Cost to Own

Status
Not open for further replies.
racer12306

racer12306

Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
3,347
Location
MD
A couple weeks ago, I got curious about what does it actually cost to own a vehicle and does the extra purchase price for more MPGs actually save money in the long haul. I put together a spreadsheet of some of the smaller cars out there, most I would buy, some I wouldn't (mainly due to my own size and comfort). This is tailored to my drive that will be starting some point this year when my wife and I buy a new house. I believe the math is correct.

Assumptions:
Code:


6 year life = 166714 (only including work days)

City Miles: 15.1

HWY Miles: 95.6

Working Days in Year: 251

Gas (Reg): 3.349 USD

Gas (Prem): 3.789 USD

Diesel: 3.789 USD

Electricity (incl dist):0.12826 USD

This is a 110.7 mile round trip. The city miles are not really city miles but they aren't true highway miles. Each vehicle takes the correct fuel cost per gallon into account. The two plug in vehicles include the 240V charger required at home. These are no options, unless needed to obtain specific fuel economy, exclude tax, destination, maintenance, tax incentives, etc.

Hopefully this all lines up.
Code:


Car Cost HWY MPG Cty MPG Fuel Cost(1yr) Total Cost (6yr) Cost/Mile Fuel Cost (6yr) Notes

Dodge Dart Aero 1.4T/6M 19990 41 28 $2,730.43 $36,372.56 0.218 $16,382.56

Dodge Dart Aero 1.4T/6A 21240 40 28 $2,785.86 $37,955.19 0.228 $16,715.19

Dodge Dart SE 2.0/6M 15995 36 25 $2,739.98 $32,434.87 0.195 $16,439.87

Dodge Dart SE 2.0/6A 17245 34 24 $2,892.44 $34,599.66 0.208 $17,354.66

Dodge Dart SXT 2.4/6M 18495 35 22 $2,872.99 $35,732.96 0.214 $17,237.96

Dodge Dart SXT 2.4/6A 19745 35 23 $2,847.91 $36,832.45 0.221 $17,087.45

Dodge Dart GT 2.4/6M 20990 33 23 $2,987.06 $38,912.37 0.233 $17,922.37

Ford Focus S Sdn 2.0/5M 16310 36 26 $2,720.45 $32,632.71 0.196 $16,322.71

Ford Focus S Sdn 2.0/6A 17405 37 26 $2,660.12 $33,365.72 0.200 $15,960.72

Chevy Spark LS 1.2/5M 12170 39 31 $2,470.00 $26,989.99 0.162 $14,819.99

Chevy Sonic LS 1.8/5M 14770 35 26 $2,784.23 $31,475.38 0.189 $16,705.38

Chevy Sonic LT 1.4T/6M 17080 40 29 $2,446.72 $31,760.34 0.191 $14,680.34

Chevy Cruze LS 1.8/6M 17270 36 25 $2,739.98 $33,709.87 0.202 $16,439.87

Chevy Cruze LT 1.4T/6M 18815 38 26 $2,602.96 $34,432.78 0.207 $15,617.78

Chevy Cruze 2.0D/6A 24985 46 27 $2,508.38 $40,035.31 0.240 $15,050.31

Chevy Volt 34685 $2,293.00 $48,443.00 0.291 $13,758.00 Calculated by fueleconomy.gov

VW Jetta 2.0D/6M 23195 42 30 $2,643.44 $39,055.61 0.234 $15,860.61

Hyun Elantra GLS 1.8/6M 16965 38 28 $2,568.09 $32,373.56 0.194 $15,408.56

Honda Civic 1.8/5M 18390 36 28 $2,685.58 $34,503.48 0.207 $16,113.48

Honda Civic 1.8/CVT 19190 39 30 $2,483.65 $34,091.88 0.204 $14,901.88

Toy Corolla L 1.8/6M 16800 37 28 $2,625.25 $32,551.49 0.195 $15,751.49

Toy Corolla L 1.8/4A 17400 37 29 $2,609.62 $33,057.70 0.198 $15,657.70

Toy Corolla LE 1.8/CVT 18300 38 29 $2,552.46 $33,614.77 0.202 $15,314.77

Toy Prius Two 1.8/CVT 24200 48 51 $1,923.08 $35,738.46 0.214 $11,538.46

Toy Prius PlugIn 1.8/CVT30690 95 50 $1,795.00 $41,460.00 0.249 $10,770.00 Calculated by fueleconomy.gov

