Things are worse than I thought...

[Kestas]

It's amazing how much money you can save if you fight that new car fever and fight the ennui of driving your old car. People sell their old car usually because they tire of it, not because it doesn't serve them well. My newest car in the stable is 13 years old.

 

[Whimsey]

While I do by my vehicles new I hold on to them for 10 years plus. I like knowing that the vehicle has been maintained properly from day 1. My 1996 Contour was ordered in Oct 1995 and delivered Dec 1995. It will be 13 years old this December. It still looks new and runs great. And I enjoy driving it very much. I have maintained it better than the owner's manual requirements, which seem to be few

.

I had a 1989 F-150 for 13 years, gave it to my BIL because he needed a truck. The replacement 2002 F-150, bought in Dec 2001, is running great and looks great also. It's well on it's way to be a longterm keeper.

I hate shopping for new vehicles, so keeping them longterm makes me happy

.

Whimsey

 

[Ed_T]

If you trade the MS6 for the Ford you will want it back in short order.

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Oh believe me..I have no problem keeping this car. It's a dream to drive. I just mistakenly thought that now would be an opportune time to 1) Lower my payment and 2) Help out GM as much as I can. It was just a real eye-opening experience. This is the 17th car I've owned since 1986 and this is the first time I've been unable to get NADA or very close to NADA for one of my vehicles. Things are bad indeed.


Help GM out? Sit down because I have some really emotionally upsetting news for you: GM don't give a rat's @ss about you.

17 cars since 1986? I would suggest you see a financial planner fast...I suspect you have lost or burned through over $100,000 flipping cars, being upside down and wanting to trade up...do you have a wife and kids?

 

[ViragoBry]

No wife, no kids.

$100,000? Hardly. Only 6 of them have been brand new cars. 3 were cash vehicles that were sold for more than I paid for them. 1 was an early lease return that I broke even on and one was totalled in a theft, from which I profited nearly $1000.

I traded / sold often, but not at the huge losses you're speculating.

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
another Catch-22; car companies have to make quality vehicles to be able to sell them. people buy quality vehicles and keep them a long time. car companies can't sell more cars.
related: car companies make expensive cars w/ higher profit. customers have to finance them for longer period to be able to 'afford' payments. now, car company only has customer coming back every 6-8 yrs for a new car instead of 2-3 yrs.
in the interest of full disclosure: my '04 VUE just passed 60K, good car, no reason to get rid of it except I like new shiny things. very reliable, economical. my other car, '96 MPV, is nickle and diming me big time. but I can't afford a modern replacement (like an outlook/acadia, or CX-9) so I'm stuck keeping it running.


That is wrong thinking, and your explanation only applies if everyone buys a new car the same day and year.

If a company wants to sell the most cars, they will do the opposite of what you write. They will make a very high quality car that will last many years. In this way the consumer is more likely to buy the same brand again (customer loyalty), and everyone buys a new car at different times, so a quality car maker will have strong sells every business hour of the day, 365 days/year.

And why would a customer keep buying a particular brand every 2-4 years if that brand has low quality and short life time? So you see your explanation does not make sense.

Oh wait! Your explanation does make sense! You know why? Because there are always idiots that will continue to buy certain American models REGARDLESS of how sub par those models are...stupid me...I forgot to factor in the idiot American buyer...not all of them, just most of them.

The smart ones generally buy Japanese and I dare say even Korean makes...it's a sad time to want to buy American....no good choices, to be sure....but to be fair, there are some (a small group) of American cars worth buying...the Ford Focus is one of them...

 

[lovcom]

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
No wife, no kids.

$100,000? Hardly. Only 6 of them have been brand new cars. 3 were cash vehicles that were sold for more than I paid for them. 1 was an early lease return that I broke even on and one was totalled in a theft, from which I profited nearly $1000.

I traded / sold often, but not at the huge losses you're speculating.



Then I suspect your situation is the exception and not the rule. Still, 17 cars in such a short time?

 

[ViragoBry]

I guess you could call me 'automotively fickle' and I'm an excellent haggler. It helps a lot that I've never put myself in a situation where I NEEDED to buy a new / different car. That helps the salesmans' attitudes a lot.

If my time, effort and monetary investment in my car isn't appreciated when it's time to sell, I walk...much like I did last weekend. There's no way in h*ll I'd sell my Mazdaspeed 6 for $14,000. So, they can keep their Astra....they're apparently accustomed to not selling cars.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
I guess you could call me 'automotively fickle' and I'm an excellent haggler.


