# Used Vehicle Math



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

I have always bought very used cars and this is my math:
Expected life= 300,000 km
Usable Life Left= 300,000 minus odometer reading
All in price to purchase divided by Usable Life Left = Cents per km of useful life left
Over the last 10 years I have bought 2 pickups and an SUV at 3 cents to 4 cents/km left, usually odometer starts with a 1XXXXXX. All 3 have lasted over 300k. There have been 2 major repairs needed 3-4 years into ownership at about $1500 each which have blown up my math a little bit. My assumption is scrap value at end of life ($600) I don't care much about year and model but will research to avoid troublesome engines, transmissions etc. and ensure no expensive trouble codes being thrown. Some cars are nicer than others and some are parked underground, etc., so this is by no means perfect math. (and of course the covid/supply chain craziness not withstanding... (A friend can sell his e-car for more than he paid 4 years ago...))
Now in the market for another pickup so have been doing my homework and it looks like the market is a bit higher post covid/inflation but not ridiculous as I can see 4 door, 4x4's nabable for 4-5-6 cents/km of useful life. Thinking I might be able to get one for 3-4 cents if I'm patient and fast to pull the cash trigger. These end up being $3000-8000 vehicles typically. Financially, I could buy new, I am just not wired that way.
My question is: Does anyone buy vehicles 3-4-5 year old, off lease, under 100K kms etc. and then resell 2-3-4 years later for similar cost of ownership numbers? 
Same math as above but you factor in some non zero residual value. It seems logical that the math might work if you buy smart and sell smart, but lets say you drive 60k over 3 years, that would only be a $1800-3600 depreciation you can handle to make the numbers work, seems tough. Maybe with a good buy and a good sell you can double that to $3600-$7200 value loss. Might be possible? Maybe you are avoiding large item repair risk , but you are paying collision insurance, worrying about scratch and dents, etc.
There is no right answer of course, it depends what you priorities are. Just looking to see if anyone buy/sells newer vehicles more frequently than I do and is happy with the financial results.
(As an aside, I think its interesting just to take a make/model vehicle and compare the $/km of those offered for sale on FB and Kijiji. It is interesting to see how wide a range of asking prices there are between sellers.)


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Some of the math depends on mileage driven per year and that would change the numbers a fair bit, both on a cents/km and some impact on ultimate life. A 10 year old vehicle with 300k km can be going strong while a 20 year old vehicle with 200k km less so. Type of service has a large impact as well. I don't think you will find much consistency in any numbers.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Gallop said:


> My question is: Does anyone buy vehicles 3-4-5 year old, off lease, under 100K kms etc. and then resell 2-3-4 years later for similar cost of ownership numbers?


I know a few that do this age of vehicle buying, generally vehicles take a price hit once the powertrain warranty is expired. How much they fall depends solely on the demand when selling, assuming a good condition is maintained. In recent years I've see people actually make money after using it for a year or two but this is due to shortages for new(er) vehicles.

Financially it's a tough call on how to save money here, the used market is a huge variable, especially right now.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My spouse typically got the off lease buyout from my company car or some other company car that I was familiar with. Always in good condition, up to date mtce etc. Sold them after 3 years for not much less than we paid for them. Then got her another off lease.

The only last new car that I bought was one that could be written off for business at least 50 percent a year. It was problem free at 330K and at 360K when my son disposed of it.

The one thing we really noticed. The difference between Honda/Toyota dealerships and Ford/GM dealerships in terms of product quality and the service dept. Might have changed by now..it has been 12 years since I had a company car. Just about every company car I had went back for warranty work 2 or 3 times in the first nine months. The Lincoln and the Escapes were particularly bad for that. Never even considered buying those out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Times have changed a lot in the past decades, both in vehicle engineering and the quality of dealerships and suppliers.

I don't know about Ford, but GM purged a lot of their dealers years ago, and the big dealerships built new businesses to accommodate GM standards for customer service.

I worked at the GM distribution center when they closed down the dealerships and put a sign on the dealer station......."dealer closed.....do not ship".

Often the problems are coming from suppliers. My brother in law worked for Kelsey Hayes and they wanted him to go to China to oversea production they were moving there.

He refused and they sent someone else. The prooduction started (cheaper I guess) but the problems soon followed with all the brake parts shipped to assembly plants.

It was GM getting customer complaints but Kelsey Hayes was the problem. They brought all the production back to Canada and the issues resolved themselves.

If you worry about service.........don't buy a Tesla. They have terrible customer service reviews on Youtube and other social media for customer service.

They recently hired about 6% more service techs, but most of them are mobile and can't do much more than software fixes.

Without a network of dealershp like the legacy builders have built over decades, Tesla is at a big disadvantage and has a lot of catching up to do.

As for the other legacy auto makers, I think they have all cleaned up their act by now.

If anything, GM drives me nuts with all their emails and customer reports every time we get service. The dealership sends them and GM sends them.

The sales and service reps are really concerned about how customers respond to the surveys, as they are held accountable by upper management and GM.

If you google any vehicle maker you will find complaints. Vehicles are complicated machines and a lot can go wrong with them.

In the past 30 years of driving new vehicles, I have never had a major issue with any of them., but none went over 60,000 kms before trading them in.

We would have to keep a vehicle for 35 years to put 300.000 kms on it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> In the past 30 years of driving new vehicles, I have never had a major issue with any of them., *but none went over 60,000 kms* before trading them in.


That says a lot about GM but nothing about major issues. Major issues should not be happening within 60k kms. If you don't want to replace your vehicle every 2 or 3 years buy something with good resale

My Japanese car is now worth 10k more than I paid 8 years ago from someone who replaces their vehicle constantly. This is pretty rare though and not expected. My BMW also sold for more and it's now worth far more

Typically the best resale/value is on imports that already took the initial depreciation but you also have to know what models will hold value. Churning brand new vehicles is the worst value


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our sweet spot for used vehicles has been higher end full load Toyota/Lexus/Honda product. Three-four years old, low kms, no accidents. Never really looked at much else. else.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I have bought a few over the years at Haldimand Motors. Often 5-6 of the same car model in inventory off of leases 3-4 years old. We would subtract current km from 180km, and use the result to divide into the sticker price to find the cheapest car in terms of cost until a likely major service comes up. 

Then use the same calc to compare small ford versus small gm/chevy vs small chrysler etc. To see what the capital cost versus low maint life was involved.

Usually would drive them to 14-16 years and then drive them to the scrap yard as typically by then the engine was eating oil and a host of other problems were either present or due to happen soon.

Drove a little basic auto tranny but not much more to go wrong Toyota Tercel to 18 years old. Gas tank pinhole leaks fixed with brass screws. Muffler bandage. Brakes starting to grind. Driver door external handle broken. Wipers stopped working after verify brushes in the motor were good and ground was good three weeks after those fixes That was in November and no longer the season to want to fart with such things, That was what pushed this one off its mortal coil.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Used to be isn't the same anymore.......as times have changed quite a bit.

Used car prices have fallen sharply, and big used car companies are selling cars at a loss. (Carvana for example)

One factor rarely mentioned in the new versus used debate is the financing cost, which is considerably higher for used vehicles.

We bought a new vehicle last year for 2.9% financing for 7 years locked in. Someone who bought a used vehicle with an LOC may now be paying over 11% for the loan. (see TD bank LOC). They saved money on the purchase but pay more for the financing, so the paymnents aren't too far apart.

Even if a person pays cash they are now giving up 5% interest on a GIC. That wasn't the case a couple years ago.

Lots of things are upside down now.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Used to be isn't the same anymore.......as times have changed quite a bit.
> 
> Used car prices have fallen sharply, and big used car companies are selling cars at a loss. (Carvana for example)
> 
> ...


I'm still seeing Reddit posts of people happy to pay 10k more than I paid 8 years ago.

It's crazy and it's probably more to do with my specific car combined with inflation and exchange rates. I never expect my used cars to hold value but so far I have sold all my cars for more than I paid. BMW e46 if I didn't sell it would be worth 3 or 4x what I paid. Probably should have imported it and put it in a barn. Especially because cars don't rust in Europe like here

Financing new vehicles is a hidden cost sags. We went over this the last time you brought it up. You are just repeating what the car salesmen tell people


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Gallop said:


> I have always bought very used cars and this is my math:
> Expected life= 300,000 km
> Usable Life Left= 300,000 minus odometer reading
> All in price to purchase divided by Usable Life Left = Cents per km of useful life left
> ...


If I recall it correctly Buffet buys 3 year old cars. I have being buying new vehicles for 20 years. Last year I bought a used 2014 Nissan Maxima [ paid12.5k] and it was been a wonderful vehicle. With the hot used vehicle market I sold my 4 year old vehicle for the same price that I paid for it. The Maxima has 110k on it and I intend to drive it for at least 150k.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

We bought both our current vehicles brand new 11 and 12 years ago. One has less than 150k and the other less than 90k. They are starting to show their wear in regard to paint and interior but mechanically are very sound. My current employment requires some vehicle travel. Vehicle supply issues should sort themselves out by the time we buy ourn next one in 2-3 years. We will likely by new and pay cash. If we can get 15 years out of a new vehicle I think I don't have to worry about how the previous owner treated it. It's obvious but proper maintenance really makes a difference.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

We have always paid cash. We have been buying new for the past 30 years now after a few decades buying used. I like getting exactly what I want (order) in my older years and we keep them 10-15 years anyway.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> I'm still seeing Reddit posts of people happy to pay 10k more than I paid 8 years ago.
> 
> It's crazy and it's probably more to do with my specific car combined with inflation and exchange rates. I never expect my used cars to hold value but so far I have sold all my cars for more than I paid. BMW e46 if I didn't sell it would be worth 3 or 4x what I paid. Probably should have imported it and put it in a barn. Especially because cars don't rust in Europe like here
> 
> Financing new vehicles is a hidden cost sags. We went over this the last time you brought it up. You are just repeating what the car salesmen tell people


The financing office is always the last office you visit in the dealership when buying a new vehicle.

