# the old "don't buy a new car" thinking



## Harp

So have recently a guru named Dave Ramsay - dude that wrote Complete Money Makeover, etc. He also has a daily podcast that for anyone that is having money issues such as debt, give this guy a listen!

Anyways, sometimes I am thick as wood and things take a bit to sink in. One of them is this: for yrs the thinking has been DO NOT BUY A NEW CAR since it depreciates so much in the first couple of yrs. Fair enough. But why? If someone, like me, who just bought his first brand new car in Sept and I plan on caring for my baby for the next 10+ yrs.

So, according to Dave, one should buy a car that is just coming back from a lease, say 2 yrs old. But if some idiot leases and knows they are giving it back, do you really think they drove it carefully or gently? Its like buying a car from Enterprise or Budget Car Rental. Lord knows when I rent a car I drive it differently then if it was my own.

Just looking for some clarity on this.


----------



## stardancer

I don't look at vehicles as 'investments', but as 'why do I need this?'. When my husband was using a vehicle as part of his work (he had to go on some pretty rotten back roads), we bought used, ran them to the ground, then bought used again. As soon as I felt the car was becoming unsafe, or too expensive to maintain, we would pick up another one. But, my retirement gift to myself was a brand new car; we are both retired, drive differently and so far have kept the car for 7 years. Again, as soon as I feel the car is breaking down, we will trade it in.

A car serves a purpose in one's life and that's all.


----------



## brad

I think the depreciation issue isn't so much related to viewing a car as an "investment," but rather the fact that if you buy a car that's even only 1 year old this depreciation works in your favour because you pay a lot less than if you bought it brand new. I hope nobody thinks of their car as an investment (I suppose certain antique, rare, and sought-after cars increase in value over time, but they're the exception).

Note that while Dave Ramsey has many admirers and lots of people have turned their finances around on his advice, I think you'd do well to completely ignore anything he says about investing. Just focus on his debt-reduction advice; even that is controversial but it works for many people.


----------



## avrex

I'm buy-and-hold when it comes to cars. :smile:

I have never bought used. I buy new and then drive it until it can't be driven anymore.
My last car I bought new for $21,000 and drove it for 14 years. That's $1500/year plus maintenance. That's pretty cheap.

I guess everyone has their own personal preference on this issue.


----------



## Harp

Oh don't get me wrong - I never view a car as an investment, unless its a '57 Chevy or a '69 Chevelle.
I got my brand new car because I was basically fed up with having 2 older cars and it seemed every mos it was always repairs, repairs, repairs. 

I thought - will keep the one car as a winter beater but have a new car that will last at least 10-15 yrs and one that I can rely on. Maybe a knee-jerk reaction. Who knows.

I literally always thought that having a car pymt was the way "its" done. Wow was I wrong.


----------



## Toronto.gal

avrex said:


> I'm buy-and-hold when it comes to cars. :smile:


I'm 'buy-and-hold' when it comes to just about everything that works/looks well, but I typically don't buy used stuff, hence things last longer, though I don't see much problem buying a solid 1 or 2 year old car, especially for those who like to update every 4/5 years.

I hold stocks, too [but no way that I sit quietly on long-term volatility].


----------



## m3s

A brand new car may be worth the extra cost for you based on lifestyle, safety, convenience, enjoyment etc etc etc. There is absolutely no point trying to justify that a brand new car is a smart financial decision, because it just isn't. Of course buying a beat up lease or rental is worse (if you don't use that to lower the price significantly), but there are plenty of great deals on used cars that were driven by grannies etc and there are far more reasons why they are cheaper. You can research known issues on used cars, source parts much cheaper, insurance premiums are a fraction of the cost and of course avoid the biggest depreciation hit.

I think the biggest financial mistake of new cars if buying one before you can afford it. Let's say you borrow $30k for a new car and pay $500/month. During that 5 years, you must pay higher insurance premiums to cover the risk of totaling a $30k car you can't afford to replace plus the cost of borrowing money etc. If, on the other hand you saved $500/month for as long as you could to buy a used car or took at 1 year loan to buy a car, you will get much further ahead financially over the 10 years. Besides avoid investing fees and taxes, driving a used car is probably the best way to save money however just like avoiding taxes and investing fees it takes more effort and know how to do.

Most people borrow money to buy a nicer car and save a little to invest. This is completely backwards imo. Saving up what you can to buy a car (same as a car loan payment) and borrowing to invest is far better financially speaking. The car just may not suit your lifestyle as much, but I find I can afford much nicer used cars every so often (and on average it's actually a newer car than driving a new one for 10 years as well)


----------



## Harp

What about the old saying, though, that buying used you are are also buying someone else's problems re: ton of repairs, lemon, etc.?


----------



## Toronto.gal

Harp said:


> What about the old saying, though, that buying used you are are also buying someone else's problems re: ton of repairs, lemon, etc.?


A brand new car could give same problems as a 1 year old, no?


----------



## brad

I've bought a couple of new cars during my life because I felt it was important to me to know my car's history (to know that it had never been driven abusively, that it had been maintained according to schedule, etc.), but the advantages of that approach are purely psychological and not based on any evidence. The reality is that any car can come with or develop problems, whether new or used, and you take a risk no matter what strategy you pursue. 

The first car I bought new was a 1990 Honda Civic that I kept for 10 years and drove 250,000 miles (402,000 kilometers). It was reasonably reliable but I had a few big-ticket repairs (new steering rack, for example) in addition to all the usual maintenance. I sold it after 10 years to a family of four who drove it another 100,000 kilomters (160,000 km) and they had absolutely no problems with it during that time. They got the best deal of all from that car, and I sold it to them for only $350 since it was so heavily used. They actually ended up selling it on to someone else after that.


----------



## jamesbe

Buy a few years old 2-3 with still a little warranty left so you don't have to worry about it for the first 6 months to a year. Then just pay for repairs. Cars these days are pretty darn reliable.

I bought a Yaris last year, it was a 2008 bought it for $9500 (After taxes) the same car new would have been $20,000 after taxes. No warranty, I got unlucky and had to replace the alternator for $400 I'm still $10,000 ahead....


----------



## FrugalTrader

We buy new and hold 10+ years. If buying used, cars tend to go half price between years 3 and 4 which I think is the sweet spot.


----------



## sags

One big reason why people buy new cars, rather than a used 2-3 year old..........is the auto loan rates.

The rate of interest for a used car is quite high.........and the monthly payment will be the same as for a new one.


----------



## Eclectic12

Or another approach is to buy the dealer's demo car when it is being cleared out. It may be driven roughly once in a while but not to the same as a lease.

First one I bought lasted 11 years ... the only reason it didn't last longer was that I was student and did keep up with the oil spraying. By the end it had end to end small holes.

Second one I drove for 16 years then sold to my brother who drove it another two before a driver under the influence hit him and totaled it.


I also find it helpful to have a working car when I'm shopping for the new one. It's fun to respond when the dealer tries to get me to pay for extras on the demo car - "I don't need one and didn't ask for that feature - if you want a sale, either take off the charge or find another one without". They always want to clear out the one from their lot so the charges have always been removed.


Cheers


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

We always buy cars that are 2 or 3 years old and drive for a long time. I agree that buying used comes with risks but one can mitigate the risk by having the car first checked out thoroughly by a competent mechanic. A mechanic can also be a good source of knowledge about which models come in for frequent repairs.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> One big reason why people buy new cars, rather than a used 2-3 year old..........is the auto loan rates.
> 
> The rate of interest for a used car is quite high.........and the monthly payment will be the same as for a new one.


One of those great marketing ploys that few have caught on. Buy in cash and you can negotiate... more than the equivalent of a loan rate, and pay off on your terms. It's a moot point, comes back to buying what you can afford today rather than always borrowing for a depreciating asset.

Also, when I friend was buying a Hyundai (which I think are some of the best deals for new cars) I looked over the financial statement and they threw in some hidden insurance scam for the loan (similar to what the banks push with credit cards and locs) They never asked, just slipped it in there and put up a huge fuss to take it off as well. I bet 90% of people never notice it, and it was a horrible insurance policy as usual.


----------



## Barwelle

avrex said:


> My last car I bought new for $21,000 and drove it for 14 years. That's $1500/year plus maintenance. That's pretty cheap.


What would that car have been worth after 2 years? $16k? $16,000/12 years = $1,333/year :biggrin:



mode3sour said:


> ... there are plenty of great deals on used cars that were driven by grannies etc and there are far more reasons why they are cheaper.


 This is true, speaking from personal experience. If you are not in a rush to get a car right away, you can come across some good deals. After searching for about a month, I bought a 4-year-old Corolla from a guy who worked in Ft McMurray and only used the car to drive around Calgary when he was off work. He was going back home to Lebanon and needed it gone. Paid him $9,700, and it had something like 10,000km on it. That was a good deal, and just to prove it, two months later, a guy rolled through a stop sign and hit me... wrote off the car. The insurance payout for the car was $13,000.



Toronto.gal said:


> A brand new car could give same problems as a 1 year old, no?


 +1. You _never_ know what you're going to get. My opinion is that, by buying used, you can research the car to see what the common problems are - just like mode says upthread - and factor that into your decision making.


----------



## Spudd

My vote is to buy used, but new enough that it's still under warranty.


----------



## blin10

it all depends on the situation, i used to buy cars few years old, now I lease...if you can negotiate you can get a sweet deal and not worry about a thing if something goes wrong, besides my dividends cover payments anyway ;o


----------



## Toronto.gal

No doubt leasing is convenient, but expensive also [and not without some problems], so it depends which one you want, convenience or savings.

I'm definitely not a fan of paying for the monthly depreciation costs; I rather own long-term.

+1 on leasing for free, but remember you don't own it, so idk how sweet a deal it is. nthego:


----------



## Young&Ambitious

blin10 said:


> it all depends on the situation, i used to buy cars few years old, now I lease...if you can negotiate you can get a sweet deal and not worry about a thing if something goes wrong, besides my dividends cover payments anyway ;o


Leases seem to be quite reasonable. If we use Avrex's example, his purchase price of $22k was a cost of $1,500 per year excluding inflation, investing opportunity costs, and tax effects. I wonder if he could have leased the same vehicle for less and towards the end of when he(she?) owned the car had a newer vehicle to lease. There is also not having to deal with buying/selling hassles as well.


