70% of Americans.... Hundreds of millions of Americans, but only a few million "new" vehicles sold annually. As a percent almost nobody buys new.
Please help sort my thoughts about buying a new car.
- Thread starter AJB0009
- Start date
In 2021 there were ~58.4 million cars, new and used, sold total. I wouldn’t call ~26% of that “almost nobody.”
Your numbers are deceiving. A lot of those people are too young to drive. It’s not a level comparison. In addition automobiles are a durable item. They can last many years if taken care of and luck follows you.
What happened to Dashboard Light? It appears that the project has been abandoned.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,474
By the way I value cars depreciation is irrelevant, I use my own formula for the life of the car. If I am buying a car that has 100K miles on it, I better be paying far less than half of new because its going to need a bunch of maintenance in the next 100K. Unfortunately right now cars with 100K miles on them are like half of a new car. Why on earth would I not just buy new?
I don't worry about depreciation of my toaster. Why would I for my car if I plan to keep it for its lifetime.
Of course I pay cash and have never traded a car, so there is that.
I don't worry about depreciation of my toaster. Why would I for my car if I plan to keep it for its lifetime.
Of course I pay cash and have never traded a car, so there is that.
I just seen an advertisement on tv showing the Toyota Crown hybrid. It' a very nice hybrid but pricey @ MSRP $39,950. Maybe that vehicle would work for you OP.
As always, within a class of car kept for it's lifespan, it is generally not more than 5c per mile more expensive to drive a well purchased new car, vs used. The same may go for light trucks, but about 7c per mile.
Factors include better fuel economy of new vehicles, no repairs, warranty coverage, expected lifespan, insurance costs, and so on.
People really get hung up on the Capital costs of a vehicle, but often don't consider that not only is used is pro-rated, but the majority of costs MAY NOT BE the vehicle capital costs. Depending on you, where you live and fuel use.
Example: Insurance at $2500/yr/10K miles/yr is 25c per mile!
Example: $30K sedan, 200K lifespan, is 15c per mile!
Interestingly, many new vehicles are less expensive to insure than a quality used car.
Factors include better fuel economy of new vehicles, no repairs, warranty coverage, expected lifespan, insurance costs, and so on.
People really get hung up on the Capital costs of a vehicle, but often don't consider that not only is used is pro-rated, but the majority of costs MAY NOT BE the vehicle capital costs. Depending on you, where you live and fuel use.
Example: Insurance at $2500/yr/10K miles/yr is 25c per mile!
Example: $30K sedan, 200K lifespan, is 15c per mile!
Interestingly, many new vehicles are less expensive to insure than a quality used car.
I primarily buy used because I can buy a significantly more entertaining car for the same amount of money. That said, I bought my Club Sport new in November 1995 and I still have it- so that might appease some of the financial experts in this thread.
Good stuff. Moreover what you buy will impact total operating cost a great deal. Change that sedan to a truck or SUV and the per mile expense on fuel alone just went up considerably.
Ironically if you told someone not buy a used truck because operating costs were higher than cars people people might tell you it’s their money and to mind your business. Yet if it were a new sedan in question then the depreciation police would come out to throttle folks because that cannot be tolerated.
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
I will be a dissenting voice.
I only buy used vehicles, but in today's environment and your situation, I think new is by far a better choice.
Lots of mentions of great vehicles like the Mazda- but because money is an issue, the mass-produced Toyota is the least risk of any of the models listed, will offer more dealerships to price shop, and projected better resale value. Same with parts availability, etc. Mazda may build a funner vehicle, but I doubt it costs less to own or operate over a Toyota. I doubt any IC vehicle is lower to one and operate than a Toyota over a ten-year time frame.
When you run a tight ship with your budget, a new well cared for small vehicle is likely the best course of action. I would not worry about recession, depression, etc. No recession is coming- depression maybe, and if that happens---- everything as we know it will change.
I only buy used vehicles, but in today's environment and your situation, I think new is by far a better choice.
Lots of mentions of great vehicles like the Mazda- but because money is an issue, the mass-produced Toyota is the least risk of any of the models listed, will offer more dealerships to price shop, and projected better resale value. Same with parts availability, etc. Mazda may build a funner vehicle, but I doubt it costs less to own or operate over a Toyota. I doubt any IC vehicle is lower to one and operate than a Toyota over a ten-year time frame.
When you run a tight ship with your budget, a new well cared for small vehicle is likely the best course of action. I would not worry about recession, depression, etc. No recession is coming- depression maybe, and if that happens---- everything as we know it will change.
Subaru and the head gasket problems were fixed 10 years ago, along with switching to timing chains. They've had a pretty good track record since then.
The earlier Crosstek's with the 2.0 H4 had some issues, and were low on power. They're now using the tired and true 2.5 H4. The CVT is well sorted by now as well. I never wanted a CVT, but the one in our Outback is pretty nice, no complaints.
Their front lower control arm design does have a lot to be desired though. At least in Outbacks be prepared to change them every 70-100K. Mine is clunking, just need to get it in since it's under warranty.
Thanks, I've only shopped the used market, and at the price I'm willing to spend, it's all belts and HG's territory. Well that and rust holes.
Problem with that is, every OEM is different. IIRC Mazda was early with DI, and didn't have these issues. VW, BMW others sure did; not sure that Ford had as bad as others, but then it might have been engine specific. Point is, it's very engine specific, if it will (or won't) have problems. And every year, R&D is put into the problem, and what was true in the past isn't necessarily true of future engines.
Plus there has been a bit of a move towards having both DI and PFI, for the advantages of both. The OEM's will say it's about low speed drivability, but those of us with tin foil believe it's due to trying to stave off this issue.
Lastly, it does have to be asked: let's say you have to pull the intake every 100k and walnut blast the valves. If it was on the service schedule, and cost less than a timing belt job... and resulted in an engine with significantly more mpg & power... would it be a worthwhile compromise? What if you wanted a performance car, and this had to be done every 30k? still so bad? FOR ME, who buys boring economy cars, yeah it'd be a major uproar, but I get it, not everyone wants to drive what I drive (and it's not that I actually DESIRE to drive what I have, it's just that I buy what fits my needs & budget).
Plus when you buy used you are taking a chance. Some people are good at inspecting a used vehicle and can find trouble. Most are not. It’s almost a lottery game these days.
After 2012 is a safer bet, except for the first couple years of the introduction of the CVT. Rust around the wheel wells are standard though, lol.
Correct, that's what I did. I purchased a Used 2017 28K miles, Jaguar F-Type S. Paid $40K, MSRP $95K. I was also willing to tolerate the fender replacement. They documented the before and after and it was clearly not substantial damage. Used cars are much more likely to have been damaged.
And you just made me think of something else. Depending on goals, properly purchasing a "robust, capable and comfortable" used vehicle (the Crown Vic used to be a good example) is more likely to provide a long service life than a new Elantra of the same price. Not to mention the safety of a bigger vehicle.
Yeah, I'm going to avoid CVT for now, the bugs are almost worked out--but not for the models I'd be shopping.
I do need (ok "want") a vehicle with side impact airbags, that puts a crimp into my shopping, as wasn't standard equipment 15 years ago or so. But less than 20 years means I have to pass emissions every year... but 20 years old means it's a rot box... so not a lot of choices. I'm too demanding I guess.
In fairness based on the subject line and opening statements the financials seem open to discussion.