By the time you get to that office you have already picked out the vehicle, added all the options and settled on the price.

At least, that is how I have always bought new vehicles.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These days with 5% GIC rates paying cash also has a cost attached to it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> These days with 5% GIC rates paying cash also has a cost attached to it.


No buying a new vehicle always has an opportunity cost to it

Which is why I don't buy a new vehicle every few years because I'd rather multiply that capital in the meanwhile

I actually like my vehicle and see the new ones as worse (by design too)


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The new vehicle financing is provided by banks not the dealerships or manufacturer

If you think artificially low rates are being subsidized by the dealer or the manufacturer dreaming

It's baked into the cost just like the Visa/MC merchant fees


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> We have always paid cash. We have been buying new for the past 30 years now after a few decades buying used. I like getting exactly what I want (order) in my older years and we keep them 10-15 years anyway.


I paid cash once, when the cash discount/incentive was comparable to the interest rate difference.
I once got the "0%" loan, then a month later paid it off in full, because the loan was actually a real interest rate at the bank. The incentive simply discounted the principal so it came out to the same payment.

I currently have an almost done 0.9% interest rate, and put the excess on my mortgage that charges a higher rate (there was no cash incentive)

As far as new vs old, I plan for a car to last 7 years before the repairs get expensive enough to justify replacing the vehicle.
In that case, new is cheaper.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> The new vehicle financing is provided by banks not the dealerships or manufacturer


IIRC, some makers own their own financing companies.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> As far as new vs old, I plan for a car to last 7 years before the repairs get expensive enough to justify replacing the vehicle.
> In that case, new is cheaper.


From a cost perspective doing repairs on older vehicles is usually much cheaper than buying new. This is especially true if most of the work can be done by yourself.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> From a cost perspective doing repairs on older vehicles is usually much cheaper than buying new. This is especially true if most of the work can be done by yourself.


I don't do my own repairs, and with a new car only being $300/month, it doesn't take many $1k repairs before it's more trouble than it's worth.
To be fair my newest car is 7yrs old.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

cainvest said:


> IIRC, some makers own their own financing companies.


You are correct. The large majority of manufactures have their own finance division. I would imagine they in turn have a revolving credit facility with a bank.

Also, most dealers also have credit facility to do some in-house financing for clients that can't get approved by the manufacturer. Albeit, at a higher interest rate.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> I don't do my own repairs, and with a new car only being $300/month, it doesn't take many $1k repairs before it's more trouble than it's worth.
> To be fair my newest car is 7yrs old.


$300 per month for a new car? Guessing that is with a good down payment or a very long term like 7+ years. In the end it's the total cost output not how low a single monthly payment is.

$1000 in repairs is only 3 months payments over what, 48, 60 or 72+ months .... seems like a savings to me. It may depend on the car though, some may be very expensive to repair.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm waiting for the used market to roll over before buying a 3-4 year used vehicle. Hopefully rising interest rates help encourage people and dealers to offload vehicles.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> $300 per month for a new car? Guessing that is with a good down payment or a very long term like 7+ years. In the end it's the total cost output not how low a single monthly payment is.
> 
> $1000 in repairs is only 3 months payments over what, 48, 60 or 72+ months .... seems like a savings to me. It may depend on the car though, some may be very expensive to repair.


Yes
I bought a Golf on 7yr finance ( $70.06/wk), traded in an 8yr old Malibu.

yes, if you have $1000 in repairs, 3-4 times a year, you're better off getting a new car. In addition you have the inconvenience of a broken car to deal with, and it never breaks at a convenient time.

Just looked at the math, a new VW Jetta is $30k after tax, but they don't have discounted finance right now. 
Unfortunate that they discontinued the standard Golf, much nicer car IMO.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> As far as new vs old, I plan for a car to last 7 years before the repairs get expensive enough to justify replacing the vehicle.
> In that case, new is cheaper.


Depends on many factors such as reliability and mileage.

Considering a 2-3 year old vehicle can be had for 50% MSRP - of course this depends if you are able to find and get a good deal as the deals vary

There are good reasons to buy new but don't try to convince yourself it's financial


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I'm waiting for the used market to roll over before buying a 3-4 year used vehicle. Hopefully rising interest rates help encourage people and dealers to offload vehicles.


That could be a double edged sword. People unwilling/unable to finance new vehicles may have to stay lower in the market keeping demand up for <$20k offerings. It could be that pent up demand for new vehicles may be what falls off the most.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Yes
> I bought a Golf on 7yr finance ( $70.06/wk), traded in an 8yr old Malibu.


Well according to sags you don't want to drive a Malibu past 60k kms

My 10 year old made in Japan car (not Japanese but made in Japan) has been very reliable except for the emissions crap that was added for the NA market. It's now at the point where it needs timing belt service but that's once a decade preventative maint

Definitely not multiple $1000 repairs per year. I can only remember 1 and that was to remove a useless emissions valve system to warm up the cat converter bs. Brakes, tires, fluids etc are wear and tear and won't matter what vehicle

I think a reliable vehicle should do 300k kms before it becomes a burden. Timing belt service required half way (depending on vehicle) wear/tear items and preventative maint


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

My car is 12 yo/230k km. It works fine. I had one major non-wear related repair that was not critical. I put off fixing during COVID and decided to fix when it was clear the used market was going to be crazy for a while. I am more looking for a different format vehicle with a bit more space and tow hitch.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> yes, if you have $1000 in repairs, 3-4 times a year, you're better off getting a new car. In addition you have the inconvenience of a broken car to deal with, and it never breaks at a convenient time.


In reality those $ level of repairs is very unlikely to happen. Of course if you do get a lemon then I agree, sell it.



MrMatt said:


> Unfortunate that they discontinued the standard Golf, much nicer car IMO.


That is sad. Not sure I'd get another Golf now that the TDI is gone but a Golf R would be fun to drive.  My current Golf will be rolling over 360,000kms today.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

cainvest said:


> From a cost perspective doing repairs on older vehicles is usually much cheaper than buying new. This is especially true if most of the work can be done by yourself.


Just before covid I was thinking of replacing my 2006 Accord. 220KM. Spoke to my mechanic. First words out of his mouth were whatever you do don't trade it or sell it to anyone else. He wanted it. We do not drive it very much since we are typically away for at least four months over the course of a year. 

Our neighbour, who owns an insurance agency, told us the exact same thing as it pertains to auto insurance. Rates are up, up up, especially on glass for the new units. He has seen claims for anywhere from $800-$1500 for glass apparently because of the windshield sensor calibration required. Also up substantially is the accodemt repair claims on SUV claims. We go through lots of windshields in Alberta!

Covid came, prices up, so I did nothing. Thing is I really like the car. So it gets new tires this week and I plan to drive it for another few years. It is like new but I am very fussy when it comes to replacing all fluids as per the manufacturer specs. This is the only mtce we have had over the past 170KM, other than timing belt and tires. I expect to spend some money on it at one point. This, and the 97 Camry are by far the best cars we have ever driven and by far the most trouble free and least expensive we have driven.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A new vehicle for 30K......and many new vehicles are available in that range, why buy a used vehicle unless you need a larger vehicle ?

A couple years ago, someone posted about the cheapest new car, and I posted a link to the Chevrolet Spark that was being sold for $18k brand new with full warranty. At the time, all the auto reviewers rated it as the best cheap new car on the market. It also got high reviews because it was a well made vehicle.......just too small for most people.

If you want a full size SUV or pickup........then ya.......used will cost less initially, but financing will cost a lot more and possible repairs are unknown.

I think financing makes a big difference in people's decisions. Some people with bad credit pay 39% interest on older used vehicles that can be money pits.

They often get trapped in the high payments plus high repair costs cycle. Years ago, our son got caught in that until we decided enough was enough and helped him buy a new vehicle. That was the end of all his vehicle troubles. He was spending thousands repairing an old piece of junk, when he could just make steady payments and have a reliable vehicle.

But to each their own, I figure. For all we drive, we could get a cheap jalopy, but I just don't want to. I didn't work my whole life to drive a cheap jalopy.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Just looked at the math, a new VW Jetta is $30k after tax, but they don't have discounted finance right now.
> Unfortunate that they discontinued the standard Golf, much nicer car IMO.


I agree when we bought our Golf we were actually looking for a Jetta. Test drove both and found the Golf superior. I too was disappointed when I went into the dealership this spring to start tire-kicking and learned they are no longer available. May buy next winter or the winter thereafter. End of year seems like a good time to buy an older model brand new.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> A new vehicle for 30K......and many new vehicles are available in that range, why buy a used vehicle unless you need a larger vehicle ?


Because for $25k I got a rare $50k vehicle with low mileage used for 2 years. And today I see people bragging about finding older higher mileage ones for $35k ($25k USD)



sags said:


> A couple years ago, someone posted about the cheapest new car, and I posted a link to the Chevrolet Spark that was being sold for $18k brand new with full warranty. At the time, all the auto reviewers rated it as the best cheap new car on the market. It also got high reviews because it was a well made vehicle.......just too small for most people.


You realize those "auto reveiwers" are all bought right? I have never even noticed someone driving a Chevy Spark. Did they name it after the Volt that catches on fire?

"Chevrolet discontinued the Spark after the 2022 model year. Production ceased in August 2022. The Chevrolet Spark was the United States and Canada's least expensive car on sale. Production for South Korea is scheduled to cease in September 8 2022."



sags said:


> I think financing makes a big difference in people's decisions. Some people with bad credit pay 39% interest on older used vehicles that can be money pits.
> 
> They often get trapped in the high payments plus high repair costs cycle.