----------



## DonM

If you are looking for a good deal on a used car - sometimes it pays to do a search on kijiji or auto trader using the words "estate sale" - in many cases, the vehicle was owned by a senior who has passed away and the family members just want to sell it in order to settle the estate.

That is how I picked up my 2008 Toyota with 31,000 km on it earlier this year.


----------



## Jungle

Also we bought new last time because of the incentives, warrenty and the fact that it's "new." No used car problems, other than it being a lemon. (which it was not) We will hold for 10+ years. But going forward, I would not buy new again. We've lost a lot of money through depreciation that I would have rather spent paying down the mortgage.


----------



## peterk

I don't buy the whole "I know it'll be driven properly when I buy new" argument. It's driving a car, not raising a child. Just because someone else doesn't drive precisely in whatever style you happen to deem "good driving" is, doesn't mean the car has been abused or more prone to breakdown than it would be if you had driven it from the start.

I'm sure the 20 year old guy who rides the clutch, the 30 year old girl who forgets to take off the e-brake, the 40 year old man who rams it into reverse while still rolling forward, or the 70 year woman who sometimes leaves the car in her garage for 3 months without using it, all have their own quirks and faults when driving, and so do YOU.


----------



## MoneyGal

Awesome post!:cat::star:nthego::greedy_dollars:

(Look at all those random smilies I just discovered!)


----------



## Sherlock

I buy used (usually 3-4 yrs old) because I prefer mid-sized sport-sedans with a lot of power, and since I'm not about to spend 50k on a new one I gotta go used. Why anyone would buy a new 140 hp Corolla over a 3 year old Acura TL or Infiniti g37 with 300+ hp baffles me.


----------



## Sherlock

I agree with peterk, I've often thought the same thing but have not been able to phrase it so succinctly.


----------



## Four Pillars

I've bought several (very) used cars and the amount of hassle/time in both buying and repairing them led me to buy a new car eight years ago for the first time.

Before buying the new car, my plan was to buy something a couple of years old in order to save on the fabled "huge depreciation" in the first year or two.

The only problem was that all the cars that I looked at in the 1-3 year old range that were good deals compared to a new car, were either high mileage (ie 100k km in 2 years from a saleman) or had been in a major accident.

It's often said that a car loses N% of it's value, where N is usually anywhere from 20 to 40, as soon as it's driven off the lot, but the reality is that none of those cars are for sale.

Even if you extend the time frame to a more reasonable 1 to 3 years, how many people buy new cars, put normal kilometres on them and don't have major accidents and then sell the car when it is between 1 to 3 years old? I would suggest not many. 

I did an article on buying used vs new and tried to do a basic analysis on the cost savings of a used car. The analysis is pretty crap, but I do think that buying used is cheaper than buying new. However I don't think the savings are as much as some people think if you value your time at all. I value my free time very highly, so that tilts the car decision towards a new car for me.

http://www.moneysmartsblog.com/buying-a-new-car-or-used-car-things-to-think-about/

Also - when you are talking about the price of a new car, you have to know the price that you can negotiate (including everything) in order to compare to a used car. You can't just look at the posted price and use that.

I think when it's time to buy a new car, I would consider a used car, but I will be looking at both used & new cars and see what makes sense at that time.


----------



## Potato

I think buying used when the car depreciates like an exponential decay makes a lot of sense. Thing is, when I bought my car that wasn't the case -- recent used ones (2-4 years old) were barely depreciating by a straight-line (assuming 12-15 year life). So I bought new. I think you need to quickly check the assumption of the folk wisdom before following it: in a tough economy, there may be enough people trying to save money to keep the price of used cars up, while manufacturers and dealers offer enough discounts to bring the price of new down to match.


----------



## Sherlock

That's the opposite of my experience. Here's a typical car that I might buy: http://acuraonbrant.autotrader.ca/used/Acura/2009-Acura-TL-7b9d79cf0a0a006401579371d79cd270.htm

It's a 3 year old Acura TL, average mileage, no obvious problems, being sold by an Acura dealer. It costs 21k. A new one, after taxes and freight is probably about 50k. So you save over 50% by buying a 3 year old car instead of a new one. The depreciation on American cars is even worse. Not sure what kind of cars you guys are looking at where recent used ones cost almost as much as new ones?


----------



## m3s

Four Pillars said:


> The analysis is pretty crap, but I do think that buying used is cheaper than buying new. However I don't think the savings are as much as some people think if you value your time at all. I value my free time very highly, so that tilts the car decision towards a new car for me.


Yea but the same could be said about the value of time vs savings in regards to shopping for groceries, DIY investing, taxes, RE investing and any other efforts people make to save money. Personally I find it a waste of time to coupon and run around to 5 grocery stores to save $1 on broccoli, but I don't mind browsing car classifieds. Actually, I tent to find more great deals on cars than I can justify buying or have room for. People buy cars they can't afford, or get divorced or have a baby or move or want the latest model etc etc etc and there are many great deals if you are patient. The car forums are full of car enthusiasts who baby their cars by nature but when they sell know they can't get anything more than the average owner. It's the exact same as DIY investing; either you enjoy it or you don't and either you are skilled enough to make it worth your time or not. Many people don't enjoy financial news and it would be too much hassle for them, but we all know that DIY is much cheaper than an adviser. To me, dealing with dealerships and car salespeople is less convenient and draining to sidestep all their gimmicks and marketing ploys. I find I can read a used car seller much easier, most of them are not professional liars and it's fairly easy to tell if they are. I've actually sold several vehicles for nearly the same price I bought them for. It's very easy to do with motorbikes (maybe not Harley's) and models that have a better reputation than the newer. A financial planner or new car may be convenient or better for you, but it's certainly not cheaper at all.


----------



## brad

Jungle said:


> We've lost a lot of money through depreciation that I would have rather spent paying down the mortgage.


Again, I feel this is an odd way of looking at it, although maybe it's just semantics. If you're keeping the car for 10+ years and not planning to sell it during its rapid depreciation phase (the first few years), you haven't lost anything through depreciation. What you missed was the opportunity to save anywhere from, say, $4,000 to $10,000 by buying a two-to-three-year-old car in the first place instead of a new car.

It's like long-term buy-and-hold investors saying they've "lost money" because the value of their stocks is currently less than what they paid for them. That doesn't make sense either. They lost their money the moment they bought their stocks; the value today doesn't matter, the only value that matters is the value of those shares when they get ready to sell them.


----------



## MoneyGal

Great discussion! (My last car purchase was a 1998 Suzuki Esteem wagon purchased in 2004; it is still our sole family car today.) 

I disagree, though, that unit values/shares are analogous to a car purchase. With the car, barring very exceptional circumstances, you know the value will go down. (You also can't sell part of a car.) With shares, I would say not that you "lost money" the moment you buy the car -- what you've done, instead, in my view is to exchange the amount of the purchase price for the uncertain future value of the shares/units. You can set targets for shares and sell some/all of your units/shares when your target is hit, and you can do that in stages if you like, long before the total value of your portfolio needs to be "sold" to produce income.


----------



## brad

MoneyGal said:


> I disagree, though, that unit values/shares are analogous to a car purchase.


Oh, I wasn't saying that shares are analogous to a car purchase, I was just drawing an analogy to saying "I lost money due to depreciation of my car" even though you're not actually planning to sell your car until its value will be very low regardless of whether you bought it new or used (so depreciation has virtually no bearing on the matter) and saying "I've lost money in the stock market" even though you aren't planning to sell your shares until 25-30 years from now.

In both cases it just seems like a strange way of looking at things. You won't know whether you've lost or gained money in the stock market until you actually sell your shares. Similarly, I can't see how you can say you lost money due to depreciation when you're not actually planning to sell your car for at least 10 years. The difference in the price you can get for a 10-year-old car versus a 12-year-old car is going to much smaller than the difference in price between a brand-new car and a 2-year-old car.

I think a better way of looking at it is opportunity cost: by buying a new car, you're paying thousands of dollars more than you would for a 1 or 2 year old car, for example, and there are probably better things you could do with that money.


----------



## MoneyGal

Oh, great response, thanks! 

Obviously I manage opportunity costs by keeping my purchase price as low as possible. I don't spend more than $1000 (and often much less) to keep that car on the road in any given year. We did decide to repair the air conditioning this year, but I had elderly houseguests using the car for nearly a month - the alternative was to rent a car, which would have cost close to what the repair cost.


----------



## m3s

The buyer also has the upper hand in the used market unlike the new. How can you get the best deal on a new car? Maybe buying leftover models that nobody wanted, or holding out for free accessories etc. Of course you can google for the invoice price to negotiate but I'm convinced this is artificial now. The dealers have many ways to manipulate those prices and in that industry they have to.

If you compare the used car market to stocks, it's not an efficient market at all. All models/year are valued about the same and most people will not go out of a city to look at a used car. It's more convenient to buy new so there are fewer used buyers who will shop around or watch for deals etc. People selling used cars don't want to waste their time meeting people either so chances are they will take a lower offer to get it over with etc etc

Negotiating is kind of a lost art and most don't like it. But it's as simple as knowing what a good deal is and walking away until you get it. There aren't near as many gullible used car buyers as new cars or RE, so it's a stronger buyer's market

There's also the massive saving in tax!! Unless you live in Alberta. There's no way buying new is financially close to used. Maybe it's worth the extra cost, but it does cost more


----------



## Toronto.gal

peterk said:


> I don't buy the whole "I know it'll be driven properly when I buy new" argument. It's driving a car, not raising a child. Just because someone else doesn't drive precisely in whatever style you happen to deem "good driving" is, doesn't mean the car has been abused or more prone to breakdown than it would be if you had driven it from the start.
> 
> I'm sure the 20 year old guy who rides the clutch, the 30 year old girl who forgets to take off the e-brake, the 40 year old man who rams it into reverse while still rolling forward, or the 70 year woman who sometimes leaves the car in her garage for 3 months without using it, *all have their own quirks and faults when driving, and so do YOU.*


FANTASTIC POST! :applouse:


----------



## Potato

Sherlock said:


> It's a 3 year old Acura TL, [...] So you save over 50% by buying a 3 year old car instead of a new one. The depreciation on American cars is even worse. Not sure what kind of cars you guys are looking at where recent used ones cost almost as much as new ones?