Nissan Versa Sdn 1.8/5M 11990 36 27 $2,702.37 $28,204.22 0.169 $16,214.22

Nissan Versa Sdn 1.8/CVT13790 40 31 $2,418.48 $28,300.91 0.170 $14,510.91

Fiat 500 1.4/5M 16195 40 31 $2,736.23 $32,612.39 0.196 $16,417.39

Fiat 500L 1.4T/6M 19195 33 25 $3,329.56 $39,172.35 0.235 $19,977.35

Smart Fourtwo 1.0/5A 13270 38 36 $2,791.52 $30,019.13 0.180 $16,749.13


Notables:
Cheapest overall: Smart Fourtwo (I'm surprised by this as I remember in the past this was not an economical car in whole, but I haven't followed this car because I have no interest in driving a sardine can)
Most Expensive overall: Chevy Volt (Cost per mile goes down some but it still the most expensive to drive with the current tax incentive at $0.246/mile)
Most Expensive gas non-hybrid: Fiat 500L
Most Expensive diesel non-hybrid: Chevy Cruze

What would I buy?
I'm a little partial to Chrysler and GM products so I'd look at the Dart and Cruze first but the Focus would not be ruled out. Before the Corolla seemed so bland but the redesign seems to have helped it. So without test driving: Dodge Dart SXT 2.4/6M. Should have good power, good fuel economy and I already know I fit it in as I've driven one as a rental, but I've not driven any of the others yet. I'd also look at upgrades to see if maybe someone has a tuner that could squeek a few extra MPGs out of the cars.

In my opinion, it's quite disappointing that there are not more gas vehicles over 40MPG and that diesels are so expensive. According to this chart, there is no economical reason to buy a current diesel. I think this is quite an interesting piece of information that I'm sure the normal consumer wouldn't even think of, but that's what us BITOG'rs do right?
 
Interesting calculations, Thanks!

Each owner will have to do their own calculations for the initial cost of a vehicle, it's fuel(or none) and maintenance/repairs.

At the end of the lifecycle for which each owner would keep the vehicle in their own instance will vary greatly from one owner to another.

I have family members that buy vehicles often and are always in payments. Though they claim what a deal they got on the vehicles(Prius' Lately), I don't believe that they're any further ahead of my wife & myself, who drive our vehicles into their teens and me doing all/most of the maintenance & repairs.

I've read a CR calculation of the Prius vs Corolla over a 5 yr period of time and the Corolla won for less total cost of ownership. Same with the Civic Hybrid vs Civic. In both cases, the lesser costing gas only version won out in total cost of ownership over their Hybrid brethren. CR gave some other examples as well and I believe the gasoline ONLY Highlander/RX-350 vs their Hybrid versions produced the ame results!

IIRC, the article mentioned that it would take ~10 yrs to break even before we'd see any benefit of cost savings.

Off Topic:
I've seen(can't produce the information) on LRR tires vs standard passenger tires from the same tire mfg's. The inital cost of the LRR tires is going to the mfgs pockets way before it goes into our pockets in fuel savings.

Now, if you compare the cost of LRR tires with the cost of another mfgs standard/touring tire, well...we have to start somewhere!

Each one of us can manipulate the number$ anyway we'd want them to go.
 
Last edited:
Your calculations are specious.

Cars don't go to zero value in 6 years. Some get close, others don't. The rate of depreciation varies across models and brands, so purchase price is over-weighted, and unevenly applied, in your arithmetic.

You don't include the cost to insure. Again, that varies across models and brands, so it's not calculated correctly.

Finally, maintenance varies across types of cars. That's not accounted for.

You've simply looked at MPG, your commute distance and calculated fuel cost based on current price, then added price. Your real cost will be quite different from that number.

I would recommend that you price out insurance for each of these cars, based on your use and add that in. Next, subtract the average remaining value for each of these cars when they're 6 years old. Some, like the Civic or Corolla, will be worth several thousand dollars more than a GM or Ford that was purchased for the same price. Finally, re-run your numbers based on different fuel prices, e.g. $4.00/gallon, so that you can compare the range of costs at different future fuel prices, to understand your exposure should prices rise (or fall) again.

Finally, while important, cost isn't everything...
 
Last edited:
I agree with Astro, cars don't depreciate to zero at 6 years. Some will depreciate more than others.

But along with that, some can routinely had for much more of a discount than others.