Of course because the marketers have perfected the system to convince people with limited financial knowledge that new is a better deal. These are people shopping based on monthly payments

If you have cash or good credit used is obviously a better deal - especially if you know how to find a deal. Anyone saying otherwise is fooling themselves (justifying costs to yourself)

Nothing wrong with enjoying a new car if you can afford it, but don't tell people it's cheaper than used


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags said:


> A new vehicle for 30K......and many new vehicles are available in that range, why buy a used vehicle unless you need a larger vehicle ?
> 
> A couple years ago, someone posted about the cheapest new car, and I posted a link to the Chevrolet Spark that was being sold for $18k brand new with full warranty. At the time, all the auto reviewers rated it as the best cheap new car on the market. It also got high reviews because it was a well made vehicle.......just too small for most people.
> 
> ...


We drove a new rental Chevy Spark equiv. in South Africa for 18 days. It was a piece of crap car in all respects. I have rented all sorts of cars...this one was at the very bottom of the list in all respects. It may have been inexpensive but IMHO it was extremely poor value. Someone would be better off with a three year old Fit, Echo, etc.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> In reality those $ level of repairs is very unlikely to happen. Of course if you do get a lemon then I agree, sell it.


Honestly, once I see the problems, I ditch it. 
it's not too much and it really isn't worth the trouble for me.
I know too many people wasting too much time on this, I choose not too.




> That is sad. Not sure I'd get another Golf now that the TDI is gone but a Golf R would be fun to drive.  My current Golf will be rolling over 360,000kms today.


They are keeping the R and GTI, the R is a blast.

If I could get a golf wagon, I would buy it. Relatively inexpensive, quite practical, good on gas and a LOT of fun to drive.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> My car is 12 yo/230k km. It works fine. I had one major non-wear related repair that was not critical. I put off fixing during COVID and decided to fix when it was clear the used market was going to be crazy for a while. I am more looking for a different format vehicle with a bit more space and tow hitch.


Yea same

Mine was emissions related which is basically nothing. One of the valves to allow exhaust gas being pumped into the cat to warm it up. Nobody has that bs except the US and Canada because we just use DOT for some reason.

It's so easy for mechanics to scam people if they don't understand a CEL is not always a crisis and can be diagnosed with an app nowadays. So I can see why many would prefer newer cars.

But it's certainly not cheaper if you know how to google the odd issue. For example I fixed a power steering leak/wine with a $4 o-ring and a 10mm socket wrench


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Gallop said:


> My question is: Does anyone buy vehicles 3-4-5 year old, off lease, under 100K kms etc. and then resell 2-3-4 years later for similar cost of ownership numbers?


Problem is, there's a catastrophic decline in value from year 8 to 12 for most vehicles (covid supply chain mismanagement creating a current exception to this rule).

You either need to commit to reselling it by year 8 or so, or you need to keep it until year 15+. Most don't do this, and give it back to a dealer at year 11 for $1500, creating the worst case scenario for price per km/years driven.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> If I could get a golf wagon, I would buy it. Relatively inexpensive, quite practical, good on gas and a LOT of fun to drive.


100%. Not sure why the TDI Wagons are not an option. Only thing I can see is that other models in the crossover space are more popular. Those seeking a wagon style will take a crossover but those seeking a SUV/crossover will not settle for a wagon.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Honestly, once I see the problems, I ditch it.
> it's not too much and it really isn't worth the trouble for me.
> I know too many people wasting too much time on this, I choose not too.


That's all good, everyone has their priorities. For me it would depend on the problem, typical starter,altenator and suspension stuff are generally easy fixes. Now some of the newer cars with all this electrical crap, large screens, etc I worry about.



MrMatt said:


> They are keeping the R and GTI, the R is a blast.
> 
> If I could get a golf wagon, I would buy it. Relatively inexpensive, quite practical, good on gas and a LOT of fun to drive.


Gofl wagon was nice but a little tail heavy on corners. I might have bought one but the regular Golf would likely do me just fine. Driven a GTI which was nice but never had the chance to try out the R yet ...


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

londoncalling said:


> Not sure why the TDI Wagons are not an option.


After dieselgate TDIs were sadly no more.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

londoncalling said:


> 100%. Not sure why the TDI Wagons are not an option. Only thing I can see is that other models in the crossover space are more popular. Those seeking a wagon style will take a crossover but those seeking a SUV/crossover will not settle for a wagon.


They're popular in Europe

I had a turbo diesel rental a few time. Range on a tank is insane. Low end torque is great

Americans like trucks and SUVs because murica


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Gofl wagon was nice but a little tail heavy on corners. I might have bought one but the regular Golf would likely do me just fine. Driven a GTI which was nice but never had the chance to try out the R yet ...


I have a minivan as a family vehicle, got the Golf as a commuter car.

But then we found we can do most of the family stuff in the Golf, with that extra foot of cargo we would be using it almost exclusively.
It's so much better, it's more fun, quieter and more comfortable.

I've driven the R, but not the GTI. I don't know what it is, but I really like VW tuning.
The seats and interior are very love-hate. Lots of people legitimately don't like them, but I love them.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Basically, the best car economics over the life of the asset is you buy 1 or 2 yrs used and drive it until it dies or rusts out in 15,20 ,30 yrs. The maintenance & repairs go up but still much cheaper than getting a new car every 5 or 10 yrs.

Usually at 10-15 yrs you have to replace the AC which is a big cost but then you have the car for another 5-10 yrs.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Very timely thread as I have been looking for months for a used vehicle. Not a lot out there that is fairly prices, definitely nothing reliable at some of these quotes right now. We are not too handy with cars so don't want alot of maintenance.

Looking for what is everyone's thoughts on cars with hail damage. I found one that is priced really well to sell, it would be $16-18k based on the specs but is asking $9k. It seems like a great deal for a car for my new driver teenagers but is there something wrong with hail damage other than the obvious.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

peterk said:


> Problem is, there's a catastrophic decline in value from year 8 to 12 ....You either need to commit to reselling it by year 8 or so, or you need to keep it until year 15+.


This matches my experience. As a buyer I'm looking for value where the vehicle is underpriced for a reason I can live with. Old year but low KMs needs body work. Old year but great condition well taken care of, "contractor" condition but easy to fix, and very rarely "priced to move quickly" if its a legit motive.


Jimmy said:


> ...best car economics over the life of the asset is you buy 1 or 2 yrs used and drive it until it dies or rusts out in 15,20 ,30 yrs.


This is the one I'm wrestling with.
For example, graph below, from today GTA, F150 4DR, cluster on left is 2010-11's , cluster right is 2019-2020's. Lets call $/km of life left (300k-odometer) 9 (cents) $/km for the old ones and 20 cents for the 2-3 year olds. So by my criteria ($/km) It won't payoff as well to buy 1-2 years and drive into ground, vs buy 10 years old and drive into ground. (This ignores a bunch others might value like you get to drive a nicer vehicle for a while, etc.)
(edit: sorry graph say $/km but is cents/km)










What I can see as a possibility is buying a 2 year old vehicle on a good buy and selling for market price 2-3 years later. Maybe even better nowadays, as in theory there should be some distressed sellers and fewer debt buyers, so maybe a cash buyer can get a good $/km deal... In theory....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Driving By Numbers: Canada's 5 biggest automotive segments in 2022's first half


Plus, check out the fast growing segment and the one losing the most ground — you won't be surprised




www.google.com





Pickups are about 20% of the market.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> Very timely thread as I have been looking for months for a used vehicle. Not a lot out there that is fairly prices, definitely nothing reliable at some of these quotes right now. We are not too handy with cars so don't want alot of maintenance.
> 
> Looking for what is everyone's thoughts on cars with hail damage. I found one that is priced really well to sell, it would be $16-18k based on the specs but is asking $9k. It seems like a great deal for a car for my new driver teenagers but is there something wrong with hail damage other than the obvious.


Check the VIN to make sure it hasn't been written off as scrap, or you could have trouble getting insurance.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

Plugging Along said:


> ...hail damage. ...seems like a great deal for a car for my new driver teenagers


I would say nothing mechanical besides rust potential but you will suffer the hail discount on resale. If you've got 10 years of use/teenage driving ahead, might make sense, but if you want to unload it after 3 then it might not be worth the discount.
Relatives drove their hail damage for years, just cosmetic.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

As another comment on the graph above, if you look at the right most of cluster left and left most of cluster right, they are, lets call them at 15c/km of life left. If those 2 vehicles sell, someone paid $40k and someone else paid $20k for what I submit is basically the same functional truck. That, to my vehicle values, is crazy... To others perhaps not...
edit: not correct conclusion on my part. both are getting the same bang for buck. if you can afford it, the $40k is the better choice likely as it is a better deal in its cluster whereas the $20k is a worse deal in its cluster....


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Driving By Numbers: Canada's 5 biggest automotive segments in 2022's first half
> 
> 
> Plus, check out the fast growing segment and the one losing the most ground — you won't be surprised
> ...


I know, I was responding to the comment about "trucks and SUVs". Why would I eliminate SUVs from my example? Why did you unless you were deliberately trying to mislead?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Cars have lost market share every year for quite a while. They are now down to 8% of the market.

These days most people want more utility from their vehicles than a car can provide.

Older people want easier entry, access to storage space, and better visibility, so they want vehicles that are a bit higher off the ground than cars,

Some people also value the increased safety of a bigger vehicle in case of an accident.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> Very timely thread as I have been looking for months for a used vehicle. Not a lot out there that is fairly prices, definitely nothing reliable at some of these quotes right now. We are not too handy with cars so don't want alot of maintenance.
> 
> Looking for what is everyone's thoughts on cars with hail damage. I found one that is priced really well to sell, it would be $16-18k based on the specs but is asking $9k. It seems like a great deal for a car for my new driver teenagers but is there something wrong with hail damage other than the obvious.


Check if it was insured for hail damage and they cashed out

That may mean that you could be denied insurance claims in the future because they didn't repair it before.

Obviously probably not worth putting full coverage on a teen's car but not sure if the fine print means they could deny liability or something else

Like what happens if somebody hits the car and insurance denies the claim because it was already severely damaged etc


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Crossovers are mostly just taller cars. Doesn't really make sense to lump them with pickups


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Crossovers are mostly just taller cars. Doesn't really make sense to lump them with pickups


True, but some SUVs do use the pickup truck platform.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

HappilyRetired said:


> True, but some SUVs do use the pickup truck platform.


