Does it really make financial sense to buy used over new?

[Hohn]

For all the commentary on here about how folks are going to maintain their cars to last 300-400k miles, very few do. Very few ever did, and those that did saw mostly highway miles or similar service.

This is because there are many ways a vehicle can degrade and many of those cannot be prevented with "maintenance."

My trusty 2005 Odyssey just took us on a family road trip up to WI. It might be the last such family vacation we take, given one of my kids is in college and the other getting ready for it.

The van rolled 220k miles. Not particularly high mileage, but it's age, not mileage, that can can you. Twenty winters of driving in salt means it has rust. Twenty years of short trips in town (errand running) mean the transmission is near its end (even with regular fluid changes more frequently than Honda recommends).

Honda uses a "subframe" on this generation of vans, and it's isolated from the main body. But what happens when these isolators break down? The ride quality of the van is pretty terrible now, even with fresh new KYBs and soft-riding Nokian tires. It feels "old." There's a clockspring like noise from the steering column every time you turn it. The HVAC makes a chattering sound like it's trying to switch vent modes (or adjust the blend door) but can't.

What amount of "maintenance" will prevent such? None that I can tell. The fact that the engine is in good condition and doesn't seem to consume oil at all is ultimately of no consequence if the vehicle it powers is no longer roadworthy.


By contrast, our GX460-- which is 6 years newer--still rides and drives about like new. This, despite 13 prior winters in Chicago and a lot of undercarriage rust. It's super smooth, has no weird noises or chatters or harshness. This thing lived its first 160k miles in the NW surburbs of chicago driving over potholes and awful pavement. And yet it's as tight as a drum.

The GX will probably be just fine (structurally) until it rusts into dust. The Odyssey will likely never live long enough to rust out as it is just structurally falling apart. It feels like it, anyway.

 

[50yr Street Mech]

Yes, You do have a point. Honda got too big for it's britches. And it bit them in the coolie.

 

[Pablo]

Buying new is always best, but always always includes caveats.

1st GATE: Must pay cash, or get 0-1% financing on at most half the balance.
2nd GATE: Must get an exceptional deal

 

[50yr Street Mech]

Private used. No gates

 

[Pablo]

Private used. No gates

Yes gates

Gate 1. Don't finance
Gate 2. Make absolute sure it doesn't have any issues and even then, it will have issues so set aside cash and be ready to change out that leaky transmission cooler.
Gate 3. Don't over pay
Gate 4. Only buy from someone you general trust and know.

There are always gates. But yeah for our kids we got good deals from grandma, future MILs, etc. For us now, just buy new and enjoy.

 

[50yr Street Mech]

Enjoy the new cars Pablo

 

[Pablo]

Enjoy the new cars Pablo

Yeah until year 8 -10! Seems like those are about our boredom wear out limits. But still sell them for way too much money.

 

[JHZR2]

My point was, the average car buyer doesn't keep a vehicle past (or in many cases, ever get to) 100k as they rotate vehicles like they do iPhones. I wasn't talking about a vehicle's capabilities of being reliable past 100k. My MDX will hit 100k this month and I have no plans of getting rid of it anytime soon.

But that was always the case. Whether by planned obsolescence, poor quality, or just the fact that things get old, creaky, broken, and repairs cost more than a car payment so folks start to look at it that way too.

Nothing new there. Not everyone gets pride in taking their vehicles long distances.

 

[JHZR2]

This is because there are many ways a vehicle can degrade and many of those cannot be prevented with "maintenance."

My trusty 2005 Odyssey just took us on a family road trip up to WI. It might be the last such family vacation we take, given one of my kids is in college and the other getting ready for it.

The van rolled 220k miles. Not particularly high mileage, but it's age, not mileage, that can can you. Twenty winters of driving in salt means it has rust. Twenty years of short trips in town (errand running) mean the transmission is near its end (even with regular fluid changes more frequently than Honda recommends).

Honda uses a "subframe" on this generation of vans, and it's isolated from the main body. But what happens when these isolators break down? The ride quality of the van is pretty terrible now, even with fresh new KYBs and soft-riding Nokian tires. It feels "old." There's a clockspring like noise from the steering column every time you turn it. The HVAC makes a chattering sound like it's trying to switch vent modes (or adjust the blend door) but can't.

What amount of "maintenance" will prevent such? None that I can tell. The fact that the engine is in good condition and doesn't seem to consume oil at all is ultimately of no consequence if the vehicle it powers is no longer roadworthy.


By contrast, our GX460-- which is 6 years newer--still rides and drives about like new. This, despite 13 prior winters in Chicago and a lot of undercarriage rust. It's super smooth, has no weird noises or chatters or harshness. This thing lived its first 160k miles in the NW surburbs of chicago driving over potholes and awful pavement. And yet it's as tight as a drum.

The GX will probably be just fine (structurally) until it rusts into dust. The Odyssey will likely never live long enough to rust out as it is just structurally falling apart. It feels like it, anyway.

Of course. My point is really that there’s a lot on here that chest thump about a vehicle getting such mileage, who never achieve it. Of course, corrosion and age are major factors.

 

[Hohn]

Of course. My point is really that there’s a lot on here that chest thump about a vehicle getting such mileage, who never achieve it. Of course, corrosion and age are major factors.

Certainly. It does raise the question of whether we're wasting our time making the engine pristine for its trip to the junkyard...