Sounds like a good hobby to me.

 

[PandaBear]

So, you are trying to lower payment and not wasting a car sitting around, by trading it in for a newer car?

 

[bretfraz]

Average wholesale book (Black Book, not that out-of-touch rag Blue Book) on that Speed6 is mid $16's. $14's is rough book so you're being low balled a bit but not by a lot.

$21K is full on extra clean book and no dealer in the world will give you that money on a trade.

The wholesale car market has tanked just as the retail side has. Since cars are not selling well at retail, dealers are not going to take a chance they'll lose money on wholesaling a trade, so they're lowballing everyone to C their A.

The days of buying a hot car at a good price, driving it for a year or so then flipping it for a profit or break even are over. I can find 2 yr old Infiniti M45's for low $20's, sticker was $58,000 barely 24 months ago. That's a 63% depreciation rate within that time frame. Lots and lots of car values are dropping like a rock.

 

[ViragoBry]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So, you are trying to lower payment and not wasting a car sitting around, by trading it in for a newer car?


Whatever car I own will spend most of its time in the garage. That remains a constant because I ride the bike everywhere I can.

Given the 'sitting in the garage' as a constant, wouldn't it be better to pay $100 less every month for it? That's all I was trying to accomplish. "New" wasn't what I was seeking....'cheaper' was the goal. Insurance would likely go down as well due to dropping from 274hp to 138hp and getting rid of the turbo.

Since I wasn't given the opportunity, I'm fine with leaving my current car sitting. It's fast, good-looking and practically new with a big warranty. A lower payment would've been nice, but it isn't breaking my back.

 

[OVERKILL]

Buy a Cobra

Everybody loves Termi's!!!

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So, you are trying to lower payment and not wasting a car sitting around, by trading it in for a newer car?


Whatever car I own will spend most of its time in the garage. That remains a constant because I ride the bike everywhere I can.

Given the 'sitting in the garage' as a constant, wouldn't it be better to pay $100 less every month for it? That's all I was trying to accomplish. "New" wasn't what I was seeking....'cheaper' was the goal. Insurance would likely go down as well due to dropping from 274hp to 138hp and getting rid of the turbo.

Since I wasn't given the opportunity, I'm fine with leaving my current car sitting. It's fast, good-looking and practically new with a big warranty. A lower payment would've been nice, but it isn't breaking my back.



Then what you should do is sell the car and buy a 10 year old beater.

 

[Bamaro]

The common element between those with a profit and those without is the UAW contract. If Detroit could somehow operate under the same conditions as the others, they would have enough funds to innovate, modernize and improve quality to the point that they could actually increase sales and make a profit. They are caught in a downward spiral caused by years and years of previous contract negotiations.

 

[Tornado Red]

Originally Posted By: Bamaro
The common element between those with a profit and those without is the UAW contract. If Detroit could somehow operate under the same conditions as the others, they would have enough funds to innovate, modernize and improve quality to the point that they could actually increase sales and make a profit. They are caught in a downward spiral caused by years and years of previous contract negotiations.

That is part of it. But more importantly, IMO, is how Detroit has tried to compete in the past: it sought to cheapen its cars so they could be sold for the same prices as their competition. Honda and Toyota worked to improve quality, Ford and GM and Chrysler kept cutting corners here, there, and everywhere, trying to make up for their higher labor costs.

So instead of charging $2000 more than the competition, they tried to cut $2000 out of the engineering and design and quality. That is how GM ended up with the Cavalier and other [censored] fleet vehicles. It was a choice, and now it looks like a bad choice.

Consumers have so many choices today -- once they decide that they will never again buy a car from GM or Ford or Chrysler, they really don't have to. And some folks, at least, do not have to experience the poor quality for themselves -- they can learn from the mistakes made by their friends, family members, co-workers, and from what they read.

If the quality was there, if the reputation was good, then loans to the Detroit automakers would be almost a no-brainer. Instead, the bailout proposal has been chopped in half and will still most likely be voted down. If it actually passes, it will be because the Democrats owe favors to the UAW. But I see at least a few Democratic senators lining up against the bailout. The president may be ready to sign a bill, but he is not that enthused about it and will not lobby hard for passage.