The full size SUVs are on frame based truck platforms but mid-size and below are mostly on platforms used for many lines of vehicles, including remaining sedans such as the Camry and Accord, Corolla and Civic, etc. Auto manufacturers are logically minimizing the number of platforms used for cost savings and to allow multi-model assembly in fewer plants.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

A friend in Alberta drives a hail damaged car. The insurance company paid him out in cash based on what the repair cost would have been to repair the hail damage.

BUT...there is a catch.

From then on, when he has an accident with that car the insurance company does not cover the entire cost of the repair. They only pay a percentage based on the fact that there was already existing hail damage on the body. The percentage of the claim that he is assessed is based on the the amount of the prior hail damage that was paid to the insured.

I do not have glass coverage on my car. The breakeven point for windshield coverage, based on the premium, was 2.5 years which seemed very strange to me. It has been six years since I replaced the glass but I have had two small chips repaired. 

The other thing I found is that there is a price for insurance (and deductable) and a different, lower price when you pay direct with no insurance glass coverage.

This was for a run of the mill windscreen...just glass and install w nothing sexy in the glass that requires recalibration.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Thanks @Gallop @m3s , @sags and @ian I think the comments about the insurance are bang on. I didn't even think of that, and the pictures show it looks bullet ridden. The person is a little sketchy in there response, so this one will be a pass.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

ian said:


> I do not have glass coverage on my car. The breakeven point for windshield coverage, based on the premium, was 2.5 years which seemed very strange to me. It has been six years since I replaced the glass but I have had two small chips repaired.


I also opted out of that.

Seems to be an Ontario thing as I have never seen it as an option before. I know friends said when the windshield got replaced it was like getting new glasses - you don't realize how hazy the glass gets from dirty wipers scratching them. I clean my windshield in the spring with a razor blade, claybar and then random orbital glass polish.

After 10 year I can see the streaks so I imagine new glass would be nice. Certainly not necessary though when the glass is often dirty in Canadia


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Insuring windshields or not is akin to playing a roulette wheel. Out West at least, windshields get pitted (sand blasted) with sand and gravel and eventually have to be replaced for safety and sight reasons (driving at night or into the sun really amplifies the effect). It is not unusual to get 1-4 rock chips per year, which are mostly survivable if filled and sealed quickly. Not so good with pebbles the size of marbles (or more) though. I've experienced a rock thrown up by a truck larger than a golf ball which no windshield can take.without needing replacement.

I've done a variety of things in the past, sometimes insuring the windshield, sometimes not. The odds to NOT insure pays out if one is not commuting on highways any more, or drive relatively low mileage each year, or in locations benign to risk. Example: I did not insure windshields during my 2 year stint in Washington, DC. It is situational.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> I've done a variety of things in the past, sometimes insuring the windshield, sometimes not. The odds to NOT insure pays out if one is not commuting on highways any more, or drive relatively low mileage each year, or in locations benign to risk. Example: I did not insure windshields during my 2 year stint in Washington, DC. It is situational.


Isn't that why the insurance company asks for your address, commute, claims history and everyone gets a different price though? I would imagine the insurance companies know better than anyone the odds of windshield damage in AB vs ON etc

Every windshield in Alaska had a massive crack across it. They call it the Alaska windshield. Canada is also relatively harsh environment for vehicles compared to say southern US or Europe. I remember going from Europe to Alaska and noticing how rough/dirty all the vehicles looked


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Sure, windshield insurance rates do vary depending on location and use but the rate bands are not precise enough for specific circumstances. My judgement call was usually based on a gut feel for now long I might retain a windshield (and its replacement price) to decide whether to insure or not. It is obviously a fairly random guess, playing the odds.

When I was in Alaska, I didn't insure for the primary reason is my commute was strictly within Anchorage. I survived almost 2 years without even a rock chip. Lucky maybe? OTOH, living in BC, I have not been able to make more than a few round trips to AB on Highway 1 (TCH) without at least one rock chip.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I signed up for the tracking app this time

Up to 25% discount but you have to drive like grandma. I put the app on a burner phone to test it out. You have to drive so slow you are pissing off traffic because you can't touch the speed limit itself  I have to drive like a complete moron when the app is on no way anyone would get a discount driving normally

If a kid jumps in front of you and you slam on the brakes you're a horrible driver but if you murder the kid you get to keep your insurance discount 🤷‍♂️


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Insuring windshields or not is akin to playing a roulette wheel. Out West at least, windshields get pitted (sand blasted) with sand and gravel and eventually have to be replaced for safety and sight reasons (driving at night or into the sun really amplifies the effect). It is not unusual to get 1-4 rock chips per year, which are mostly survivable if filled and sealed quickly. Not so good with pebbles the size of marbles (or more) though. I've experienced a rock thrown up by a truck larger than a golf ball which no windshield can take.without needing replacement.
> 
> I've done a variety of things in the past, sometimes insuring the windshield, sometimes not. The odds to NOT insure pays out if one is not commuting on highways any more, or drive relatively low mileage each year, or in locations benign to risk. Example: I did not insure windshields during my 2 year stint in Washington, DC. It is situational.


Agree. When I was working, commuting etc, I replaced a windshield on my leased company vehicle every year (new car every year) prior to delivering it back to the dealer. I cannot think of one year when I did not have to do this. The lease return insisted on a perfect return...no cracks, no chips. Hard to imagine the cost of this on the new vehicle windshields with different embedded sensors to be calibrated.

Now that I am retired it has been on windshield in 11 years. But...we spend two-four months outside the country. Chips yes...usually in the spring and typically on the highway.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

When I was working I had a new lease vehicle every year. I cannot think of any year when I did not have to have the windscreen replaced during the year or prior to turning it in to the dealer. It had to be perfect...no cracks, no chips.

Since retiring, I have replaced one cracked windscreen in 11 years. Chips can usually be inexpensively repaired.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Insuring windshields or not is akin to playing a roulette wheel. Out West at least, windshields get pitted (sand blasted) with sand and gravel and eventually have to be replaced for safety and sight reasons (driving at night or into the sun really amplifies the effect). It is not unusual to get 1-4 rock chips per year, which are mostly survivable if filled and sealed quickly. Not so good with pebbles the size of marbles (or more) though. I've experienced a rock thrown up by a truck larger than a golf ball which no windshield can take.without needing replacement.
> 
> I've done a variety of things in the past, sometimes insuring the windshield, sometimes not. The odds to NOT insure pays out if one is not commuting on highways any more, or drive relatively low mileage each year, or in locations benign to risk. Example: I did not insure windshields during my 2 year stint in Washington, DC. It is situational.


Yeah, I'm lucky if my windshield lasts a few months without some kind of damage around here. Unfortunately, these modern windshields are often made in China and they seem to crack beyond repair almost immediately upon getting chipped. I try to put off the replacement until the cracks become annoying, but I still go through about one windshield a year.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> Yeah, I'm lucky if my windshield lasts a few months without some kind of damage around here. Unfortunately, these modern windshields are often made in China and they seem to crack beyond repair almost immediately upon getting chipped. I try to put off the replacement until the cracks become annoying, but I still go through about one windshield a year.


My windshield is 10 years old

If I were you I'd look into windshield protection film. I know the clear paint protection film tech is pretty impressive (new good stuff is thick, clear and self-healing)

I wouldn't want it on my windshield but sounds worth a try for you


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

nathan79 said:


> I try to put off the replacement until the cracks become annoying, but I still go through about one windshield a year.


That's a lot of glass! I know some areas are bad, like Alberta, as I think they use gravel on roads in the winter months. I guess it also depends on the vehicle as I know Jeep Wrangler people are replacing them often due to the upright angle and Subaru's because they use thin glass. I still have my original glass on my '02 VW Golf, just has a few small chips and one quarter sized one in the corner.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Subaru's because they use thin glass. I still have my original glass on my '02 VW Golf, just has a few small chips and one quarter sized one in the corner.


Never heard Subaru has thin glass but they usually have thin paint. Mine is from Japan which tends to have better quality (still original glass from 10 years)

Quality paint protection film goes a long way especially in Canada. I didn't do the windshield but probably worth it for Alberta. Similar to the films you can put on smartphones


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> Never heard Subaru has thin glass but they usually have thin paint.


Check out carcomplaints, many issues with glass for Subaru. Not sure if the newest models have that problem though.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Check out carcomplaints, many issues with glass for Subaru. Not sure if the newest models have that problem though.


There's 2 comments for my specific car

One is anecdotal as the transmission is known to handle far far more power/abuse than it needs. The second comment is true and well know - mine was fixed years ago with an aftermarket part.

For the glass I imagine it depends on specific model. Glass from Japan certainly wouldn't be the same provider where most NA Subaru were made in Indiana


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

m3s said:


> There's 2 comments for my specific car
> 
> One is anecdotal as the transmission is known to handle far far more power/abuse than it needs. The second comment is true and well know - mine was fixed years ago with an aftermarket part.
> 
> For the glass I imagine it depends on specific model. Glass from Japan certainly wouldn't be the same provider where most NA Subaru were made in Indiana


The high cost was mostly associated with the re calibration that had to be done by the installer on sensors built into the glass. Or so they were told. Perhaps it was just a scam.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

ian said:


> The high cost was mostly associated with the re calibration that had to be done by the installer on sensors built into the glass. Or so they were told. Perhaps it was just a scam.


Yea I'm not a fan of new vehicles at all

No sensors in my windshield. I can still do most basic maint myself

It's why I enjoy driving a 10 year old car


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have been driving in Ontario 15 years. Never even had a chip in my windshield. I have a car with rain sensing wipers that I understand is costly to replace the windshield for. Sand isn't that widely used in southern Ontario. We just bath our cars in salt.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

You guys must not have very many gravel trucks where you drive. Sometimes I swear there are more dump trucks than cars on the highway.