In my case it was a Prius, in 2010, but I was also looking at Camrys, Accords, Matrixes, Vibes, and Mazda 3's as comparables.

I suspect the luxury brands suffer from that early depreciation more: the people who are willing to pay a large premium to get an Acura over a comparable Honda are likely looking to buy new, so that in the used market the premium shrinks. The same happens with features: the premium you pay up for satellite navigation or a sunroof or whatever the pricey feature du jour is tends to shrink in the used market.


----------



## indexxx

Harp said:


> What about the old saying, though, that buying used you are are also buying someone else's problems re: ton of repairs, lemon, etc.?


I always pay for my mechanic to do a complete inspection before I buy used. Well worth the $150 or so- CAA also offers this in every province. This way you know what current or potential issues the vehicle has and you can make an informed decision.


----------



## Eclectic12

peterk said:


> I don't buy the whole "I know it'll be driven properly when I buy new" argument. It's driving a car, not raising a child. Just because someone else doesn't drive precisely in whatever style you happen to deem "good driving" is, doesn't mean the car has been abused or more prone to breakdown than it would be if you had driven it from the start...


It is true there is a lot of variation out there. As well, usually if the user car is well maintained then odds are it was reasonably driven.

At the same time - the corporate types with a company car that I've been around drove their leases abusively. Some of the ones that did drive normally commented that they were taking extra care as they would be able to buy the car for themselves at the end of the lease.


I once was paid overtime to re-open the company gas pumps as a sales guy with a company lease couldn't afford to top up the last quarter tank of gas before his trip up the cottage. I forget what part of Toronto but it was at least an hour's drive into Hamilton to the company pumps, then back home before the morning's departure for the cottage.


As for the "20 year old guy who rides the clutch" ... how easy is it to get a standard transmission in a lease? 

When I bought mine as demo car, there were maybe three cars on the entire lot with a standard. For most of my visits to car lots, I've noticed that there's lots of "you'd have far more choice" with an automatic. Knowing there aren't too many others interested in a standard and that there are fewer out there comes in handy if the discussion move on to price. 


Cheers


----------



## Four Pillars

peterk said:


> I don't buy the whole "I know it'll be driven properly when I buy new" argument. It's driving a car, not raising a child. Just because someone else doesn't drive precisely in whatever style you happen to deem "good driving" is, doesn't mean the car has been abused or more prone to breakdown than it would be if you had driven it from the start.
> 
> I'm sure the 20 year old guy who rides the clutch, the 30 year old girl who forgets to take off the e-brake, the 40 year old man who rams it into reverse while still rolling forward, or the 70 year woman who sometimes leaves the car in her garage for 3 months without using it, all have their own quirks and faults when driving, and so do YOU.


I agree with your comment, but I think most people think along the lines of "I know the history of the car, if I buy new". This would include things like maintenance and repairs which could be a big unknown with a used car.


----------



## Jon_Snow

I would never willingly purchase a vehicle with an automatic transmission. That would be akin to buying a gimped product on purpose. I would love to buy a new car: problem is my 12 year old vehicle still looks and runs like new and my and my obsessively frugal side refuses to cast it aside for something new and shiny. (and German).


----------



## Sherlock

Eclectic12 said:


> When I bought mine as demo car, there were maybe three cars on the entire lot with a standard. For most of my visits to car lots, I've noticed that there's lots of "you'd have far more choice" with an automatic. Knowing there aren't too many others interested in a standard and that there are fewer out there comes in handy if the discussion move on to price.


They get you either way. If you want to trade in your manual, they tell you it's worth less than an automatic because nobody wants to buy one. If you want to buy their manual, they tell you it's worth more than an automatic because it's rarer.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I asked my dealer about that and virtually no one buys standard anymore and the same goes for cars without AC.


----------



## m3s

the-royal-mail said:


> I asked my dealer about that and virtually no one buys standard anymore and the same goes for cars without AC.


Some cars are sold ONLY as a "standard" like the Civic SI and various sports cars. I don't intend to ever buy an auto, MAYBE a sequential transmission (automatic dual clutch while you select the gear, without all the downsides of autos). Then again "virtually no one" buys diesels in NA either, while diesels and manual transmission are still very popular in the rest of the world for good reason

I've never had any issue finding a used fully loaded manual transmission in good shape. Of course I had to drive a few hours, but many people are commuting 4 hours every day but then buy a car once in 5/10 years at the closest lot? If you limit yourself to a single used car lot, you won't find much choice in manual transmission. I wouldn't limit myself to 1 car lot buying an auto either!


----------



## MoneyGal

I really like your posts in this thread, M3S. :encouragement:


----------



## blin10

there's a reason why manuals are not popular, manual transmission on anything with 1-2.5L engine is a joke, and that's coming from a guy who drove manual for 10 years but on 3l+ ... you'll have to shift 10 times just to go 20km/h


----------



## Sampson

blin10 said:


> manual transmission on anything with 1-2.5L engine is a joke


How so?

Volkswagon's award winning 2.0 R4 16v TFSI is one of the funnest small engines to drive with a stick (For MS3, the dual clutch is also pretty fantastic).

I also am amazed at North America's reluctance to embrance standard transmissions and diesel engines. Nothing beats the fun of driving through windy coastal/mountain roads in a small european compact, with a standard transmission. North American drivers don't seem to want response from their cars - probably why Toyota's are so popular.


----------



## m3s

Sampson said:


> I also am amazed at North America's reluctance to embrance standard transmissions and diesel engines. Nothing beats the fun of driving through windy coastal/mountain roads in a small european compact, with a standard transmission. North American drivers don't seem to want response from their cars - probably why Toyota's are so popular.


I think it has to do with most of the roads being big and straight in NA. I thought autos started on the big gas guzzling cars designed for cruising the NA highways not the small bare bones Euro cars. There's a lot of reasons why those small cars are mostly manuals and that means most Europeans learn manual anyways. Roundabouts and yield signs are far more prevalent for all the manual drivers and that really saves brakes and fuel. Not much point driving standard or fun car in stop and go straight roads with mostly 90 degree turns besides maybe the on ramps. The lack of diesel options makes no sense though, other than gas is just too cheap to care.


----------



## Sampson

mode3sour said:


> The lack of diesel options makes no sense though, other than gas is just too cheap to care.


Well I think this has more to do with inertia that anything else. When NA diesels were stinky and toxic, and catalytic converters were either not installed, or very poor, most people have developed a mentality that they are bad

Call me lame, but I would take a 3L diesel in an S6 wagon any day.


----------



## m3s

Sampson said:


> Call me lame, but I would take a 3L diesel in an S6 wagon any day.


It's not lame at all. I tried to book an Audi wagon rental once and got an even lamer Volvo turbo diesel wagon instead.. Neck-breaking torque around town if you're not careful with the peddle, a huge pig however if you want to pass at law breaking speeds. But hey it went over 1500kms real world driving on a 50 liter fill up with actual cargo space, more than double your typical NA sub compact gas car hyper-milling in ideal highway conditions. I'll be bringing an old manual diesel geländewagen back to Canada, commonly claimed to have the most tolerant engines ever made. Most armies, beside Americans with humvees, rely heavily on them. The best bang-for-your-buck reliable functional eco vehicle ever is claimed to be the old Toyota pickups though (if you rust proofed it). Those are the kind of used vehicle you can buy and sell again for about the same price, because nothing new compares in reliably or simplicity. They purposely don't sell new cars to last or be easy to maintain like that anymore, besides it's not what the consumers is looking for.


----------



## Eclectic12

Sherlock said:


> They get you either way...(under valuing trade-in/over value buying)


Odd ... for the car I did trade in, the sales guy doubled what Toyota was offering, without any comment about the standard transmission. That's with each side of the car having an end-to-end rust hole plus the hood hinges bent to crap from the hood blowing back into the windshield. 

As for buying the new one, the list price for the automatic version had a $1600 line item for the automatic where there was none for the standard. The only attempts to boost the price were for the extras such as the sun roof.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

the-royal-mail said:


> I asked my dealer about that and virtually no one buys standard anymore and the same goes for cars without AC.


Hmmm ... I guess I'm one of the virtual "no ones". Every car that's been mine or bought by me has been a standard transmission.




mode3sour said:


> ... I've never had any issue finding a used fully loaded manual transmission in good shape...


I've also had no trouble finding one but with a list of "standard transmission with reasonable MPG", "AC" and "I'm comfortable for long drives" - there's a lot of options that others would reject for things like colour.



Cheers


----------



## blin10

Sampson said:


> How so?
> 
> Volkswagon's award winning 2.0 R4 16v TFSI is one of the funnest small engines to drive with a stick (For MS3, the dual clutch is also pretty fantastic).
> 
> I also am amazed at North America's reluctance to embrance standard transmissions and diesel engines. *Nothing beats the fun of driving through windy coastal/mountain roads in a small european compact, with a standard transmission.* North American drivers don't seem to want response from their cars - probably why Toyota's are so popular.


only in here in Toronto you'd be stuck in traffic most of the time..


----------



## brad

Eclectic12 said:


> Hmmm ... I guess I'm one of the virtual "no ones". Every car that's been mine or bought by me has been a standard transmission.


Same here. And another good reason to buy manual is that if there is a teenager in the house, and if that teenager is too lazy to learn to drive standard, having a manual transmission makes it unlikely that they'll ever ask you for the keys to the car. It worked for me!


----------



## liquidfinance

I do not normally like the idea of buying brand new cars. 
However given the low interest rate environment buying new seemed the best option. I didn't see the point of liquidating dividend paying stocks of between 4 and 6 % when you can get 0% finance.