For example, the Dart which is refreshed for '14 with upgraded powertrains and the Corolla which was redesigned will have small discounts compared to the relatively long in the tooth Focus, Cruze et al.

The Focus has almost consistently had large rebates to keep sales up. I got mine for almost $5,000 off sticker. I might've gotten an Elantra for $1,500 off at the time.

I would shortlist to 2 or 3 cars, get actual price quotes from the dealer on the trim you want, price insurance for all 3, then do your in-depth CTO analysis on just those 3.
 
Honestly, this was something I was able to put together in a few evenings searching around on the internet. I'm not interested in going to the extent of insurance quoting until I'm actually ready to buy a car. This was a simplified view of cost vs MPG, not the end all tale of what car should be bought.

I don't like the factor of depreciation because I intend to use the vehicle until it's dead or so close to dead, that it's value is insignificant. There are not many vehicles that have any significant resale at 160000+ miles, imo.

Is maintenance really that different across the different cars? Obviously automatics will have more costs than manuals, until a clutch fails (but I haven't experienced that so maybe one could get a whole lifetime out of a clutch). I believe Hyundai has a shorter OCI than the others so that is a variable for sure and then hybrid batteries, if they would fail in this amount of time.

Fortunately, in regards to the changing fuel costs, this is in a spreadsheet with formulas so a simple cell value change from 3.349 for regular to 3.509 will pass the calculation throughout the entire table.


In the end, this is a starting point. I'll save this for when I am ready to buy a car and then build it from there. I just found the purchase price vs estimated returned MPG to be very interesting.
 
Depreciation matters more than fuel in many cases.

For example: 2006 Corolla. Retail: $18,000. Purchased used in 2006 (dealer demo) for $12,000. Current value with 130,000 miles, in excellent condition, about $6,000.

It's near your "dead" mileage, just past your "dead" age, yet still has value, as well as considerable life left in it.

So, using your numbers, the car cost $18,000. Using my numbers (real world, what I paid for the car, not spreadsheet) the car cost $6,000.

Fuel cost for those 130,000 miles (using your method, 26 MPG city rated, 35 MPG highway rated, current fuel price) $14,274

In your estimation, cost of buying the car is highest. In my real world ownership experience, cost of buying is very, very different because depreciation does matter. My depreciation experience is $6,000. Your estimation of depreciation in my case is $18,000. You're off by a factor of 3...that's a pretty big factor, and a $12,000 change in cost is worth considering...

You did the math right...I am encouraging you to do the right math instead...
 
Last edited:
I agree that depreciation is an important factor, but the OP still has a point. He plans to keep the car 160k+, or even longer perhaps (it seems). It appears that he intends to drive it until there is a major failure that is worth more than the value of the car. If that's the case, then depreciation doesnt come into play. We could run scenarios about when is the optimal time to sell a car to reap max retained value vs. risk, but thats another discussion.

And no offense, but from my angle, nobody in their right mind would pay $6k for a car with 130k miles on it, when they could buy a nearly new one for $6k more (per your numbers). If one was to trade in the car, I'd bet they would get half of that (not sure where the $6k comes from). Valuations on used cars can be somewhat arbitrary...

To go through that greater exercise is a much more intense analysis, and I get it that the OP just wanted to compile some data. Insurance aside, fuel costs are the greatest recurring cost after the purchase (Im assuming a responsible cash purchase). Depreciation is "invisible" and only relevant at the sale or if a crash occurs. So racking and stacking on a basis of fuel costs isnt that bad of an approach (maybe he will donate his car at the end and get $0 value besides some amount of tax write off?). Especially since that is what affects day to day cash flow the most.

It should be stacked in a more logical way, like either by total outlay for 6 years, cost per mile or at least fuel cost per 6 years.

I agree that seeing how it changes with fuel price is interesting. There is also a non-mathematical part that some car are larger or better appointed.
 
Am I missing something here? From your original post, it appears that the Nissan Versa is the cheapest.....or am I not reading this correctly?
 
Are the Cost To Own calculators at Kelly Blue Book and Edmunds useable?

http://www.kbb.com/new-cars/total-cost-of-ownership/?r=935783575976487800

http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html

They include the other variables mentioned above by others.

Unless I was running a fleet, a few thousand dollars difference between two vehicles over the span or 6 or more years would not be the only deciding factor for me. One major repair such as a head gasket, tranny, computer module, etc. could throw all your calculations out the window. Something as simple as comfort, looks, or function/likeability would weigh more for me.
 