They also put gravel on the roads in the winter, at least in the Fraser Valley. Not so much in Vancouver.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> I have been driving in Ontario 15 years. Never even had a chip in my windshield. I have a car with rain sensing wipers that I understand is costly to replace the windshield for. Sand isn't that widely used in southern Ontario. We just bath our cars in salt.


I've gone 40 years and I think I've only ever had 1 windshield replaced.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I've had a few chips, it really matters on the routes and times you drive.
I used to have a long commute, and many regular tips across southern ontario, no chips.
Then I had a pile for about a 3yr period, now very few chips again.

FYI, around here, windshield chip repair is cheap/free, and many small cracks are easily repairable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> For the glass I imagine it depends on specific model. Glass from Japan certainly wouldn't be the same provider where most NA Subaru were made in Indiana


Automotive is massively globalized.
For one part, we used Japanese steel, in Ontario, which was then sent to Korea, then to the Southern US, then to Ontario, then back to the US assembly plant.

The steel in that part pretty much travelled the world before you ever got your car.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Automotive is massively globalized.
> For one part, we used Japanese steel, in Ontario, which was then sent to Korea, then to the Southern US, then to Ontario, then back to the US assembly plant.
> 
> The steel in that part pretty much travelled the world before you ever got your car.


Looked up the label on my windshield. Seems it's all built to US federal DOT specs

Sucks for Canada because Euro spec was definitely better (mirrors, lights, exhaust was all better)

DOT is smoking crack (or paid actors by big oil) EU specs get better fuel mileage and more power


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Looked up the label on my windshield. Seems it's all built to US federal DOT specs


Vehicles are built to meet the standards applicable to their jurisdiction.
EU spec vehicles will be "built to" EU spec, and NA spec vehicles will be "built to" NA spec. Even if they're the same vehicle.
Though often there will be some market differences.

For some products they simply stamp the the applicable requirement on the exact same part, or simply dual-label it




> Sucks for Canada because Euro spec was definitely better (mirrors, lights, exhaust was all better)


I'd like to see data supporting this claim.



> DOT is smoking crack (or paid actors by big oil) EU specs get better fuel mileage and more power


Perhaps, but US emissions requirements are tighter than EU requirements. Have been for years.









Guest Blog: Comparing US and EU LDV emissions







www.trueinitiative.org


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Vehicles are built to meet the standards applicable to their jurisdiction.
> EU spec vehicles will be "built to" EU spec, and NA spec vehicles will be "built to" NA spec. Even if they're the same vehicle.
> Though often there will be some market differences.
> 
> ...


I've live in EU and imported/exported vehicles and sold vehicles in other jurisdictions so I got to learn about this

EU vehicles are definitely better. You can google it yourself but the mirrors and headlights are built to better standard. DOT standards are just older. Same for motorcycle helmets everyone knows DOT is the poorest standard that just hasn't been updated by paid actors in the US fed.

The DOT emissions crap always fails first and makes vehicles run worse. I had one cylinder running hotter and messing with the ECU and mileage. I know of US motorbikes had to fuel system issues because California wanted a canister to capture and filter the vapors which cause issues

EU emissions are also much better. DOT adds all kinds of complexity for bs results that just reduces mileage. EU has better fuel standards and doesn't rely on ethanol bs


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I've live in EU and imported/exported vehicles and sold vehicles in other jurisdictions so I got to learn about this
> 
> EU vehicles are definitely better.


I worked in automotive, the same people are designing the vehicles to very similar actual design standards.

But one reason that vehicles in the EU seem "better" I think is because of inspections and regulations.
In Germany you need TUV inspections, in much of north America, you don't need any regular inspections.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I worked in automotive, the same people are designing the vehicles to very similar actual design standards.
> 
> But one reason that vehicles in the EU seem "better" I think is because of inspections and regulations.
> In Germany you need TUV inspections, in much of north America, you don't need any regular inspections.


All the DOT emission stuff is only on DOT vehicles

My current car has a secondary air pump just to warm the cat with valves and pipes all over the place. Nobody else in the world uses this nonsense. Most americans remove it because it's the first thing to fail and causes issues. Think about all the complexity to add, manufacture, and replace that thing. It's not built to EU or Japanese engineering quality and it shows because it fails first. My car also has different TGV for US/Can market which also causes issues (less power and less mileage just to make warmup burn cleaner)

Their headlights and mirrors are just better. Full stop. US DOT had less quality lights mirrors and requires certain side markers. I know this very well because I've had vehicles inspected and converted for this. EU specs are far better DOT is just old and hasn't been updated and it shows. Their headlights and mirrors are better and their requirements make more sense. Same for helmets - DOT helmets can be those silly thin bucket caps ECE or Snell is a far better safety standard.

US/Canada has worse fuel. Ethanol costs more to produce but it keeps the farmers working. It doesn't save the environment when you have to burn oil to produce all the corn in the first place. Same issue with all the DOT emissions crap that causes vehicles to run less efficiently over time. Full life cycle studies are not being done properly. My motorcycle and small engine like lawn mower even say don't use ethanol but almost everywhere in Canada everything is ethanol now

My EU spec car had more power, more reliable, and better mileage without the emission crap. TUV was also very high standard and then have different color stickers based on how efficient your vehicle is (you need a green sticker in some jurisdictions for example) They had rules against letting chemicals run off your vehicle

Europe is far ahead unfortunately we are stuck following the Americans


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

My old Volkswagen Passat wagon is working fine except that the air conditioner has now gone. It is the compressor, i think, so on a car as old as this, probably not wort fixing. We don’t use it much, except for long trips to the cottage in summer. It has been a long time since i have driven with all the windows open to keep cool. I don’t know if it is feasible.
So that brings me back to looking at cars to buy. But there is a problem here. Normally, i would plan on buying a two or three year old car, with the depreciation gone and lots of good kms left. I have been worrying about the advent of electic and hybrid vehicles, though. I believe I raised that point somewhere else on this forum and someone said that gas powered vehicles are going to be on the roads for a long time. I don’t have a lot of data to contradict that idea. But my gut makes me a bit wary. With the enemy scare from Russia i think people maybe pushing more heavily on the renewable energy problem. The car manufacturers have massively upped their contribution to work on electric. I recently read that Elon Musk was working on producing an electric car for half the price of a Tesla. That would be a game changer. 

i am thinking about buying a Toyota Sienna in order to use it as a camping car, as well. I was recently looking at the 2021 Hybrid. They are expensive. And a hybrid is not too useful for us because we use my bicycle and public transit for most of our travel. The vehicle is only used for long trips. Thus, the hybrid function is not too useful for me, ason the highway I will be using gas. Better to get a full gas engine for that.
What to do? As i say, my gut tells me not to put too much into a gas engine at this point. So, despite that i have the money to buy new, i am looking at buying a ten year old Sienna with less than two hundred thousand kms. Preferably from the original owner. Toyota is a great make and I think a car like this could still have a lot of trouble free kilometres in it. I feel we are at a cross road with the old technology on the way out and the new not really fully developed. Maybe not a good time to put a lot into a car. 
bob


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Bobcajun said:


> My old Volkswagen Passat wagon is working fine except that the air conditioner has now gone. It is the compressor, i think, so on a car as old as this, probably not wort fixing. We don’t use it much, except for long trips to the cottage in summer.


From a strictly $ value viewpoint I'd say it's better to get the AC fixed on the old car that is otherwise fine. Rockauto shows a new compressor for a passat isn't that expensive. Get a couple of quotes from local (non-dealership) VW shops.



Bobcajun said:


> I feel we are at a cross road with the old technology on the way out and the new not really fully developed. Maybe not a good time to put a lot into a car.


I agree, they have a ways to go on the EV tech and gas will be around for a long time. Many estimates say only half the vehicles on the road will be EV by 2050 ... that's a long ways away.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My BIL saved a great deal of money by buying a Volvo computer board from an auto reclycler rather than the dealership. 

He had his Volvo in for service. The dealer quoted a price for the board. BIL said no, I will see if I can supply. He did. It was 1/3 the cost of the new Volvo board. It has been a number of years now...still running just fine.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

We had the compressor for the AC on our Golf replaced a couple of years ago after stubbornly delaying it for one hot summer. Glad we did. It was definitely worth it from a comfort perspective. Still planning to have the car for 5-7 years depending on future problems and mileage. It is starting to show its age. If you plan to drive it in the summer I would get it repaired.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I'd replace the compressor as well. It's not a big deal even if $1-1.5k all in.

I also don't have the same fear as post #84 articulates about ICE vehicles rapidly disappearing from the landscape. 40-50% of them will still be on the roads in 2050 even if most new ICE sales are banned by 2035.I bought a new 2020 ICE during the pandemic, and just this year bought a new 2022 ICE specialty vehicle as my personal toy. Ten years from now, they will still be legitimate and viable. Somewhere in the 2030's, we will no doubt replace one of them with an EV of some sort when they will legitimately be mainstream.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> 40-50% of them will still be on the roads in 2050 even if most new ICE sales are banned by 2035.


I wouldn't doubt some date setbacks will appear for some areas (like California) when their electrcal grid can't support the big EV numbers.


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

cainvest said:


> I wouldn't doubt some date setbacks will appear for some areas (like California) when their electrcal grid can't support the big EV numbers.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

cainvest said:


> I wouldn't doubt some date setbacks will appear for some areas (like California) when their electrcal grid can't support the big EV numbers.


Their grid can't even handle non EV requirements.