Looking at the overall picture as well between finance on a some older models compares with finance charge meant you ended up paying the equivalent of the new vehicle on a 0% term. 

So on this occasion the new vehicle was purchased and I suspect we will be keeping it until it is unable to be driven anymore.


----------



## brad

liquidfinance said:


> However given the low interest rate environment buying new seemed the best option. I didn't see the point of liquidating dividend paying stocks of between 4 and 6 % when you can get 0% finance.


Yes, but I think the comparison has to be done more thoroughly than that. First, there's the price differential in annual insurance premium between a new car and a used car, even one that's only 2-3 years old. Second there's the difference in the amount of sales tax you pay on a new car vs. a used one. Third, there's the price difference (the effect of depreciation) between a new car and one that's 2-3 years old. You need to factor all those costs into the equation. Plus I think it pays to look at hidden costs that may be added when you get a car with 0% financing -- I think mode3sour mentioned some of those upthread.


----------



## Four Pillars

brad said:


> Plus I think it pays to look at hidden costs that may be added when you get a car with 0% financing -- I think mode3sour mentioned some of those upthread.


Exactly - "0% financing" is the car equivalent to "free mutual funds".


----------



## liquidfinance

In our case the insurance on the new model was cheaper than any of the used examples we were looking at. My wife previously had a 98 Rav 4 with liability only. Full coverage on the new vehicle is cheaper.

I would have opted for manual being from the UK i'm used to it. However my wife has never driven "stick" so we decided to stick with the auto. $1500 premium on the price. 

I personally don't see why there are so few diesel offerings. 

I can only assume it's down to historical unreliability in the cold. Considering the cost savings I can't see why more people aren't using them.


----------



## LondonHomes

liquidfinance said:


> when you can get 0% finance.


They may tell you that your getting 0% financing but don't believe them, somebody has to pay to finance that car and it's not going to be the dealer.

We just purchased a new car and they offered an "amazing" 0.9% financing deal or a $1,500 price reduction on the car. We took the $1,500 and financed it at around 5%. Our total expected interest cost is $800 which is less than the $1,500 price reduction.


----------



## MoneyGal

Amazing indeed. :chuncky:


----------



## liquidfinance

There was an "incredible" cash discount of $1500 to pay up front. I'm making more than that a year on the equivalent value of the loan. So assuming my principle remains the same then a non compounded $9000 I will accumulate. or over $10,000 compounded.

Then most second hand cars seem to be coming out with say 5.9% APR. That was Toyota anyway. 

So to me the value is
5 Year Warranty - Priceless piece of mind
5 Year CAA Cover included - As Above.
$10,000 better off over the term of the loan. Should the Sh1t hit the fan then funds are readily accessible.


Depreciation doesn't factor too much in the equation. Cars lose money. Even classics when you factor what you must spend to maintain the value.

To me it made sense to others maybe not and of course it always depends on what you can afford to borrow. I would never recommend buying a car on 0% finance if you can't afford it. Mine was simply having the cash available but chosing to take the income from the savings rather than paying cash.


----------



## m3s

liquidfinance said:


> There was an "incredible" cash discount of $1500 to pay up front. I'm making more than that a year on the equivalent value of the loan. So assuming my principle remains the same then a non compounded $9000 I will accumulate. or over $10,000 compounded.
> 
> Then most second hand cars seem to be coming out with say 5.9% APR. That was Toyota anyway.
> 
> So to me the value is
> 5 Year Warranty - Priceless piece of mind
> 5 Year CAA Cover included - As Above.
> $10,000 better off over the term of the loan. Should the Sh1t hit the fan then funds are readily accessible.
> 
> 
> Depreciation doesn't factor too much in the equation. Cars lose money. Even classics when you factor what you must spend to maintain the value.
> 
> To me it made sense to others maybe not and of course it always depends on what you can afford to borrow. I would never recommend buying a car on 0% finance if you can't afford it. Mine was simply having the cash available but chosing to take the income from the savings rather than paying cash.



So why couldn't you have instead bought your investments on margin/investment loan at low rate (possibly tax deductible loan as well), and then used the cash incentive/negotiation leverage to boot. This makes 0% financing a moot point vs used cars. I also said upthread I think it's backwards that everyone tends to save to invest while borrowing for a depreciating asset instead. Borrowing to invest is too risky for most but how is borrowing for a car while investing any different? I agree about buying a car you can afford, but even if you can afford a new car that does not mean it is cheaper than a used one. A PLOC/HELOC would allow you to have money readily available even before that hypothetical $10,000 saving is available. This method also makes it much easier to judge what vehicle you can actually afford by combining your savings with the sale of your previous car. Basically just another form of "pay yourself first". Maybe you can still afford the new car, but the used one is still cheaper regardless of the financing ploy used.

As already mentioned insurance and taxes etc cost significantly more on a new car. If you took a car loan you must have full insurance on a higher valued vehicle. With the wacky Canadian insurance schemes maybe some used vehicle insurance is higher due to prejudice demographic of the owners, however I guarantee you I can find far cheaper insurance on a used car. Saying insurance is cheaper on a newer car than an older car without comparing to all the used cars is another moot point. It is also common knowledge that it's usually better to repair most accidents yourself rather than claiming them and having your rates go up. Repairing a used car is much cheaper than a new one.

Piece of mind may be a good reason to buy a new car, but it is not a financial one. I follow car forums and the warranties don't seem to be as much peace of mind as you're lead to believe though. Maybe some are better than others, but it seems they are not just there to fix everything you deem as manufacturer defect for the sake of good service. There are many cases of obvious defects that they blatantly refuse to acknowledge, and many cases where you have no way at all to prove it wasn't your own fault or simply wear and tear. CAA is also a form of insurance cost that may or may not be worth it to you for convenience sake, but it's another moot point because the cost is just baked into the car and you could buy it for a used car anyways. If CAA saved you money they would not be in business. 

Finally the depreciation does factor in quite a bit from my view. First by avoiding the initial depreciation you are saving thousands on every vehicle. You can drive it until it dies to recoup some of that loss, but then I can make all the same arguments against driving an old-inconvenient-high-maint car as you are making against the headaches of used cars. There is also a big depreciation as the car gets too old as maintenance goes up and demand goes way down for such an old car. A somewhat used model with a good reputation doesn't depreciate or cost as much in between these. You never really know what cars will be reliable or when you will have a life changing event so the flexibility to sell without a huge loss can be valuable as well

I fully agree that buying a new car may worth it or affordable to many people for various reasons, but trying to justify it as cheaper or equal to a used car baffles me. If you step back from the hazy marketing cloud for a moment and look at the entire picture I don't see many reasons to buy a new car beyond convenience. Convenience always comes at a price.


----------



## 44545

mode3sour said:


> ...Piece of mind may be a good reason to buy a new car, but it is not a financial one...
> 
> I fully agree that buying a new car may worth it or affordable to many people for various reasons, but trying to justify it as cheaper or equal to a used car baffles me. If you step back from the hazy marketing cloud for a moment and look at the entire picture I don't see many reasons to buy a new car beyond convenience. Convenience always comes at a price.


My experience bears this out.

Buying a late model used car of a model that has a history of low ongoing costs beats out buying new, financially, with little if any trade-off in reliability.

I'm fond of the "Lemon-Aid" series of guides for selecting used cars.


----------



## Taxsaver

avrex said:


> I'm buy-and-hold when it comes to cars. :smile:
> 
> I have never bought used. I buy new and then drive it until it can't be driven anymore.
> My last car I bought new for $21,000 and drove it for 14 years. That's $1500/year plus maintenance. That's pretty cheap.
> 
> I guess everyone has their own personal preference on this issue.


How much more in car insurance for your new car VS if you had bought a used one?


----------



## thesheet

I look at it this way.

Based on premise that I will keep a Car until it is ten years old

I compare the costs of a new car for ten years vs same model for eight years minus fuel (which should be roughly the same).

I divide those costs by the number of months to determine what price the used car should be to warrant getting it....

Differences in interest plus freight etc can help the case for used 

Maintenance costs should actually be the same because If you bought the new car instead of the two year old car, in eight years, the new car would be higher in maintenance than the car you be owning if you bought the two-year-old car since you would've replaced the two-year-old car by then ...

I hope that makes sense


----------



## Eclectic12

CJOttawa said:


> ... Buying a late model used car of a model that has a history of low ongoing costs beats out buying new, financially, with little if any trade-off in reliability.
> 
> I'm fond of the "Lemon-Aid" series of guides for selecting used cars.


Fair enough ... though like investing, one should also factor in past performance. 

I can only recall one or two "lemons" that my dad bought used out of many during thirty plus years. My brother on the other hand, is a perfect three for three. 


Cheers


----------



## m3s

Brand new cars can be lemons as well, except the used ones have a longer history to research. Whether or not you have the time an knowledge to avoid a lemon buying used is no different than whether or not you have the time and knowledge to invest on your own. You can get a lemon stock from an adviser just as easy as you can investing yourself. If you do have the time and knowledge, you're likely to save money investing yourself even though you may chose a lemon...


----------



## blin10

_"So why couldn't you have instead bought your investments on margin/investment loan at low rate (possibly tax deductible loan as well), and then used the cash incentive/negotiation leverage to boot. This makes 0% financing a moot point vs used cars."_

because if you borrow on margin it'll be 4-5% loan, so if you invest it to make 5% you just paying the loan without gaining anything..

_"As already mentioned insurance and taxes etc cost significantly more on a new car. "_

if you lease then it's a fouls statement, when you lease you only pay taxes on the residual % of the car, so it's usually half of the cost.. insurance in my experience actually cheaper on brand new car,
when i had used car I was paying more, reason for that is newer cars come with better safety,etc,etc.