Last edited:
I don't see insurance or personal property tax in there. Tires on "economy" cars vary in price, usually inversely to their aspect ratios. Something like a base corolla/ focus should win here.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Am I missing something here? From your original post, it appears that the Nissan Versa is the cheapest.....or am I not reading this correctly?


You're right, I missed that number but the Spark is less

Can't edit my post though, but yes, the Spark wins this comparison.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I agree that depreciation is an important factor, but the OP still has a point. He plans to keep the car 160k+, or even longer perhaps (it seems). It appears that he intends to drive it until there is a major failure that is worth more than the value of the car. If that's the case, then depreciation doesnt come into play. We could run scenarios about when is the optimal time to sell a car to reap max retained value vs. risk, but thats another discussion.

And no offense, but from my angle, nobody in their right mind would pay $6k for a car with 130k miles on it, when they could buy a nearly new one for $6k more (per your numbers). If one was to trade in the car, I'd bet they would get half of that (not sure where the $6k comes from). Valuations on used cars can be somewhat arbitrary...

To go through that greater exercise is a much more intense analysis, and I get it that the OP just wanted to compile some data. Insurance aside, fuel costs are the greatest recurring cost after the purchase (Im assuming a responsible cash purchase). Depreciation is "invisible" and only relevant at the sale or if a crash occurs. So racking and stacking on a basis of fuel costs isnt that bad of an approach (maybe he will donate his car at the end and get $0 value besides some amount of tax write off?). Especially since that is what affects day to day cash flow the most.

It should be stacked in a more logical way, like either by total outlay for 6 years, cost per mile or at least fuel cost per 6 years.

I agree that seeing how it changes with fuel price is interesting. There is also a non-mathematical part that some car are larger or better appointed.


Thanks. This is what I was going for.

Insurance certainly plays a role, but fuel costs are every day. And like I mentioned before, going to the extent to get insurance quotes is much deeper than I wanted to go.

My biggest driver with this was how every car manufacturer touts the high MPG of a certain vehicle, but they leave out the simple fact that you have to upgrade the trim line to get that eco engine or other eco features. Take the Dodge Dart or the Chevy Cruze for example. Both offer 1.4T/6M options for the high MPG version, but you need to get the specific Aero trimline (three trimlines up the scale) or the LT (two trimlines up the scale) respectively. Simply paying the $1500 option for those eco engines to be put into the baseline vehicles would be much more appealing from an economics standpoint, but those options don't exist.



Another point that was mentioned was rebates and cash incentives. These are only good for limited periods and may not be applicable for specific geographic locations so those were excluded. These cost per mile numbers change dramatically when those are factored in, but that should be handled if someone wanted to actually buy a car right now. Also, 6 years or 165000 is not my "dead" number. These numbers are arbitrary and a simple tweek of the formulas would allow this to extend out to 200k or 250k or whatever you wanted.


Last point, if someone is interested in this spreadsheet for their own purposes, I can upload it and share it.
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself


Unless I was running a fleet, a few thousand dollars difference between two vehicles over the span or 6 or more years would not be the only deciding factor for me. One major repair such as a head gasket, tranny, computer module, etc. could throw all your calculations out the window. Something as simple as comfort, looks, or function/likeability would weigh more for me.


I agree completely.
 
Lots of great info on here already. I always find these comparisons interesting, but at the end of the day wonder what you can take away since there are so many small variables that add up over time (tire cost, oil change frequency, recommended maintenance schedule) but get lost trying to compare various models.

Owning and shopping for our Cruze and racking up similar mileage to what's outlined, I had many of the same questions/thoughts as the OP. Even comparing with the Cruze model line, LS, 1LT and Eco, the answer doesn't seem all that clear to me as you weight the additional costs/benefits.

OP, some additional things to keep in mind:
Great points on the rebates, but I can say in the case of the Cruze/GM, at least 75% of the time there is some rebate on the price, often the Cruze rebates close the price gap with a Sonic. I'm sure other manufacturers have the same situation.
Maintenance between models (ex.: Cruze LS with 1.8 = timing belt change at 97K, LT 1.4 has a chain). I noticed Cruze Eco is not on the list, comparing the Eco to the 1LT would probably close the price gap (assuming you are not interested in the LS) well before the 160K mile figure you are looking at.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I agree that depreciation is an important factor, but the OP still has a point. He plans to keep the car 160k+, or even longer perhaps (it seems). It appears that he intends to drive it until there is a major failure that is worth more than the value of the car. If that's the case, then depreciation doesnt come into play. We could run scenarios about when is the optimal time to sell a car to reap max retained value vs. risk, but thats another discussion.