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

Used vehicle math is not always easy. Thanks very much for your various insights. They are all interesting. I love the old Passat. And she runs well. But she is getting old. Everytime i put a bit of money on it i have the feeling that i am sending good money after bad a bit. She is a 2004 and has close to 300,000 km. Last year i bought eight new tires, thinking that she would run another few years. This year i had a lot of work done on the front end. When i speak to a mechanic about fixing the compressor he just rolls his eyes and makes the sign for lots of money. Also, there was a leak in the air conditioning system for the past couple of yesrs, which i used to just fill up myself. I don’t know if this means more than just the compressor has to be done? It is, as the title of this thread says, difficult to evaluate used car math. Some days I think i would be better to take that money and put it into something newer. Other days i look at the roads around me and i see Volkswagen vans from the seventies and eighties and think that old is not so bad. Especially with the new tires and front end work done


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

Just did a little checking and found an article by automotive journalist, Lorraine Summerfeld, who lists many other things that could be wrong with, or could go wrong with the air conditioning, since all parts are the same age. Here is her humorous advice after all 
My theory on air conditioning? It’s a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have for most of us. Drop the windows, find a nicer blanket and stick your head out the window.
Besides, this is Canada. Snow is just around the corner.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

I had Tauruses for 15+ yrs. The AC was a big repair. I basically had everything replaced and it was around $2,700. I was hoping to get at least another 5 yrs out of the car but then got a hand me down from my parents 

It is a toss up as back then you could get a Taurus w 40k km for around $14k I believe. Problem w old cars is they can start to rust too.


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

Rust would be my bottom line. I wouldn’t want it. The old Passat doesn’t have much. A few small spots that I fixed myself.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I think you have the winter to decide on the AC compressor. If a good deal comes along you can revisit. i believe you can easily get another 100k out of this vehicle if it has been well maintained. Of course, the wear and tear would be dependent on driving and road conditions. Thanks for the posts, its given me the assurance that I can squeeze another 8 years and 160k out of my VW.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Bobcajun said:


> Also, there was a leak in the air conditioning system for the past couple of yesrs, which i used to just fill up myself. I don’t know if this means more than just the compressor has to be done?


You might just need a seal or two, maybe a new hose/lines ... all pretty cheap (< $100), compressor could be fine.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Bobcajun said:


> Used vehicle math is not always easy. Thanks very much for your various insights. They are all interesting. I love the old Passat. And she runs well. But she is getting old. Everytime i put a bit of money on it i have the feeling that i am sending good money after bad a bit. She is a 2004 and has close to 300,000 km. Last year i bought eight new tires, thinking that she would run another few years. This year i had a lot of work done on the front end.


It is a dilemma at that age and mileage on how much to keep putting back into it. I had done essentially nothing with my 2007 Infiniti M with about 225,000 km on it and started to feel like a whole bunch of stuff might start rearing its head. $2-3k per year wouldn't be bad but more than $5k per year and it would be time to dump it from both a cost and inconvenience perspective. So I sold it back in Feb while used car prices were still high relative to norm, even for older stuff.

I would be tempted to do what was suggested already. Run it through the winter as is (no A/C repair) and look for something 3-4 years old. With a likely recession coming on, it is logical to think the hefty prices of relatively new used cars will be coming down. Your beater will still get $2-3k on FB Marketplace/Autotrader/Kijiji next Spring even without functioning A/C.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Your beater will still get $2-3k on FB Marketplace/Autotrader/Kijiji next Spring even without functioning A/C.


Take it on an adventure north where they don't need a/c

Have to factor in the cost of return travel


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

It just went up and came back from north in September! No problems. Right up to St. Anthony’s Newfoundland. That was thankfully just before Fiona hit. I was thinking about crossing Labrasdor and coming down in Baie Comeau, Quebec but i couldn’t seem to get reliable information about the state of the road. Apparently in the past it was very bad but anecdotal information was saying that it is pretty good, now. I didn’t try it though.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> I wouldn't doubt some date setbacks will appear for some areas (like California) when their electrcal grid can't support the big EV numbers.


In case you haven't been paying attention, politicians don't let little things like reality get in the way of their plans


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Gallop said:


> I have always bought very used cars and this is my math:
> Expected life= 300,000 km
> Usable Life Left= 300,000 minus odometer reading
> All in price to purchase divided by Usable Life Left = Cents per km of useful life left
> ...


Back to this original post. Thought I would provide my experience, which is pretty specific for our city and what we were looking for. We have been looking for months. The used car market here is still crazy even though it's supposed to be softening. 

Using your math, the best I can find is about 0.07 a km for life. That's for vehicles 2014 and older. I had been looking for awd/4wd suvs that are either Japanese or German, active statues only.. Nissan we pretty much the only one that we could find that was reason. Toyotas, Honda (even more) were closer 0.12-0.15 based on the math. We looked for 3-4 year old cars and they are selling close to what you can by brand new (if they were available). The discounts for a 3-4 year old was maybe 10-15% from MSRP. 

I would say for people looking for a used vehicle, give yourself LOTS of time and be prepared to act quickly. This weekend we finally purchased a 2009 Rogue with 180K km. There were two test drivers right after us, with 20 more messages. I saw the ad go up in FB (which I notice more private sales are using vs autotrader which now is primarily dealerships) within 2 hours of posting. I contact the person. They already had 2 other test drivers lined up that evening. I felt this one was very well maintained as the person had all the records available (we have had so many sketchy ones). I asked to test drive before the first people was coming. Ran to the bank for it closed (barely got there), took out $10K cash, split it up in envelopes. When to test drive, it was good, guy seemed honest, he was more worried us scamming him (always a good sign when both parties are worried about being scammed). Asked what his lowest price was from $9k, he admitted he woudl have gone lower, but the response had been insane, was willing to go $8.7k, we told him were would going to offer $7.5, which we knew was low, hopeing for $8250 (my spouse and I already discussed). I asked him if we gave him cash and didn't mess around would he take $8.5. He said yes. Was surprised we had a license plate and cash locked in our vehicle. 

I would say for good deals, this is pretty typical, I had been 'scooped' for every good deal I have found over the last month, where I arrange for a test drive the same day the ad comes up, but usually after work, and they contact me before I get there saying it's been sold. In our case, for the extra $250 we paid above what my spouse and I hoped for, it was well worth it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> I'd replace the compressor as well. It's not a big deal even if $1-1.5k all in.
> 
> I also don't have the same fear as post #84 articulates about ICE vehicles rapidly disappearing from the landscape. 40-50% of them will still be on the roads in 2050 even if most new ICE sales are banned by 2035.I bought a new 2020 ICE during the pandemic, and just this year bought a new 2022 ICE specialty vehicle as my personal toy. Ten years from now, they will still be legitimate and viable. Somewhere in the 2030's, we will no doubt replace one of them with an EV of some sort when they will legitimately be mainstream.


I don't doubt that many will still be functional in 2050, but I suspect EVs will squeeze out ICE vehicles by dint of being much less expensive to operate. If/when EVs get to close to upfront price parity with ICE vehicles, it will make very little sense to keep an old ICE car on the road, as EVs cost ~80% less to operate.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There are millions of people who don't have the capital, cash or auto loan payments, to buy new or lightly used vehicles. There is a reason for 10-20 year old ICE vehicles being on the road today and that is unlikely to change with EVs. True that general operating costs of EVs will help tilt towards the viability of a loan payment on an EV but no one yet knows what one is going to need to set aside on a per km basis for EV battery replacement. Reliable databases on those costs will only be coming into their own by 2035 or so (10-15 years of data).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't doubt that many will still be functional in 2050, but I suspect EVs will squeeze out ICE vehicles by dint of being much less expensive to operate. If/when EVs get to close to upfront price parity with ICE vehicles, it will make very little sense to keep an old ICE car on the road, as EVs cost ~80% less to operate.


I think for city ranged vehicles they can be really close. 
While 90+% of my driving is less than 40km, I do want that 300km range. I think "range boost" battery packs of some sort could really address this.

I don't think they're actually going to stay that much cheaper to operate. Eventually they're going to have to re-allocate those gas taxes somewhere. 
Most of my vehicle "cost" is actually payments and insurance, gas is already negligible. 

Repairs aren't too bad, but that's because I replace "early" by some peoples metrics (7-10 years)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I don't think they're actually going to stay that much cheaper to operate. Eventually they're going to have to re-allocate those gas taxes somewhere.
> Most of my vehicle "cost" is actually payments and insurance, gas is already negligible.


Typical vehicle/typical mileage is around 2000L per year, $3000 at current prices. 

You can't practically tax electricity. We're going to some kind of road pricing arrangement. Especially when we have autonomous vehicles, which will just increase congestion further.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Typical vehicle/typical mileage is around 2000L per year, $3000 at current prices.
> 
> You can't practically tax electricity. We're going to some kind of road pricing arrangement. Especially when we have autonomous vehicles, which will just increase congestion further.


That's less than half the car payments.
To solve the "energy crisis" they need to tax energy at a rate that changes behaviour, but that's politically impossible todayl.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Taxing electricity would be rather foolish, IMHO. That would really be a job killing tax on everything.

If you set the tax high enough, people will just generate their own.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Taxing electricity would be rather foolish, IMHO. That would really be a job killing tax on everything.
> 
> If you set the tax high enough, people will just generate their own.


The massive cost of government is already an economy killing tax on everything.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> I don't think they're actually going to stay that much cheaper to operate.


Especially the used EV market for 10+ year olds that need battery replacements.



MrMatt said:


> Eventually they're going to have to re-allocate those gas taxes somewhere.


They'll tack the road tax on when you pay the insurance.



MrMatt said:


> Most of my vehicle "cost" is actually payments and insurance, gas is already negligible.


Gas is still a significant cost for the average person.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

Re: “….best I can find is about 0.07 a km for life. That's for vehicles 2014 and Toyotas, Honda (even more) were closer 0.12-0.15 …. I had been 'scooped' for every good deal I have found over the last month…”
Nice work: 0.07 for mid size Japanese seems excellent. As they say you make (or save) your money on the buy…
Last week I got scooped by the guy ahead of me on two separate occasions.
Decided to fix my existing vehicle instead but am rolling the dice as I’ll need to get 25k kms out of it to keep me in the 0.07 ballpark.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> I would say for people looking for a used vehicle, give yourself LOTS of time and be prepared to act quickly. This weekend we finally purchased a 2009 Rogue with 180K km. There were two test drivers right after us, with 20 more messages. I saw the ad go up in FB (which I notice more private sales are using vs autotrader which now is primarily dealerships) within 2 hours of posting. I contact the person. They already had 2 other test drivers lined up that evening.