_"If you took a car loan you must have full insurance on a higher valued vehicle."_

if you don't have full coverage on your used car, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.. you might get into situation when it's not your fault and
insurance will do 50/50 and then you're screwed

_" I follow car forums and the warranties don't seem to be as much peace of mind as you're lead to believe though."_

I don't know what you follow, but from my experience of leasing and owning cars I never had an issue with warranties, people on forums only
post negative, nobody will come and post a topic "omg this dealer has best warranty bla bla"

_"but trying to justify it as cheaper or equal to a used car baffles me"_
nobody is justifying or trying to prove anything, it all depends on your situation... sure you can go buy used civic and drive that shitbox for
20 years, some will be cool with that but most are living to experience better things in life... you know funny thing over the years from talking to people
I learned this, when you talk to a guy who makes very good money he's always justifying new expensive cars, when talking to a guy who just makes by it's always
people who drive expensive cars are idiots and wasting money because his amazing 1995 honda accord never gave him trouble and super reliable lol, in reality if
he started to make a ton of money his tune would change fast


----------



## Eclectic12

mode3sour said:


> Brand new cars can be lemons as well, except the used ones have a longer history to research.
> 
> Whether or not you have the time an knowledge to avoid a lemon buying used is no different than whether or not you have the time and knowledge to invest on your own... If you do have the time and knowledge, you're likely to save money investing yourself even though you may chose a lemon...


 ... and all I'm saying is that where one has the time and knowledge yet consistently pick losers - one should look for something that works. Whether it's cars or stocks, after the trend is established - it's clear there's a problem.


----------



## HaroldCrump

blin10 said:


> I learned this, when you talk to a guy who makes very good money he's always justifying new expensive cars, when talking to a guy who just makes by it's always
> people who drive expensive cars are idiots and wasting money because his amazing 1995 honda accord never gave him trouble and super reliable lol, in reality if
> he started to make a ton of money his tune would change fast


The evidence does not support this, though.

In the famous book _The Millionaire Next Door_, the authors did an extensive, comprehensive study of car buying habits of the rich and found that a vast majority of them tended to favour buying used cars and running them for many, many years.

If I recall correctly, the correct sequence of millionaire car buying habits was:
- Buy used, run as long as possible
- Buy new, run as long as possible
- Buy used, refresh after every 5 years or so

Hardly any of the millionaires they studied bought new and refreshed every 2 - 3 years (as is supposed to be common practice).
And none of them ever leased cars.

I believe there are 2 full chapters dedicated to car buying habits of the rich in that book.

Of course, the "rich" in that book do not include the glamourous, show-off, "rich" like famous movie stars, celebs, sports players, spoilt kids of rich parents, etc.
They obviously buy for show-off purposes only.


----------



## MoneyGal

Two thumbs up for that reply, HC!!


----------



## brad

Two more thumbs up.

I used to work for a millionaire (and he was what I always thought of as the real definition of a millionaire, which is not someone with a net worth of more than $1 million but rather someone who was making more than $1 million per year), and he drove a beat-up old Volkswagen Bug. It was his only car. He was pretty frugal in general, although he did have a butler.


----------



## m3s

I can always get a better deal used, and I can always save significant cash flow if I don't have to pay for full coverage insurance.



blin10 said:


> because if you borrow on margin it'll be 4-5% loan, so if you invest it to make 5% you just paying the loan without gaining anything..


More like 1-2% if you know where to look, and effectively what 30-45% more off that 1-2% after the tax deduction, depending on your tax bracket.



blin10 said:


> if you lease then it's a fouls statement, when you lease you only pay taxes on the residual % of the car, so it's usually half of the cost.. insurance in my experience actually cheaper on brand new car,
> when i had used car I was paying more, reason for that is newer cars come with better safety,etc,etc.


I'd need more examples than your personal experience to understand/believe this. A newer car is worth much more to replace, can cause just as much damage to others' lives and property etc regardless of safety. Even if this were true, your insurance would go up once it becomes used? This baffles me, but Canadian insurance is pretty wacky based on demographics and I'm sure there are cases this is true. If you actually compare apples to apples here, I'd be surprised if a new version of the exact same model was cheaper than the slightly used. Whether or not leasing is cheaper is a completely different topic. Leasing is cheaper if you intend to always drive a brand new car I agree, but it's certainly not cheaper than always driving a 3-6 year old car.



blin10 said:


> if you don't have full coverage on your used car, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.. you might get into situation when it's not your fault and
> insurance will do 50/50 and then you're screwed


It seems you are confusing what full coverage is. If it's not my fault then I'm covered.. and I have been several times. If it's 50/50 then I pay for the other's damage and he pays for mine, because there is no way to prove who is at fault... If it is my fault, I take some funds from the thousands upon thousands of dollars I have saved and investing over the years (by not paying this overpriced insurance) to fix it. If you make an at fault claim your insurance rate just goes up significantly anyways (they easily get their money back before forgiving you 10 or so years later) I would rather own up to my own mistakes if I make an at-fault accident, and I think the roads would be far safer if everyone else did as well (but far less people would be driving shiny new cars they can't afford!) I have a reasonable deductible for fire/theft/vandalism. I can't always avoid those myself besides locking and parking carefully etc, but I'd hate to fully subsidize all those who take risk because they're "fully covered". Actually I'd be "an idiot" to pay for insurance when I had the cash available imho, and many savvy rich people don't even pay for $1mil liability coverage. The government actually doesn't commercially insure a thing it owns, it would be a foolish mismanagement of tax payer's funds. Again insurance is not always financially wise or else they would not be in business!



blin10 said:


> I don't know what you follow, but from my experience of leasing and owning cars I never had an issue with warranties, people on forums only
> post negative, nobody will come and post a topic "omg this dealer has best warranty bla bla"


I follow quite a few of them, and I'm sure it's a better sample than your personal experience. There are your standard wear and tear or abuse failures and then there are the unexpected failures due to a poor design or common defect. Usually when these exist, the weakness exists on every car it just depends how weak or how often the fault shows up etc. Yes these issues seem more common than reality on forums, but they still exist! (and often there are polls to determine just how frequent and on exactly what models etc they exist!) Those who follow the forum are often well aware when it happens to them but the dealers always always seem play dumb, or as I believe unaware because the HQ purposely keeps knowledge from the front line workers. Many people have reported they paid for repairs that were covered by warranty and the dealer conveniently "forgot" to tell them etc. Many cases where manufactures blatantly refuse to acknowledge defects without a class action lawsuit even when they are mass producing the replacement parts and hiring an army of skilled lawyers just in case. Car sales is a tough capitalist business, and they would simply never survive handing out warranty claims without a fight.



blin10 said:


> _"but trying to justify it as cheaper or equal to a used car baffles me"_
> nobody is justifying or trying to prove anything, it all depends on your situation... sure you can go buy used civic and drive that shitbox for
> 20 years, some will be cool with that but most are living to experience better things in life... you know funny thing over the years from talking to people
> I learned this, when you talk to a guy who makes very good money he's always justifying new expensive cars, when talking to a guy who just makes by it's always
> people who drive expensive cars are idiots and wasting money because his amazing 1995 honda accord never gave him trouble and super reliable lol, in reality if
> he started to make a ton of money his tune would change fast


Convenient of you to clip the first half of the sentence, which probably said about the exact same thing. I have nothing against paying more for the finer things, but I don't do it foolishly thinking it's a better deal. The OP was asking whether new cars are cheaper overall than used. My amazing '94 Accord has 500k kms but's it's certainly not the joy of my M3. So where did I say idiots buy expensive cars? Thought I repeated it several times there are many reasons to buy a new car, just not financial reasons. For the price of the M3 I could not even buy a shiny new Honda Accord. There are not many new cars I like at all to be honest. Even if you gave me some generous budget for a car, I'd probably find a better deal on a used one whether it was for show, go, or the least hassle.

I do believe in disability insurance. And I bet there are many people out there insuring a couple shiny new cars who do not!


----------



## MoneyGal

It is really weird to read this thread alongside (for example) the current seg funds thread. I guess (some) people really love (new) cars.


----------



## Sampson

I love new cars, but I don't believe they are a good or best financial option.

If a new and old car cost the same, wouldn't everyone buy new?


----------



## blin10

HaroldCrump said:


> The evidence does not support this, though.
> 
> In the famous book _The Millionaire Next Door_, the authors did an extensive, comprehensive study of car buying habits of the rich and found that a vast majority of them tended to favour buying used cars and running them for many, many years.
> 
> .


I knew someone would reply with this millionaires driving old cars, buffet in old volvo, billionaires in Priuses, etc, etc... that book is designed to connect with people who are trying to make it so they can relate, show me a real study that out of 1000 millionaires 900 of them rolling in old cars, i'm not even going to go further...


----------



## blin10

mode3sour said:


> The OP was asking whether new cars are cheaper overall than used.


and I never said that new cars or lease is cheaper then used... i'm just arguing point where most people see new cars and leases as a waist of money


----------



## m3s

Sampson said:


> If a new and old car cost the same, wouldn't everyone buy new?


Depends. The new one will depreciate faster etc etc. Most new car models have cut costs to improve profit margins at the expense of quality and durability. The new technology is more complicated and expensive to fix, heavy and bulky. (Somebody told me the other day they can't even replace their own headlights anymore) There are very few new cars that are still fun to drive or that you can fix yourself. The peak hp and rim size will go up with every new model though because it's not new and better unless it's a bigger number. They are also running out of wacky new ways to reinvent the body styles just for the sake of looking different than before. There are some good new features from time to time, but you can always wait a year to get it used.


----------



## Sherlock

Not really, newer cars tend to be of higher quality than ever before. As new materials are invented and manufacturing processes get more high tech, companies are able to build cars with higher quality. For example, rust is pretty much a thing of the past on higher-end newer cars. My 04 TL is 8 years old and was driven daily in the winter, and no rust at all on the body. I've never applied any after-market rust protection. This would have been unheard of on a car built in the 90s. I saw a documentary on how they build the new BMW Z4 (I think it was the Z4, may have been another BMW, can't remember but it doesn't matter), I forget all the details but basically the thing cannot rust due to all the chemicals they put on the paint and the type of material they use on the body.


----------



## brad

blin10 said:


> I knew someone would reply with this millionaires driving old cars, buffet in old volvo, billionaires in Priuses, etc, etc... that book is designed to connect with people who are trying to make it so they can relate, show me a real study that out of 1000 millionaires 900 of them rolling in old cars, i'm not even going to go further...


