Jon_Snow said:


> Yep, that would be the one. *Or the RS5, which comes to north america late this year* I believe. Would be a dumb move since I have a perfectly good Toyota pickup which still looks great 11 years later. But I find myself a little weary of always doing the financially prudent thing.


Good taste, my friend. Cheers. You deserve a Dos Equis.



brad said:


> if someone were to give me $20 million today and I needed a new car, I'd still spend no more than $20K or $25K on it.


...  

$20MILLION, and you wouldn't spend more than $25k on a car?

If someone handed me $20Million, I would easily spend $500k on a car, and I wouldn't even think twice. It would be my first purchase.


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

As I plan on driving my car until it basically has no value I don't bother adding it to my networth.. I keep track of my net worth roughly just by ensuring I spend less then I earn...... If I had a car that was a toy ( I want a mustang) I'd probably add it too my net worth for the future value it would have if and when I would sell it.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

My various cars are worth somewhere around $60K - $100K. Doesn't matter as they are not for sale.

Do I include them in NW calculations? Nope, they are a consumable, just like the food in your freezer. FWIW, I only count my liquid investments. My house is a consumption item and therefore excluded.

I'm retired and living off my investment portfolio. I do have a Net Worth spreadsheet but income is what matters. I consider my net worth to include only income producing assets. The income may be Interest, Capital Gains or Dividends. Doesn't matter.


----------



## Maybe Later (Feb 19, 2011)

I also use vmrcanada.com. I'm less interested in their contribution to net worth than I am about their respective rates of depreciation. It also gives me an idea of the, "If I had to replace this tomorrow" factor.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> $20MILLION, and you wouldn't spend more than $25k on a car?


In my early 20s I spent a year working for a multi-millionaire in Westchester County, New York; his next-door neighbour was Frank Langella, the actor, and another neighbour and close friend was Lila Atcheson Wallace, head of the Readers Digest empire. The project I was working on was funded in part by the Wallaces. The guy I worked for had a gorgeous old house with a butler, a cook, and a gardener, but the only car he owned was a beat-up old Volkswagen Bug from the 1970s. That always impressed me.

But as I said, cars aren't a priority for me. If I had $20 million I'd probably upgrade my sound system first or buy a couple of musical instruments before even thinking about a car. I used to be into cars, though, so I definitely understand where you're coming from.


----------



## John_Michaels (Dec 14, 2009)

I just bought a new (new) car. I had a 9 year old civic. Needed new summer tires (say $800), dash electronics were eratic (who knows how much $), Honda was suggesting new water pump and something else (say $600) and this was on top of the $2K I spent earlier this year. The thought process was that I'm going to see $2,500 to $3,500 a year in maintenance now, why not buy a new car, assuming its going to last 8 years at $3,750 (shoot - just realized I need new winter tires..sigh). The annual price delta would be piece of mind for reliable transport.

For those of you who do have the 11 to 15 year old card, perhaps you can offer advice/analysis. Is my estimate of annual 'fixin' wrong? What is your experience for maintenance once it gets over 10+ years?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Yes, in my experience once you get past the 10 year mark (or past the 300,000 kilometer mark), the annual cost of repairs and the headache of worrying whether you'll have a breakdown make a newer car worthwhile.

It's funny, though, with some cars you may have a lot of expenses between 250,000 and 300,000 km and then be worry-free for another 100,000 km or more becasue so many parts have been replaced. At that point your major worry tends to be rust. 

I kept my Honda Civic for 402,000 km and then sold it to a family (for about $300); they drove it for another 200,000 km without any significant problems and sold it on to someone else after that.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

also don't forget safety of a new car, if someone gets into a bad accident in a 10 year old honda civic most likely he/she will not be here no more... but if you where in a new e class or 5 series you most likely would survive, so at that time whoever was in honda civic would give away all their money just to survive


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

^I disagree with that. Safety standards in current year models are not so much better than in 2000, to make a difference between a person being killed or not. If the car accident was so bad as to kill a person, then all the electronic safety gadgets in the world won't save them. There are lots of arguments against driving 10 year old cars but safety isn't one of them.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> ^I disagree with that. Safety standards in current year models are not so much better than in 2000, to make a difference between a person being killed or not. If the car accident was so bad as to kill a person, then all the electronic safety gadgets in the world won't save them. There are lots of arguments against driving 10 year old cars but safety isn't one of them.


it's not just electronics, it's the materials that it's build with... you telling me they used same quality materials in a 10 year old honda civic vs a new e class ? ya ok


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

Maybe safety standards are not much different, but what about the mass of the car?

I remember reading that over the pass 10-20 years that cars have been steadily going bigger and bigger and heavier. 1996-1997 Civic is about 2300 lbs while the 2006-2011 is pushing 2,749 lbs. Don't you think that this can have an impact on safety?