Yes I realize this seems to be the difference in this debate

Someone who just wants to justify going to the local dealership and getting "free" coffee, their *** kissed by a greasy salesman and a "platinum" protection package can easily justify it by looking at the used vehicles that have been on the market for weeks

The deals go fast and you have to spend some time watching for them. I got my last vehicle 50% off MSRP 30k kms 2 years. It's worth the same if not more 8 years later (which is the sweet spot to sell as it now hits 10 year maintenance and yet still desirable)

I think the same goes for all used markets including houses. The best deals go very fast. The longer the deal sits on the market the worse it probably is


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Gallop said:


> Decided to fix my existing vehicle instead but am rolling the dice as I’ll need to get 25k kms out of it to keep me in the 0.07 ballpark.


Just wondering how accurate that 0.07 ballpark (price / kms left) is when buying a fairly old used vehicle? Some vehicles are much higher on maintaince costs than others. FWIW, my quick estimate shows my "bought new" daily driver is around 0.07.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The massive cost of government is already an economy killing tax on everything.


I don't think nihilism is productive in policy discussions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Just wondering how accurate that 0.07 ballpark (price / kms left) is when buying a fairly old used vehicle? Some vehicles are much higher on maintaince costs than others. FWIW, my quick estimate shows my "bought new" daily driver is around 0.07.


Without knowing mileage, it's impossible to calculate.
But gas alone is more.
Lets say 10L/100km, at $1.50/L which is $0.15/km, just for gas.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

cainvest said:


> Just wondering how accurate that 0.07 ballpark (price / kms left) is when buying a fairly old used vehicle? Some vehicles are much higher on maintaince costs than others. FWIW, my quick estimate shows my "bought new" daily driver is around 0.07.


So I think the 0.07 is a starting point for understanding one’s actual costs. 300k @.07 is a $21k new or newish car with no major repairs. That seems rare to me but good if you can get it for sure.
I have kept 2 vehicles in play at a time for over 10+ years for under 0.07/km (depreciation, major repairs) My 2 F150s have dipped below 5cents per km that I have owned them, my current truck is operating at below 2c but a big repair will bump that back up. I knowingly play vehicle roulette though with these older vehicles but have found that repairing, even big repairs don’t blow up the math. They typically end up with electrical gremlins at some point, which is when I throw in the towel. A “repair not replace” mechanic helps, as does decent roadside assistance. 
It completely depends on what you want in a car. I put this post in the frugality section because the math easily goes haywire when you have expensive tastes or special needs. Still if someone is paying 0.24 but in debt and struggling, it’s probably good food for thought that you should/could be at half or even a third of that.
Of interest is that the Uber drivers who are tracking expenses have a good framework. Typically major costs are fuel, then depreciation, then repairs, then insurance, then other, like cleaning and registration. As far as I can see they are often in the all in 14-18c/km ballpark. (Including fuel). 
Of course any business using vehicles does this math all the time with repair/replace decisions, but most of us don’t have access to fleet level averages and need to fall back on some rules of thumb for decision making.
Not sure how good my logic is, that’s why I’m here 😁


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

[/QUOTE]


Gallop said:


> Re: “….best I can find is about 0.07 a km for life. That's for vehicles 2014 and Toyotas, Honda (even more) were closer 0.12-0.15 …. I had been 'scooped' for every good deal I have found over the last month…”
> Nice work: 0.07 for mid size Japanese seems excellent. As they say you make (or save) your money on the buy…
> Last week I got scooped by the guy ahead of me on two separate occasions.
> Decided to fix my existing vehicle instead but am rolling the dice as I’ll need to get 25k kms out of it to keep me in the 0.07 ballpark.


I think I am buying at almost the worst possible time and sold at the worst possible time a year half ago at the lowest. We sold our last vehicle which has a lot of dash lights on for nothing (under $4k) We didn't want it sititng with so many problems. However, if it was the same market as now, I should have put the $5k in and had a better vehicle (Acura) with lower km. I guess I can make myself feel a little better that I didn't have the insuranc on it, and saved maybe $1000k in that time. Right now I am seeing my old car, same year, more miles, for $10k. 

I hope this one last me what I need with very little major work. My kid is a new driver, and lacks a little experience in cars so her safety is most important to me. 



cainvest said:


> Just wondering how accurate that 0.07 ballpark (price / kms left) is when buying a fairly old used vehicle? Some vehicles are much higher on maintaince costs than others. FWIW, my quick estimate shows my "bought new" daily driver is around 0.07.


I used the formula from Gallop as a starting point. I adjusted it to by year. I needed the newest vehicle to last until my youngest is out of house for college, so about 4.5=> 5 years. They say the average is about 20km a year, so I figured I need something that was less than 200K and my cars last about 14 years when new before I get rid of them. Based on my past depreciation of older cars of $1500 a year. This is also pretty close to the 0.07 by 20K km. I figured I wanted to pay about $7500 for one, but there would be a small salvage of maybe $1000. There we some higher end used cars such as Infinities, Lexus, Audi, etc, and I used $2000 depreciation a year, based on the 14-year life and kms of 300K. I used this latter way as my calculation of if a used car was a decent deal or worth seeing. So far, all of the ones that seemed to hit that online, sold within a day or I got scooped, I think my instinct wasn't too far off. 



m3s said:


> Yes I realize this seems to be the difference in this debate
> 
> Someone who just wants to justify going to the local dealership and getting "free" coffee, their *** kissed by a greasy salesman and a "platinum" protection package can easily justify it by looking at the used vehicles that have been on the market for weeks
> 
> ...


I think was buying the worst market right now, I don't think you will find anything at 1/2 the value. I saw one Infinity that was prices under by 25% of what I think should have been. I texted within minutes of the ad going, arranged for the text drive the moment the person would get off work. I saw her change her ad to pending, and she told me it was because she was getting so many responses, then she increased the sale price by $2000 which was still good, and she sent me a note saying she changed her mind and wanted to keep it. I am guessing she had gotten so many responses, she realized how underpriced it was, and took off the listing. I am sure she will relist in the next couple of weeks when she has done her homework. 

If it wasn't for the shortage of cars right now, I would have no problems walking in the dealer. I have done that a few times. It's just a lot more hassle free. However, there's no way I would let me new driving teens take out a brand new car. At least this used one has some scratches and dents, so i don't mind. I have actually told my spouse that when the kids are out, I will walk into to a dealership the year before retirement, and buy myself the car I will not allow the kids to drive and that I want. AND they better have the good latte machine instead of the keurig.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Without knowing mileage, it's impossible to calculate.
> But gas alone is more.
> Lets say 10L/100km, at $1.50/L which is $0.15/km, just for gas.


For what it’s worth, my calculations don’t include gas or “regular” maintenance, purely depreciation and major maintenance. One could of course do an all in analysis to look at fuel costs and vehicle fuel efficiency etc. , but that makes it way more complicated than I’d like. I probably should think about efficiency more but choose not to.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

m3s said:


> Yes I realize this seems to be the difference in this debate
> 
> Someone who just wants to justify going to the local dealership and getting "free" coffee, their *** kissed by a greasy salesman and a "platinum" protection package can easily justify it by looking at the used vehicles that have been on the market for weeks
> 
> ...


We spent several months shopping for the ‘right’ used car in 2010. We were in no rush to buy. We had a list of desired options and a 60KM limit. We were in no rush until we found what we wanted at the right price. It remains our daily driver. We are just as happy with it today as when we bought it for DW.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Lets say 10L/100km, at $1.50/L which is $0.15/km, just for gas.





Gallop said:


> I probably should think about efficiency more but choose not to.


The fuel costs add up if you drive a fair bit, more so at current prices.

Just a quick compare at fueleconomy.gov ...

2020 F-150 4x4 3.5L you spend $5250 more than average for 5 years
2020 Toyota Camry AWD you save $750 more than average for 5 years.

So for each 5 years of ownership the difference between the two above is $6000 in fuel alone.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> The massive cost of government is already an economy killing tax on everything.





andrewf said:


> I don't think nihilism is productive in policy discussions.


Nor do I.
Just a quick refresher on the definition of Nihilism.

*Nihilism* (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin _nihil_ 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence,[1][2] such as objective truth, knowledge, morality, values, or meaning

It isn't Nihilistic to think taxes are too high.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Gallop said:


> For what it’s worth, my calculations don’t include gas or “regular” maintenance, purely depreciation and major maintenance. One could of course do an all in analysis to look at fuel costs and vehicle fuel efficiency etc. , but that makes it way more complicated than I’d like. I probably should think about efficiency more but choose not to.


Depending on your driving habits, fuel costs can be significant.
I know someone who commutes 200km/day, 5 days a week. For them fuel is key.
They have a long since paid off Golf TDI BTW.


----------



## Gallop (Jan 26, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Depending on your driving habits, fuel costs can be significant.


Makes complete sense. I guess I look at it as working within classes of vehicles though. I need to tow trailers once in a while and use a pickups capabilities at least once a week, so I would look at vehicles in that class. As a commuter that would be a different need. In the pursuit of pure frugality I have thought that it might be cheaper to get a midsize SUV and a small trailer, and then farm out the heavier hauling when need be. I prioritize convenience somewhat, but I feel like at least I'm making that decision with my eyes open. I have been scared off by 2 acquaintances blowing up their SUV engines hauling camper and small boat trailers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Gallop said:


> Makes complete sense. I guess I look at it as working within classes of vehicles though. I need to tow trailers once in a while and use a pickups capabilities at least once a week, so I would look at vehicles in that class. As a commuter that would be a different need. In the pursuit of pure frugality I have thought that it might be cheaper to get a midsize SUV and a small trailer, and then farm out the heavier hauling when need be. I prioritize convenience somewhat, but I feel like at least I'm making that decision with my eyes open. I have been scared off by 2 acquaintances blowing up their SUV engines hauling camper and small boat trailers.