I think it's partly an old money vs. new money thing. I grew up in Westchester County, New York, home to many thousands of millionaires. Neighbours of mine included the actor Jackie Gleason, the composer Aaron Copeland, Alan Funt (the host of Candid Camera), etc. You didn't see a lot of fancy cars or new cars on the road until you went down to places like Scarsdale, where all the nouveau riche lived.


----------



## brad

Sherlock said:


> Not really, newer cars tend to be of higher quality than ever before.


And safer. Whenever I have to rent a car, I'm always impressed at the advancements in technology and safety over mine, which is only 8 years old. We were in France earlier this year and we rented a little Ford Fiesta that was full of features that I'd never encountered before (the sideview mirrors fold up against the car when you turn it off, for example), and it had side-impact airbags.


----------



## m3s

If we're purely talking about the financial aspect of cars, I'd argue that a somewhat rusted used car is probably the best financial deal out there to get you from A to B! Who wants to buy a rusted car? I wouldn't buy one myself, but it is mostly vanity..

I didn't say nothing improves, but I could buy a used car with this new rust proof technology used for over what a decade now. The 90's required way more routine rust proofing for sure but there are still many components susceptible to heavy salt and it will still rust after any light damage or complete neglect over time. When it comes to rust, nothing beats routine washing and some routine light oil spray. The americanized Honda/Acura is not the same at all as what you see in Europe or Asia because they had to compete in the cheaper American market. So how did they cut the costs? Sometimes they manage to cut costs without any real world impact and I think Honda has done a better job than some others (doing things like replacing water pumps with plastic components for example)

Still the money you save to be behind in technology by a few years far outweighs buying a new car with no knowledge of what they've skimped out on. The updates are mostly incremental rather than revolutionary.


----------



## m3s

brad said:


> And safer. Whenever I have to rent a car, I'm always impressed at the advancements in technology and safety over mine, which is only 8 years old. We were in France earlier this year and we rented a little Ford Fiesta that was full of features that I'd never encountered before (the sideview mirrors fold up against the car when you turn it off, for example), and it had side-impact airbags.


My 94 Honda Accord had power folding mirrors 20 years ago if it was bought in Japanese specs, among many other things such as side panel signal lights we see now a decade later. They have been a standard requirement in Europe I think. European headlights have been "lightyears" ahead of American DOT standards, the sideview mirrors are so much nicer to use as well as they curve on the outside vs the DOT "object in mirror is closer than it appears" passenger mirror, the rear-view mirrors were able to avoid headlight glare sooner etc. They also all have rear fog lights and side signal lights for a long time etc.

The engine technology offered is not even the same from the days of my 94 Accord to new engine technology today in Europe/Asia compared to America. The gas is different and the Euro specs tend to get better fuel mileage real world with a different fuel map. BMW has been very vocal about how horrible American gas is for engine reliability, it's causing well known problems with older engine's injectors and they refuse warranty work caused by ethanol corrosion. The exhaust systems are regulated differently which affects fuel mileage as well. Basically they are regulated by completely different beasts

I've heard many Canadians saying buying an old European car being impressed how far ahead and safer they were equipped, so how is it a technological advancement on new cars? The new European cars do lots of things their American counterparts don't have yet, and the Hondas and Fords are nothing like ours. There's a big difference between a car made in Germany or Mexico. Getting a licence in Europe is expensive, driving in Europe is expensive and the inspections are far more strict, you have to carry first aid, breathalyzer, fire extinguisher etc. Completely different market.


----------



## Sherlock

Depends on the class of car. Most technology, including safety features, tend to trickle down from high end cars into cheaper ones. I'm guessing if you compared a brand new compact with a 10 year old Lexus LS or BMW 7 series, the compact would have less safety features even though it's much newer. But a 2012 compact vs a 2002 compact, of course the 2012 would have much more safety features. That's another reason I prefer to buy used higher end cars, it allows me to have those safety features sooner, since a 3 year old luxury sport sedan is likely to be packed with more tech including safety features than a brand new compact.

My parents are still under the impression that old cars are safer because they're bigger and heavier and "they're made of metal while newer cars are made of plastic". In any crash I would rather be in a brand new Honda Civic than a 1980s full size car.


----------



## timelessfinance

mode3sour said:


> There is absolutely no point trying to justify that a brand new car is a smart financial decision, because it just isn't.


Absolutely. People have egos and they engage in cognitive dissonance to try to defend their poor decisions and therefore protect their egos. Frugal people don't drive new cars.

I love the ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison of "Well, buying a new car was frugal cause I'm not buying somebody else's problems." Just like with any significant purchase, research is key. You wouldn't buy a lemon vehicle model NEW so why would you buy it USED? Test drive it and pay a mechanic to look at it.

The excuse that "I intend to drive it for 10 or 15 years so my $25,000 purchase is smart because depreciation isn't real" is downright stupid. Depreciation is very real, because at the end of its lifecycle a new car or a used car is only worth $50 at the wreckers. Whatever you pay up front, minus 50 bucks, is the eventual depreciated value of your purchase. You can choose to be the idiot that picks up the majority of the tab -- when the car is nice and new and shiny and fun -- or the guy that picks up the smaller portion -- who owns the car when it's older, perhaps just a couple years, perhaps when it's 9 years. And let's not even get into the opportunity cost of the up-front capital.

If you only buy 'beaters' like me, you may own a few more cars over the years but your lifetime depreciation bill, across all of your cars, will be drastically lower. Your savings will be more than enough to buy a nice used Mercedes or Audi. An increased maintenance bill can be EASILY mitigated by up-front research, doing your own personal maintenance for simple stuff (learn how to change your air filter and your own oil), and putting a few extra dollars into babying it (use synthetic, clean the fuel injectors, yada yada). Note that if you "drive your vehicle into the ground" over 15 or 20 years, as you plan to do, you'll pay the up-front depreciation bill AND the higher maintenance bill, giving you the WORST of both worlds.

If you're frugal, the only argument is about what type/model year of USED car you'll be purchasing. I bought an 03 Malibu last year for next to nothing. I could have bought something newer/nicer, but I was afraid my partner would ding the crap out of it (fear realized btw). It does the job, I've kept it in good working order (and I baby it because I intend on driving it until at least 2023). The V6 is a really nice mix of power and fuel economy.


----------



## Square Root

Some interesting discussion. I have resisted joining this discussion because spending decisions are very personal and will depend on one's tastes and utility function. Some people like expensive cars and get a lot of enjoyment driving in them. Others do not and would rather spend their money on other things or simply save it. We all hear the anecdotal stories of wealthy people driving cheap cars, etc. i am sure these stories are true but that doesn't mean much because these wealhy people are just spending their money on something else. Somebody on one of these forums once said something like " people who spend less than me on a particular item are cheap and those that spend more than me are wasteful" 
Personally I like expensive cars and can afford them. Obviously I don't expect everyone to share my view.


----------



## MrMatt

I'm actually debating this now.
I'd like to get a minivan.

However the new/old pricing is just too tight for it to make sense.
A brand new Grand Caravan SXT with second row Stow n Go is $24,245. or $20k for the real base model, there will be about $1500 in delivery and other fees.

I don't see used vehicles being cost competative, particularly if I consider the cost of the new tires I'd have to buy quite soon on many new vehicles. 

If someone can show me numbers (for Ontario) that a used minivan is a better deal, I'd love to see them.


----------



## Spudd

You can get a 2010 Grand Caravan with Stow n Go for $12k.
http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/a/Dodge/G...ON20070802114226809/?ursrc=pl&showcpo=ShowCPO

That one has a lot of km, so if you want something with less km, here's one for 15k:
http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/a/Dodge/G...14838586_ON20080116103533937/?showcpo=ShowCPO


----------



## Jon_Snow

There is no doubt I am a "car guy". An expensive car guy. An expensive German car guy. The problem is 5 years ago I decided that I would attempt to hit financial independence/early retirement by my early to mid 40's... as a result I currently drive a 12 year old pick-up. Some weekends I go to the auto mall and drool at the latest and greatest out of Germany - and being the frugalite that I am, when I pull up in my truck, wearing my inexpensive, decidedly non-fashionable clothes, the salesmen avoid me like the plague. I think if they saw a print-out of my TD Easyweb/Waterhouse accounts they might carry me around the car lot in a litter.  Its really quite funny how judgemental these luxury dealers are... they really do dismiss you out of hand if you don't pass the visual wealth test.

If my networth doesn't diminish or actually increases after the first 10 years of my premature workplace exodus, I could see a nice car in my future then. But sadly, not in the cards now.


----------



## Sherlock

But to a car salesman, it doesn't matter what your networth or income is, only how likely you are to buy the car. A broke guy who is willing to finance a car on a 72 month term is a much more attractive customer than a millionaire who has no interest in buying a new car.


----------



## Square Root

jon Snow: I know how you feel. When I was younger I also had a desire to own expensive German cars. Couldn't afford it till I was in my 50's. Then when I retired I went a little crazy and bought a bunch of them. Just ordered 2 new ones yesterday. That will make 5 spread out among 3 places. I would guess that at some point you will be able to scratch your itch as well.


----------



## MrMatt

Spudd said:


> You can get a 2010 Grand Caravan with Stow n Go for $12k.
> http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/a/Dodge/G...ON20070802114226809/?ursrc=pl&showcpo=ShowCPO
> 
> That one has a lot of km, so if you want something with less km, here's one for 15k:
> http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/a/Dodge/G...14838586_ON20080116103533937/?showcpo=ShowCPO


Nice options, but the 150k is too much mileage, though it is most likely a higher trim level.

The other one doesn't have second row stow'n'go (just the last row), it's the $20k version.
So for about 5k savings, it's a 2.5-3 year old car with 40k km, for depreciation rate of about $2k/yr, which is a wash assuming the new car would last for 10 years.

That's why for some vehicles I just don't see buying used as a real savings.


----------



## Eclectic12

Sherlock said:


> But to a car salesman, it doesn't matter what your networth or income is, only how likely you are to buy the car...