And no offense, but from my angle, nobody in their right mind would pay $6k for a car with 130k miles on it, when they could buy a nearly new one for $6k more (per your numbers). If one was to trade in the car, I'd bet they would get half of that (not sure where the $6k comes from). Valuations on used cars can be somewhat arbitrary...

To go through that greater exercise is a much more intense analysis, and I get it that the OP just wanted to compile some data. Insurance aside, fuel costs are the greatest recurring cost after the purchase (Im assuming a responsible cash purchase). Depreciation is "invisible" and only relevant at the sale or if a crash occurs. So racking and stacking on a basis of fuel costs isnt that bad of an approach (maybe he will donate his car at the end and get $0 value besides some amount of tax write off?). Especially since that is what affects day to day cash flow the most.

It should be stacked in a more logical way, like either by total outlay for 6 years, cost per mile or at least fuel cost per 6 years.

I agree that seeing how it changes with fuel price is interesting. There is also a non-mathematical part that some car are larger or better appointed.


I'd buy a 06' Corolla with only 130k for $6k.

Look around Craigslist, 6k is a pretty good price if it's in good condition.

I know at least 20 different people off the top of my head that would buy a car for that price with low miles* such as that.

*- low miles for a Toyota
 
Originally Posted By: hypervish
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

And no offense, but from my angle, nobody in their right mind would pay $6k for a car with 130k miles on it, when they could buy a nearly new one for $6k more (per your numbers). If one was to trade in the car, I'd bet they would get half of that (not sure where the $6k comes from). Valuations on used cars can be somewhat arbitrary...


I'd buy a 06' Corolla with only 130k for $6k.

Look around Craigslist, 6k is a pretty good price if it's in good condition.

I know at least 20 different people off the top of my head that would buy a car for that price with low miles* such as that.

*- low miles for a Toyota


Well good for you, but we will have to disagree. 130k can be low mileage for ANY car, it doesnt mean that standard wear and tear items (which go bad regardless of the vehicle's perceived quality of manufacture), other PM and such things can be avoided. 130k can also be HIGH mileage for any car, and there are plenty of garbage corollas out there with fewer miles and needing a lot of work. Regardless, and even for a well-kept and trouble free example, you get to buy a vehicle right in the onset of when a lot of that stuff needs to be done, for a fairly meager discount.

Seruously? The car dropped 33% from being new to when he picked up the car with seeminly minimal miles. $6k discount for very few miles. That might be a good deal. But then to put on the equivalent of a design lifetime (100-150k design lifetime to failure for any manufacturer, regardless of perceived quality of manufacture), and only get another $6k? No thanks. Ill take the nearly new car for $12k, and get a long while of trouble and worry free driving out of it before I even have to spend a dime on any substantial PM besides oil and fiters.
 
Additional factors such as resale value, taxes, maintenance, and license fees keep me in my vehicles until the salvage yard sends a wrecker. The Camrys keep on running great. The younger son is driving the 1994, the wife is racing the 2003, and I am caressing the 2012 hybrid. The two older Camrys are not worth much on the market, but cost almost nothing in maintenance, insurance, and license. They still provide safe reliable transportation.

Our 8.5% tax only applies to purchases. That is a disincentive to replace an older efficient vehicle.

Buying new and taking reasonable care yields good results with these Toyotas. But my Chevy pickup is twenty years old and has been mostly trouble free. Again, reasonable care. Now that I have found BITOG, the vehicles have moved up from reasonable care to the platinum level.
smile.gif
 
Interesting discussion. OP I have a question for you.

There have been several mentions of having to pay more for the more fuel efficient package. This is especially true for the VW Jetta. You did the calculations for the diesel, but the gas version can be had for nearly 7000 less. Was it excluded since it only gets MPG under 40?
 
It mainly got left out because I don't really have an interest in VWs but I was curious how the diesel compared to the other cars on the market.
 
Originally Posted By: racer12306
It mainly got left out because I don't really have an interest in VWs but I was curious how the diesel compared to the other cars on the market.



Right on...thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top