Again, matters on your use case. 
Underpowered vehicles have really bad fuel economy if you push them (towing, load them up, heavy acceleration etc).


----------



## Bobcajun (May 15, 2018)

Congratulations on the purchase, Pondering! It is not an easy market to be buying in, as you say. Let me say that as someone who will be looking at buying a used car before long, i find these rules of thumb for calculating the value of a vehicle very helpful. Other than that i just look at the Blue Book. But, i don’t know how accurate that is. It seems helpful to have a criterion of your own to judge.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Nor do I.
> Just a quick refresher on the definition of Nihilism.
> 
> *Nihilism* (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin _nihil_ 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence,[1][2] such as objective truth, knowledge, morality, values, or meaning
> ...


Your position seems to be that the state is bad, so why bother having sensical tax regime.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Your position seems to be that the state is bad, so why bother having sensical tax regime.


My position actually is that the state is necessary, but they're trying to do too much, in inappropriate ways and wasting massive amounts of money.

I think a smaller government actually focused on their key responsibilities would be able to fufil them better.

Trying to be everything for everyone is a recipe for failure. They should step back, and focus on their actual job.


It's just fine if you think I'm wrong.
Maybe your position is that the government is so good at doing stuff, it's great they suck up half our incomes, and just think if they took mroe how much better it would be.

Like if they take half of it, and things are this good, imagine if they took 70, 80 or 90%!!!
Maybe they should take ALL our money and simply provided the needed services... wouldn't that be great!

it's similarly ridiculous to think that no government would be good either. 

It's a balance, and I think, right now, they're taking too much, and trying to do too much, and what they are doing, they're doing poorly.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I don't think they're actually going to stay that much cheaper to operate. Eventually they're going to have to re-allocate those gas taxes somewhere.


The lost revenue to government and businesses will be recouped through new taxes and increasing prices. It always does. The gas company monopolies will be replaced by a new monopoly in the EV space.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

londoncalling said:


> The lost revenue to government and businesses will be recouped through new taxes and increasing prices. It always does. The gas company monopolies will be replaced by a new monopoly in the EV space.


Gas companies aren't monopolies.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Clearly post #128 appears to have bought into NDP ideology. The retail gasoline business is more fractured than it ever has been with less than 20% of gas stations belonging to, or controlled by, Big Oil. There are hundreds of owner operators and dozens of distributors. Refining is more concentrated with about 5 major refiners and a few smaller ones like Parkland and Husky (in Canada). Still, rack wholesale prices for each refiner are negotiated with each retail gasoline station owner(s), whether mom and pop or companies like Couche-Tard, Parkland, Canadian Tire, etc. Fuel Retailing - Canadian Fuels Association

P.S. As far as thread subject matter goes, I have purchased new for about 30 years now, maintain them properly, and generally keep the vehicles circa 10-17 years without any particular issues. We have always been 2 vehicle owners for convenience.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I will clarify my post as it was made in haste and should have been worded more clearly. Gas companies are not monopolies. I have a friend that owned a gas station and know they make their money on confectionary, lotto, repairs etc. I should have said oil and gas monopolies. I was not referring to the retail businesses but big oil itself. The reality is monopolies control the economy whether it be finance, oil and gas, telcos etc. Look at Amazon. They are one of the biggest monopolies on the planet. The perceived future cost savings of operating EVs will evaporate over time due to taxation and rising prices. It's just a question of how that cost will be delivered to taxpayers/consumers. Environmental fees on battery disposal? infrastructure taxes? higher utility rates? Infrastructure tax to rollout a better grid? Rates will rise. Sure, efficiencies can be found in flattening out peaks in demand by charging in off hours. However, we already experience brownouts due to lacking infrastructure. What happens when everyone is charging their cars? Brownouts are a common occurrence every winter in North America. Businesses with economies of scale become monopolies. It's why I own shares in monopolies. Does anyone think the government will not find a way to make up the shortfall in revenue due to lost fuel tax revenue? 

The US Transportation Research Board has already identified that existing revenue sources are not enough to maintain the current roadway infrastructure with fuel taxes being the primary funding for highways and transportation. It's possible we will see more toll roads but that would be applicable to both ICE and EVs. Right now we are in a transition to a new fuel source and it's a good shift. It will take a long time to make that shift.

Perhaps a discussion for a different thread. Sorry for taking us off topic.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

To continue off topic, you might be surprised how little the 5-7 big oil companies produce of the ~100 mmbls/day of global production. They are price takers, not price setters. I will help you get started. Add up oil production of Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Total, ENI. All the others are state owned/controlled.

Edit: Include ConocoPhillips in that group too


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I recently rented a Volkswagen Golf (2021) and was very impressed with it. According to published values, the fuel efficiency is comparable to the Toyota Corolla, also an excellent car obviously.

But on the highway, the Golf felt more powerful and zippy to me. It really felt great on the highway. I've rented cars that were more fuel efficient but many of those feel dinky, either underpowered or not very structurally solid.

I went 250 km on 15.5 L of gas, so that's 6.2 L/100 km. On a full tank it can go about 750 km which is nuts! That's easily 20% to 25% more efficient than my older Golf, which I used to have running at peak efficiency with good spark plugs and clean cables on the alternator/distributor. And the 750 km range includes occasional stops, not continuous highway.

Going 250 km on just $25 of gas (at $1.63/L) is pretty good. In absolute terms, that's good value and lots of utility per $.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I've tried to fit a pricing model to used cars. As far as I can gather, used vehicles are priced something along the lines of:

(Useful life of vehicle in km - Current Odometer reading)* cost per km + terminal value at end of useful life.

I define 'useful life' as the km distance where major repairs become more likely and cars stop really depreciating beyond their repair liability from terminal value. So useful life of perhaps 225k - 250k km. Terminal value is what you see the car selling for at about that useful life. My current car shopping for upgraded compact SUV is around $8k or so for this value. Then you find almost every vehicle you find of various odometer readings will tend to have a pretty tightly clustered 'cost per km', within about 10%-20%, probably encapsulating different sellers' negotiating room and perhaps some qualitative factors like cosmetic wear. So, you really end up comparing vehicles based on their cost per km. One car I was looking at was around $0.18/km. Another larger vehicle with similar features was closer to $0.23. This math actually seems to fit new cars pretty well. It kind of calls into question the idea that you see a massive hit of depreciation buying a car new. It doesn't seem supported by the data, at least when comparing to used car prices with say 50k km. Those cars are only cheaper by very close to that linear depreciation of $Y/km. The only wrinkle in this that I haven't accounted for to my satisfaction is opportunity cost/time value of money of owning a higher priced vehicle initially vs buying 7 year old cars every 5 years or so, instead of say 2 year old cars every 10 years.

Also makes me question the logic of keeping a car on the road for 12+ years, especially if that vehicle isn't well-aligned to your needs. I guess the math changes if you are interested in owning a vehicle in its 'terminal value' phase, where I think you are basically not paying too much in the way of that depreciation per km anymore, but I'd say you need to budget a similar amounts for lumpy major repairs unless you are very handy. And yes, your time has value too. 

$0.18/km * 20k km per year = $3600... I guess that's probably too high. I would expect major repairs (beyond wear components) to be like $1k-$1.5k/year. Of course, I have never experienced having to replace a transmission. I understand that gets very expensive these days and it can be easy to throw many thousands of dollars at older vehicles as parts become more complex assemblies that are replaced wholesale.


----------



## Jericho (Dec 23, 2011)

Having to pay tax on a used vehicle makes no sense. Tax was already paid on it.






Taxation on Private Sale of Vehicles - Finance


Effective July 1, 2016, a Retail Sales Tax (RST) at the rate of 15% applies to the private sale of...



www.gov.nl.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If you trade a vehicle in through a dealer you only pay tax on the difference.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I recently rented a Volkswagen Golf (2021) and was very impressed with it. According to published values, the fuel efficiency is comparable to the Toyota Corolla, also an excellent car obviously.
> 
> But on the highway, the Golf felt more powerful and zippy to me. It really felt great on the highway. I've rented cars that were more fuel efficient but many of those feel dinky, either underpowered or not very structurally solid.


The Golf base engine has a turbo, and is a lot more powerful than the competition.
If you slap it into sport mode, it's even zippier.


I thought it was overall quite a bit nicer, despite not being much more than the competition.

Unfortunately the Golf is being discontinued.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I've tried to fit a pricing model to used cars. As far as I can gather, used vehicles are priced something along the lines of:
> 
> (Useful life of vehicle in km - Current Odometer reading)* cost per km + terminal value at end of useful life.


You've also got to account for the repair differential.
I find at >7yrs the repairs creep in, which change the math.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> *The Golf base engine has a turbo, and is a lot more powerful than the competition.
> If you slap it into sport mode, it's even zippier.*
> 
> I thought it was overall quite a bit nicer, despite not being much more than the competition.
> ...


I didn't know it was being discontinued, that's unfortunate. This 2021 Golf was really nice on power / efficiency / pricing.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I didn't know it was being discontinued, that's unfortunate. This 2021 Golf was really nice on power / efficiency / pricing.


I know, I have a 2015.
If I knew how nice it was, I would have bought the wagon. I guess I have to save up for that RS7


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I know, I have a 2015.
> If I knew how nice it was, I would have bought the wagon. I guess I have to save up for that RS7


I used to own a much older model (circa 2000) but even that had impressive fuel economy. I was able to get > 600 km on a tank.

Boy was that thing zippy. I sometimes cruised at 140 to 150 kph on the highway, back when I was more youthful and reckless. But it handled very well.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but if I had known what was going to happen to the small car market, I would have bought another Golf (or maybe a Toyota Corolla) a few years ago.


----------