I'm not so sure ... there was a consumer advocate show a while ago indicating that a common practice was to ask for the test driver's driver's license so that an illegal credit check could be run in advance of the price negotiations. That way, the salesman knew what client to tough with and what client to roll out the discounts for.


Cheers


----------



## blin10

you also need to account for your time on this planet as well... sure you can save money and get lambo when you're 70-80 but that's too late... also who knows what will happen in 10 years, planning for future is great and everything but sometimes you need to step back and enjoy it even if it'll extend your retirement plan by 5 years more... just going from 12 yo truck to new bmw will probably save you 100-200$ a month just on fuel 



Jon_Snow said:


> There is no doubt I am a "car guy". An expensive car guy. An expensive German car guy. The problem is 5 years ago I decided that I would attempt to hit financial independence/early retirement by my early to mid 40's... as a result I currently drive a 12 year old pick-up. Some weekends I go to the auto mall and drool at the latest and greatest out of Germany - and being the frugalite that I am, when I pull up in my truck, wearing my inexpensive, decidedly non-fashionable clothes, the salesmen avoid me like the plague. I think if they saw a print-out of my TD Easyweb/Waterhouse accounts they might carry me around the car lot in a litter.  Its really quite funny how judgemental these luxury dealers are... they really do dismiss you out of hand if you don't pass the visual wealth test.
> 
> If my networth doesn't diminish or actually increases after the first 10 years of my premature workplace exodus, I could see a nice car in my future then. But sadly, not in the cards now.


----------



## Spudd

I suspect he will enjoy 5 years of retirement more than a new BMW!


----------



## blin10

who knows, if everything goes according to the plan and he makes it to retirement that might be true


----------



## Square Root

Spudd said:


> I suspect he will enjoy 5 years of retirement more than a new BMW!


I'm sure you are right. But once he retires and if things work out well who knows. i guess it depemds on his utility function. Furthermore, I doubt he could get 5 years of extra retirement for the price of a gently used BMW.


----------



## Ihatetaxes

I'm driving a very nice 2012 V8 powered German car and I love every second of it. The annual cost isn't outrageous as I only drive about 15,000 kms a year at most and my company picks up most of the expense.

I tried to ditch the habit and bought a nice new Acura last year but it was so damn boring I only lasted about 3 months in it before heading back to a German ride.


----------



## Square Root

Ihatetaxes said:


> I'm driving a very nice 2012 V8 powered German car and I love every second of it. The annual cost isn't outrageous as I only drive about 15,000 kms a year at most and my company picks up most of the expense.
> 
> I tried to ditch the habit and bought a nice new Acura last year but it was so damn boring I only lasted about 3 months in it before heading back to a German ride.


I have had an Acura as well. Very boring, not sporty at all. I'm hooked on the driving feel of a well tuned chasis like a BMW. Certainly not cheap and if you are not a car guy likely not worth it.


----------



## thebomb

I LOVE CARS!! However, I love classic cars. In my dreams I will one day own a 69 Camara, or a Cuda or a Nova.... My Husband cant wait for that day.... Otherwise right now I too am driving an Acura. Its ok, but my problem is I am still driving it like my Infiniti G35.... I had to sell the manual for an automatic for my daily Hamilton to Toronto commute.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Square Root said:


> I'm sure you are right. But once he retires and if things work out well who knows. i guess it depemds on his utility function. Furthermore, I doubt he could get 5 years of extra retirement for the price of a gently used BMW.


Yeah, I suspect I will eventually "reward" myself with a nice car. But being the cautious man that I am, my first 5 years of very early retirement are going to be quite conservative, with as little drawdown of the nest egg as feasibly possible.


----------



## kcowan

Jon_Snow said:


> Yeah, I suspect I will eventually "reward" myself with a nice car. But being the cautious man that I am, my first 5 years of very early retirement are going to be quite conservative, with as little drawdown of the nest egg as feasibly possible.


I kept the BMW convertible for the first few years in retirement but found that I was using it just to go for a drive with the top down. The other car was a more practical SUV. So I reluctantly sold the bimmer. Never regreted it (except for sunny warm days).


----------



## Square Root

kcowan said:


> I kept the BMW convertible for the first few years in retirement but found that I was using it just to go for a drive with the top down. The other car was a more practical SUV. So I reluctantly sold the bimmer. Never regreted it (except for sunny warm days).


Convertibles are not too practical in Canada. Had one in Canmore but hardly ever got the top down. Moved it down to Arizona and now the top is never up unless it's too hot.


----------



## Guigz

thebomb said:


> I had to sell the manual for an automatic for my daily Hamilton to Toronto commute.


Why did you have to sell it? Driven smartly, a manual can be more fuel efficient than an auto in heavy traffic...

I would love to see a detailed case study outlaying the true cost of ownership of a new car over several years and used cars at different stages of their life. An impartial analysis with no cherry picking would be even better...


----------



## Barwelle

Guigz said:


> Driven smartly, a manual can be more fuel efficient than an auto in heavy traffic...


Can be a pain though. I like my manual, but after a while I'd get annoyed with shifting so much, and riding the clutch in really slow traffic. Fortunately most of my driving is highway.

One midle aged woman I know loved her standard, but traded for an automatic recently because of knee problems.


----------



## Square Root

i think the new dual clutch manual transmissions in some of the German cars are very good. Almost as sporty and engaging as a pure manual but easier on the left leg especially in traffic.


----------



## Guigz

Barwelle said:


> Can be a pain though. I like my manual, but after a while I'd get annoyed with shifting so much, and riding the clutch in really slow traffic. Fortunately most of my driving is highway.
> 
> One midle aged woman I know loved her standard, but traded for an automatic recently because of knee problems.


C'mon, in full on traffic, you don't ride the clutch, you push the car in neutral!!!!

More seriously, if you don't get into the ride the bumping thing and stay calm, you don't have to shift nearly as often. That being said, my commute is <20 minutes when traffic is intense. Maybe I would murder my clutch too if I were stuck for 45-60 minutes.

DSG is fun to drive but the fluid flush at every 24K and 400$ a piece is completely absurd.


----------



## m3s

Guigz said:


> Why did you have to sell it? Driven smartly, a manual can be more fuel efficient than an auto in heavy traffic...


And if everyone drove manual it would save even more fuel/brake pads in congested traffic. The biggest waste of fuel is using your brakes, and the worst is stop and go traffic. Autos create this really annoying/dangerous "slinky effect" because they set their brake lights on even to slow down a bit rather than engine braking which induces the whole stop and go in the first place. The best is to follow a trucker, as he will most likely try to maintain a constant speed while watching the foolish slinky effect from up above


Is there really any doubt a used car is cheaper? The recurring argument I see here for new cars is that "the depreciation doesn't _really_ matter that much if I drive it for 10+ years". So all the bad things you argue against old cars but then you have to drive a new one for 10+ years anyways to recoup the cost? The sweet spot for value vs reliability is somewhere in the middle I think. Keeping a car much longer you have to cherry pick a good one and be able to do repairs yourself etc, but in general the repairs and maint start to go up, and the resale value certainly drops faster as well. The depreciation, hence the operating cost, is much lower in the middle.


----------



## Guigz

mode3sour said:


> Is there really any doubt a used car is cheaper? The recurring argument I see here for new cars is that "the depreciation doesn't _really_ matter that much if I drive it for 10+ years". So all the bad things you argue against old cars but then you have to drive a new one for 10+ years anyways to recoup the cost? The sweet spot for value vs reliability is somewhere in the middle I think. Keeping a car much longer you have to cherry pick a good one and be able to do repairs yourself etc, but in general the repairs and maint start to go up, and the resale value certainly drops faster as well. The depreciation, hence the operating cost, is much lower in the middle.


I would still like data demonstrating how much cheaper driving a used car really is. I am mainly interested in quantifying the difference.

Personally of the 3 used cars that I have had, one cost me about 3,000$ per year, the second about 1,500$ and the last about 2,500$ per year in depreciation and repair. I have had a Toyota Echo, a VW Golf and a Honda Civic. I will let you try to guess which is which.


----------



## m3s

Guigz said:


> Personally of the 3 used cars that I have had, one cost me about 3,000$ per year, the second about 1,500$ and the last about 2,500$ per year in depreciation and repair. I have had a Toyota Echo, a VW Golf and a Honda Civic. I will let you try to guess which is which.


But if you bought those cars new, you would still drive them at that phase as well no? What would make those numbers less if you bought them new? Assuming driving it "yourself" would not really hold up much in a study so the operating costs should be similar whether it was used by you or someone else? (Ignoring rentals and leases here, as it's not terribly hard to find used cars that were driven without blatant abuse) Nobody argues it's cheaper to buy a new car and sell in 2-4 years after initial depreciation and startup costs etc So isn't the operating cost of a used car moot? After a few years doesn't that new car become about the same as another used car? Maybe worse if you drive a lot! VW first, Civic then Echo? It's a shot in the dark


----------



## Sampson

While the DSGs are amazing, no human could shift as fast, and 3 gear changes while cornering a hairpin turn at 80kph is fantastic, but lets be honest, who, except race car drivers needs that.

Still no where near the amount of fun and dexterity required to rev match, and make butter fluid changes while up and down a windy mountain road.


----------



## Square Root

Sampson said:


> While the DSGs are amazing, no human could shift as fast, and 3 gear changes while cornering a hairpin turn at 80kph is fantastic, but lets be honest, who, except race car drivers needs that.
> 
> Still no where near the amount of fun and dexterity required to rev match, and make butter fluid changes while up and down a windy mountain road.


 Many people still like traditional manuals over the DSG's. I think over time this will be less so. I have driven traditional std and I certainly like it better than auto for a sporty car. In my SUV's I think auto is fine. DSG is certainly the future though and in my opinion, with the paddle shifters, just as much fun as trad std. They have an added advantage of switching to auto mode when in heavy traffic. To each their own though.


