Do you really think she'd be better off with a new car and large monthly payments?
I think she'd be better off with a paid off old car (which she could even sell if need be), but that's just me.
Financial graphic comparison of buying a new or used car
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
I think she'd be better off with a paid off old car (which she could even sell if need be), but that's just me.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,216
That isn’t what I said. But yes, of course she’d be better off with a paid off car.
That reminds me of a test drive I took some years ago. The car was a small Mercedes with a turbo (or maybe a supercharger) and an automatic transmission. The roads were a bit slippery that day too. When I tried to do a fast acceleration run there was a lot of roaring but I couldn't tell if that was just turbo/supercharger wind up, automatic transmission downshifting, or actual wheel spin. The acceleration wasn't anything to write home about either.
After a couple of confusing runs I resolved to only look at cars with a manual transmission because that would take out some of the variables.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2024
- Messages
- 599
Not flawed. They were doing their testing in the 90s with cars that had not seen much evolution since the 80s or earlier. Which, if they had ABS, were probably not the best systems available.
The different ABS generations were quite simple - first the number of channels (the first cheaper versions of the real deal had one channel for both rear wheels, meaning if any of the rear wheels locked both were released. Fiat's first ABS in the 80s was called the antiskid, which was smartly using just two channels, diagonally. One monitoring front left and rear right, the other monitoring front right and rear left. If any of the fronts locked, both it and its diagonally opposed rear were unlocked. If any of the rears locked - its diagonally opposed front was released. Helped with stability, and was inexpensive and efficient.
Except - the Italians preferred not to account for the case where you'd do an emergency braking when someone comes in your lane from the opposite direction on a two way road. You jump to the soft shoulder, your two right wheels bite the dust and wheeee... both front right and rear right wheels start to slip, and each one unlocks, errr, its diagonal opposite... SWEET !!!
Then, there was the mechanical modulation. The electronics and algorithms were quite smart from the very beginning. It's just that the modulators would be modulating the brakes (squeeze-release) a few times per second.
1st gen (MBenz & Bosch) was about 2-3 times per second, early 80s.
2nd gen (Bosch 2, Delco) was 4-6 times per second - 80s, early 90s.
3rd gen (Bosch, Teves), was 10-15 times per second. That's when it surpassed humans. Mid 90s to early 2000s.
4rd gen is 15-20. Till 2010-ish
5th gen is around 40 times per second. That's mostly 2010 and up.
Motorcycle & racing ABS systems (when allowed) can go up to 100 times per second.
PS: Speaking of acceleration: The only people who can accelerate better with manual transmissions are automotive journalists, press drivers and factory testers. They all have in common the fact that they don't pay for repairs. A real test sequence with these usually ends up with at least a burnt clutch, not to mention funky driveline adventures.
Given enough power, CVTs accelerate the best, all things considered. It's just that you can't shake the feeling of driving a Cuisinart.
Snowmobile racing had 0-60mph acceleration times in the 2 seconds range in the 80s. Nowadays the record in Canada is I believe 1.1 seconds. They've been all-in on CVTs for decades.
Last edited:
what if sam lost his job?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,216
Sam dies
I generally agree with you, but the meme is flawed in that the comparator starts out with an $80K car. Is Sarah also buying a car that was $80K some years ago, or is she buying a $10K civic with 150K miles on it already?
The thread is flawed from the start.
I lost my job in 2008 (they dumped my whole middle management level). Wife did also. We were the wrong age - easily let go. It was a tumultuous time with 2 small kids. We spent the next few years being ultra conservative and not buying anything. What I should have done is lever up and buy 5 houses.
Of course no scenario warrants buying an $80K car on a note. No disrespect intended to those that want a $80K car and can clearly afford one - less you mistake what I am saying.
I’ve loved and enjoyed my beaters, still do and I love my new truck. I do not care that there’s a loan on it. I make plenty of money.
I’d rather enjoy things and spend it than have a massive portfolio when I’m 90 and crippled. That also goes without saying… future, retirement and savings are fully planned and accounted for.
I’d do it all again. I’d even take out double the amount for an Escalade-V. It doesn’t bother me.
You never know when it’s your time and life’s too short to drive boring cars. If something happens to me the life insurance will pay off the house and all outstanding car loans.
I’d rather enjoy things and spend it than have a massive portfolio when I’m 90 and crippled. That also goes without saying… future, retirement and savings are fully planned and accounted for.
I’d do it all again. I’d even take out double the amount for an Escalade-V. It doesn’t bother me.
You never know when it’s your time and life’s too short to drive boring cars. If something happens to me the life insurance will pay off the house and all outstanding car loans.
^^ This. I have had too many friends die very young. I need to follow this advice more myself.
I get the point but my wife is going to drive the safest, most reliable vehicle I can afford.
I'm inclined to agree, but @GON's example is good food for thought.
The problem I have with it is that it is a case of extremes, much like today's political climate. There's no middle ground anymore. $80K versus $10K, and investment returns that may not be achievable in the long term.
A better example would have been a $40K or $45K new car. But @GON's point is still valid.
Scott
I will say New cars today are grossly inflated compared to 1950 car prices in real dollar terms.
Let's just say a pretty nice car with the "new" OHV V8's were around $25-28K in today's dollars 1955-59. I know a real comparison is tough, but buying the better car, better engine will be over $50K. Sure there are no comparisons in features, but this kind of fuzziness is what humans get all nitty gritty about.
Let's just say a pretty nice car with the "new" OHV V8's were around $25-28K in today's dollars 1955-59. I know a real comparison is tough, but buying the better car, better engine will be over $50K. Sure there are no comparisons in features, but this kind of fuzziness is what humans get all nitty gritty about.
It’s way more than “features”.
A 1956 Chevy/Ford/etc. is a death trap by comparison, with basically zero crash resistance. A modern car, with an impact-resistant structure, airbags, seatbelts, and accident avoidance capabilities like ABS and stability control, is far safer.
So, it’s not about Bluetooth or heated seats, though they’re nice, it’s about a different level of safety.
Take a look at this - 1959 Chevy Impala vs. 2014 Chevy Malibu - while the Malibu is hardly a paragon of modern engineering, it destroys the Impala in an offset frontal collision (the most dangerous, potentially harmful type) despite being lighter.
This ignores the fact that mandates over the last 70 years have dramatically affected the price of vehicles. The Governments hand lays heavy on the auto industry, we are getting the vehicles that many people voted for.
I look at a vehicle as a commodity that I am buying by the mile. For someone with some skills buying used can be the cheaper route. For someone with no aptitude or skills it will require paying someone else to perform repairs and maintenance. There are times when the fixed cost of a lease is cheaper, not for everyone though. Its all about being an informed consumer and playing the long game.
Not sure what language you are speaking but of course features = safety FEATURES.
It's not a fair comparison, these things never are was part of my point. I wrote that!
You guys are making my point, so thanks!
Comparing what any gen can buy with current$ to another gen is silly and a waste of time. But here we are.
Sorry I misunderstood.
Your post said, “features”. That’s ambiguous. Safety features? Or heated seats and sunroof? Leather and Bluetooth are features, too. That’s how the luxury and convenience items are presented - as features.
Similar threads