More mass means more metal to absorb the brunt of the force to leave the squishy occupants alive.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Safety is a good point: a 2011 Smart car is actually safer than a 1980 Land-Rover, for example, even though the Land-Rover is an awful lot heavier. They didn't have crumple zones back then; when you watch crash-test videos of the Smart car you see that most of the car is destroyed save for the occupants' cockpit.

My impression is that new safety features are built in, and new requirements are enacted, on a regular basis. Still, the required features are common to all cars so a Toyota Yaris isn't really less safe than a BMW unless the BMW has additional features like side airbags etc. Heavier doesn't always give you a significant safety advantage.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

John_Michaels said:


> For those of you who do have the 11 to 15 year old card, perhaps you can offer advice/analysis. Is my estimate of annual 'fixin' wrong? What is your experience for maintenance once it gets over 10+ years?


It sounds to me that most of the expenses you listed (except perhaps the electronics) would fall under the category of regular maintenance. I drove a 1992 Accord until 2010. Off the top of my head, I can't recall how much I spent in maintenance but I don't think it was anywhere near $2,500 per year.

I finally had to change it when a major expense was imminent (replacing the gas tank) and the car had started to rust out. But for the rust, I would have fixed the gas tank and kept it running a couple more years.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

If I had to spend $2500-$3000/year in repairing my 11-year-old car I wouldn't drive at all. 

Useage is a huge factor in estimating repair costs. We drive less than 50km per week and many weeks we are at maybe 10km (i.e., one trip to the grocery store and back). 

My repair costs for my car are around $500-$700 year. We fill up about every 4-6 weeks. Our main cost, obviously, is insurance. 

The only reasons we keep a car at all are convenience...for most trips, we walk (local grocery store), bike (both husband and I cycle to work year-round) or take TTC. We're all going to Ontario Place today (kids and adults) and we're taking the streetcar. 

So, for us, total car costs are under $4000/year.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> So, for us, total car costs are under $4000/year.


We came in just over that last year: total cost $4,066.78 to be exact, including gasoline, insurance, license, registration, service, and the purchase of a GPS unit. We have a 2005 Toyota Matrix.

In contrast when I lived in the country my annual costs were generally two to three times higher (mostly in gasoline and repairs); I was driving 32,000 km/year, much of it on dirt roads. Here in the city my car is 6 years old and I only have 80,000 km on it.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

New tech does make a difference. For example, the government is again sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, and mandating all new cars must have stability control in 2012.

My next car must have stability control, because I'm not a very good driver.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

blin10 said:


> it's not just electronics, it's the materials that it's build with... you telling me they used same quality materials in a 10 year old honda civic vs a new e class ? ya ok


why would you compare a 10 yr old civic with an e class?

Seems like a 10yr old e class with a brand new one would be a better comparison.

Even a brand new civic and an e-class would not be remotely similar.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I'd be curious about the safety specs of an old car vs. new one. A buddy of mine hit a building with a 70's cadillac and the car had a few scratches and dents, the building lost its corner, bricks and all. 

That car was a tank, so it might be a one-off case, and in any event, had he run headlong into a wall, the car might have been better off than the driver, but I would guess that old-school materials were actually tougher than what cars are built of now.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Yes, but that was deliberate. The old Cadillac would have fared better in a crash, but its occupant would have been more seriously injured because more of the force of the accident would have been transferred to the victim instead of being absorbed by the crumple zones and other weaknesses deliberately built into modern cars.

Older cars (depending on how old you're talking) also didn't have safety features like headrests, shoulder belts, and airbags; headrests alone have avoided countless cases of whiplash.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Even a 1990 car is substantially less safe that a car with modern safety features.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

Here we go again with the safety thing... can't we just stick to topic? 

Less safe does not automatically equal dangerous.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Has everyone seen this video? Crashing a 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I would like to see a similar comparison of a t-bone collision. I expect the conclusions to be similar but I made out very well in a 69 Riviera.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

As for cars, I am a firm believer that new is better than old in almost every aspect. Excluding nostalgia or course.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

Sampson said:


> why would you compare a 10 yr old civic with an e class?
> 
> Seems like a 10yr old e class with a brand new one would be a better comparison.
> 
> Even a brand new civic and an e-class would not be remotely similar.


because people are talking about how a more expensive car is a waist of money since you can have a reliable old car... i just pointed out ONE area of a huge benefit "expensive car" might provide and save your life which is priceless in my books


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

New Cars are Safer than Old Ones, but they look a hell of a lot worse and feel like **** to drive.

/thread.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

Sherlock said:


> Has everyone seen this video? Crashing a 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g


I'd say the windshield of that Bel Air was installed with Butyl rather than Urethane. That is a common shortcut with restored vehicles like that, especially if the frame around the windshield was rusty at all. 
Had the windshield stayed in, it would have been less shocking.
Autoglass shops are forbidden from using Butyl to mount by the insurance they carry, but body shops do it on restorations like that.


----------