----------



## m3s

Square Root said:


> Many people still like traditional manuals over the DSG's. I think over time this will be less so. I have driven traditional std and I certainly like it better than auto for a sporty car. In my SUV's I think auto is fine. DSG is certainly the future though and in my opinion, with the paddle shifters, just as much fun as trad std. They have an added advantage of switching to auto mode when in heavy traffic. To each their own though.


I swapped with a SMGII on the track and while it is faster and easier, I found a lot of the fun and involvement was still gone. It's like taking away the steering weight or noise you start to be disengaged from what's going on. Pure function-wise the best transmissions are probably the CVTs like in snowmobiles. That way you are shifting gear ratio constantly and you just control the most efficient RPM for fuel or power with the throttle. More function and performance, but like DSG it comes at a severe cost for little gain.

Why do transport trucks still use manual transmissions? Probably because paddle shifters would be a needless waste of money and they need to be skilled drivers anyways. Tractors on the other hand, pretty much all come CVT now I think, with a forward-reverse lever where the "paddle shift" would be. I used to drive front end loader tractors back and forth all day and there was no way to avoid using the heavy clutch to go forward-reverse. I think all tractors come with auto clutch or some kind of CVT now, yet they still have a manual clutch peddle as well!


----------



## Square Root

Not looking for a tractor but just ordered a new M5 with DSG( or whatever they call it) could have gotten a 6 speed manual but I thought my old M5 with the SMG2 was great so I went with the dual clutch. As I said to each their own.


----------



## Guigz

mode3sour said:


> But if you bought those cars new, you would still drive them at that phase as well no? What would make those numbers less if you bought them new? Assuming driving it "yourself" would not really hold up much in a study so the operating costs should be similar whether it was used by you or someone else? (Ignoring rentals and leases here, as it's not terribly hard to find used cars that were driven without blatant abuse) Nobody argues it's cheaper to buy a new car and sell in 2-4 years after initial depreciation and startup costs etc So isn't the operating cost of a used car moot? After a few years doesn't that new car become about the same as another used car? Maybe worse if you drive a lot! VW first, Civic then Echo? It's a shot in the dark


The operating cost is actually the crux of the issue. The reason that used cars are worth less than new cars is partly because a used car has part of its life used up. Does the used up portion of life roughly correspond to the operating cost spread over the few early years in the car's life? Aggregate data on a operating is therefore very useful in quantifying the real cost of owning used cars and new cars.

You almost got it, VW first, then Echo then Honda (lousy auto transmission that was about to blow up after only 40K).


----------



## m3s

Square Root said:


> Not looking for a tractor but just ordered a new M5 with DSG( or whatever they call it) could have gotten a 6 speed manual but I thought my old M5 with the SMG2 was great so I went with the dual clutch. As I said to each their own.


Jon Snow will be drooling. According to the Top Gear episode the new M5 plays fake exhaust sounds though on the speakers!?!.. I really love M cars but the itch has been scratched for me. Without the autobahns, 'rings and smooth twisty roads I'm not sure where I would use it kind of like convertibles in Canada. I agree with what you said before though everyone spends their money on something. Last thing I'd want to do is retire saying coulda shoulda woulda owned a BMW etc


----------



## Sampson

I agree with M3S here, the CVTs will soon be widespread and are already pretty common.

Don't get me wrong Sqrt, the dual-clutch systems are fantastic and I would choose one well ahead of an automatic or CVT and rank them as multiple times more fun. I guess you are right, it boils down to a preference and whether one views the shifting as 'tedious' in traffic, or simply 'responsive'.

Congrats on the new car BTW, I'll be I include myself among many in the envious category.


----------



## m3s

Only Jeremy Clarkson could find so much fault in such a great car haha (the review of the new one was good but it seems blocked everywhere, and not as amusing) I'm more of an E39 M5 or air-cooled 911 guy


----------



## Barwelle

mode3sour said:


> Why do transport trucks still use manual transmissions? Probably because paddle shifters would be a needless waste of money and they need to be skilled drivers anyways. Tractors on the other hand, pretty much all come CVT now I think, with a forward-reverse lever where the "paddle shift" would be. I used to drive front end loader tractors back and forth all day and there was no way to avoid using the heavy clutch to go forward-reverse. I think all tractors come with auto clutch or some kind of CVT now, yet they still have a manual clutch peddle as well!


The newer tractors I've driven (Case & John Deere) still come with "traditional" transmissions if you don't want to shell out extra money, but all had a forward/reverse paddle on the left (which electronically controls the clutch) in addition to the manual clutch. So much nicer than just the manual clutch if you're going back and forth a lot, but the manual clutch is still required for some things of course - the electronic clutch won't disengage if you stop the tractor with your brakes.

The CVT's (or IVT as John Deere calls them) are pretty slick... you can ride the brake and slow the tractor down to tiny fractions of mph, or stop, in gear. Just like you could with an auto in a car. Don't really need a foot clutch in those. And the infinite variety of gear ratios is so handy in the field, you don't have to select between two imperfect gears. Problem with this technology: electronic gremlins are rampant, at least in my neighbour's JD that has the CVT.

I agree with other comments that CVT's are the future for cars. Still have yet to drive one though. Would be weird, having the rev's stay the same all the way up to the speed you want.


----------



## Square Root

mode3sour said:


> Only Jeremy Clarkson could find so much fault in such a great car haha (the review of the new one was good but it seems blocked everywhere, and not as amusing) I'm more of an E39 M5 or air-cooled 911 guy


Yes. The E39 still has many fans. Ordered a 911 once but they screwed me around so much I cancelled it and bought an M6 instead. Cars are fun no doubt about it.


----------



## brad

Does anyone remember pre-syncromesh transmissions where you had to double-clutch? I had a Series IIa Land-Rover from about 1969 that had syncromesh only between third and fourth gears; you had to double-clutch between first and second and (if I remember correctly) second and third. It took me a while to remember and you really had to pay attention to what gear you were in. Also had manual choke, no radio, and I always loved the ventilation: a couple of flaps in front (with screening to keep out the bugs).


----------



## Square Root

i just watched the top gear clip-hilarious! It was for the E60 M5 though. Did learn learn how to drive it in short order. I'm told the new one is a little simpler.


----------



## m3s

Square Root said:


> i just watched the top gear clip-hilarious! It was for the E60 M5 though. Did learn learn how to drive it in short order. I'm told the new one is a little simpler.


Yea I know, the last season is mostly blocked by BBC on youtube so I posted the old one. The last episode of Top Gear featured the F10 M5, Kimi Räikkönen, and Slash. They also compared the financial costs of racing vs golf, kind of like when they argued an M3 burns less fuel than a Prius driving hard. You'd probably like it

Lower quality version


----------



## Square Root

mode Thanks for posting that. I hadn't seen it before. They said of the new M5: "the best allround car in the world" Starting to get excited. But won't get the new one until the spring.


----------



## hystat

In '09 I was looking for a new car. I bought my 2007 Vic for $13,850 with 38,000km on it at a Ford dealer. 
Here is the MSRP of the new '09 for comparison








so,
here it is 2012, and the car has 105,000km on it. It has never let me down. The warranty has ended, but I'm keeping it. It has been a great car and I will probably still be driving it 10 years from now. These things run forever. 
What Have I done with the $20,000+ I saved?
Traveled, bought a boat (used!), put gas in the boat, put all the gas in the car, bought a set of snow tires for the car, paid off my mortgage, went to the movies. 

Have fun responding with: "oh, I wouldn't drive _that _car... I'm talking about a such and such car.. a different car" because that's what these threads tend to turn into. 

Maybe the previous owner picked his nose and wiped it under the seat. For $20K, I'll eat those old boogers. 

Used cars for the win.


----------



## Jon_Snow

I'm not sold on the styling of the new 3-series, but will keep an eye on the upcoming M3. Somehow, it always looks much better than its lesser siblings. And as a proud D.I.N.K., I don't need 4 doors. The M5 is a great car, but a bit too big for my liking. If I were to do something really irresponsible, I would have this in my driveway. Just listen to the exhaust note. :biggrin:






It gets tiresome doing the responsible thing all the time. With 250k in cash right now, and saving 5k more every month, I can afford to do this... this thread has got my car lust stirred up again... thanks fellas. :tongue-new:


----------



## m3s

Barwelle said:


> The newer tractors I've driven (Case & John Deere) still come with "traditional" transmissions if you don't want to shell out extra money, but all had a forward/reverse paddle on the left (which electronically controls the clutch) in addition to the manual clutch.


Yea that is what I was thinking of, the electronic clutch is great on tractors. I did some searching though and Fendt seems to have the first CVT tractor in 96 and now all their tractors are CVT. Look at that, BMW has nothing on German tractors! They both seem to force technology sometimes that people would rather have the option to not pay for. I forgot a Fendt CVT tractor was even featured on Top Gear as well. 



brad said:


> Does anyone remember pre-syncromesh transmissions where you had to double-clutch? I had a Series IIa Land-Rover from about 1969 that had syncromesh only between third and fourth gears; you had to double-clutch between first and second and (if I remember correctly) second and third. It took me a while to remember and you really had to pay attention to what gear you were in. Also had manual choke, no radio, and I always loved the ventilation: a couple of flaps in front (with screening to keep out the bugs).


Land Rovers were very utilitarian and those old ones are still very popular in Europe. There's a demand for imported off road vehicles in Canada and many models were never sold there, or hard to find now a days. How did they go from no frills no radios to now Victoria Beckham fashion styled hand stitched luxury interiors?..



hystat said:


> Have fun responding with: "oh, I wouldn't drive _that _car... I'm talking about a such and such car.. a different car" because that's what these threads tend to turn into.
> 
> Used cars for the win.


Crown Vics are good cars. I like vehicles that are proven and unchanged for many years. Seems the used market ignores them because there are so many taxis etc and they look "old" but why change it if it works. I bet everyone slows down when they see you coming too! Used car market is far from efficient, there are many deals like that for various reasons.


----------



## kcowan

mode3sour said:


> Crown Vics are good cars. I like vehicles that are proven and unchanged for many years.


Good used Crown Vics have been the value leader for many years. But if more people valued them, that would no longer be the case.


----------