 

[Kurtatron]

I genuinely think if you intend to keep the car 10+ years, buying new is worth the initial cost. Amortizing the cost over 15 years vs buying cheap cars and parts/labor over the same 15 years, I think you can make the case.

Financially, over 15 years the new car owner may spend a small amount more, but enjoyed the time period much more than the other case.

 

[t1snwrbrdr12]

If financing, I don’t see the problem in buying new. Rates are better new. You get a warranty. You get to maintain the car the way you desire and you know its entire history. Used car prices (at dealerships) aren’t very far off new. Given recommendations to change oil every 10k miles or so and other routine maintenance items that are getting stretched so far, I’d prefer new personally. (I’ve never had a new car until my Mazda in 2018, and have since also had a palisade for barely a year and an odyssey now as well).

 

[robertcope]

I can buy a used Range Rover for $15K. If you shop right, you can find one in very nice shape, well maintained, etc. It's a fantastic vehicle. I can put a lot of money into it to make it right before I ever approach what it would cost to have purchased almost any decent new vehicle, much less a new Range Rover.

That's my simple math, anyhow. It's worked so far for me. I love depreciated sports cars and luxury vehicles, I guess.

 

[SC Maintenance]

No idea what you’re talking about.

We have two Hondas that are just below and just above 100k. Both are like new. A set of tires on each, a few suspension parts and brake pads, one timing belt job. So what? I knew about the tb when I bought the van new 100k ago.

Vehicles definitely used to be shot at 75-100k. If not shot then corroded. Unless they were some of the greats, like Mercedes diesels, some Toyota/honda vehicles, some police duty vehicles.

For all the commentary on here about how folks are going to maintain their cars to last 300-400k miles, very few do. Very few ever did, and those that did saw mostly highway miles or similar service.

Yes I agree. People that commute want something a bit newer. The penalty for not making it to work isn't worth the risk to them.

I got my Xterra to 400K mostly driving long miles for work. I don't go as far anymore and will take me likely another 8 years or so to get my Fronty that far. It won't happen. I'll keep it as the +1 and buy something else eventually - maybe sooner than later. My wife's car just turned 6. It has 46,000 on it. Sits in the garage mostly. Looks pretty much new!

 

[MCompact]

Yeah until year 8 -10! Seems like those are about our boredom wear out limits. But still sell them for way too much money.

Exactly; after 7-8 years I'm almost ready for something different. Exceptions would be my 1999 Wrangler (21 years) and my Club Sport (30 years and counting). That said, I have no plans to trade the JLU or the C43.

 

[MCompact]

I can buy a used Range Rover for $15K. If you shop right, you can find one in very nice shape, well maintained, etc. It's a fantastic vehicle. I can put a lot of money into it to make it right before I ever approach what it would cost to have purchased almost any decent new vehicle, much less a new Range Rover.

That's my simple math, anyhow. It's worked so far for me. I love depreciated sports cars and luxury vehicles, I guess.

That's my strategy as well; depreciation is my friend.

 

[Skippy722]

In the case of our van, it made way more sense. New ones were 25k+, got a 2 year old used one with 40k miles for 18.5k out the door that came with a 100k Chrysler powertrain warranty (CPO) that I never needed.

My truck? I specifically wanted a 4th gen Ram 1500 Tradesman (no tech!!!!), used ones were beat to heck being they’re basically work trucks. Everything else either had all the extra crap I don’t want for $35k+ with 50k miles or more. So I got a new one for $35,000.

 

[nobb]

I can buy a used Range Rover for $15K. If you shop right, you can find one in very nice shape, well maintained, etc. It's a fantastic vehicle. I can put a lot of money into it to make it right before I ever approach what it would cost to have purchased almost any decent new vehicle, much less a new Range Rover.

That's my simple math, anyhow. It's worked so far for me. I love depreciated sports cars and luxury vehicles, I guess.

I would love a Tacoma or 4Runner, but it's hard to justify when a newer and lower mileage Range/Land Rover can be had for the same price. I understand there's a big difference in reliability, but with the savings you can get quite a bit of repairs/maintenance done. Not to mention that I can do most maintenance work myself. The only concern is those vehicle get terrible fuel economy AND they take premium.

 

[John105]

My coworker just got a ‘18 Pilot with 80k. This is what he said. Sick and tired of leasing, payment keeps growing. Now he has a payment same as his prior lease, but will own the car. Did not ask term and payment, but that’s his logic. So used imho makes sense here. To me, the flexibility of not having to get yet another brand new car 3 years after the last, is like the boat leaving the harbor for the ocean. One day not having a payment is freedom.

 

[Tdbo]

I generally buy new and drive them in the ground.
I prefer to make my own used cars.
For the grade of vehicles that I generally drive, it doesn't make sense to buy used.
I tend to buy new at the end of the model year, take the incentives, factor in the depreciation, and hunt the deal.
I'll throw out a couple of examples: In 2000, I bought a new Ford Taurus, Paid $17,100 for it.
Same vehicle on the used lot with 16K on it best price was $15,900.
For $1,200, the wear on tires, brakes, and loss of factory warranty was not worth it.
On some foreign marques, it really doesn't make sense unless you go five years out.
On the Accord in my signature, I bought it new for $19,300.
The lone '12 Accord that I could find that was a clone of mine (down to the color) and 12K miles was $19,100.
I think the rationale in that case is obvious.