Prev: {BS} I onluy had a couple courses in Economics...
Next: Toyota's massive recall woes halt production, ding topquality rep
From: clare on 28 Jan 2010 23:23
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:08:11 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:54:01 -0500, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:31 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodeleted(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That goes against your argument about depreciation. Best to get the
>>>car that depreciates most, all else being equal. Unless you're biased
>>>of course. Then you get into a situation that happens with Toyota or
>>>Honda, where you sometimes see 1 or 2 year old used cars selling near
>>>new car prices.
>>>Then Mike is right about buying new.
>>>But his other arguments just show he doesn't know how to select a good
>>>used car. I can easily find a GM car for $2500-4000 that's good for
>>>100k miles. Here it'll rust out before I add that many miles to it
>>>anyway. Might put a few hundred bucks in it up front to fix some
>>>minor items, then maintenance expense is chump change.
>>>Done it more than once. 5-8 years old is the sweet spot.
>>>Had my '90 Corsica since '98 and my '97 Lumina since '02.
>>>Each cost me $2500 from private owners. Put about 50k miles on each.
>>>Doesn't take a mathematician to see how much money I could put in my
>>>bank account. Add a couple other $2500 Corsicas and a $3500 Grand Am
>>>I bought for my kids as their first cars.
>>>Pretty easy to see how a car was maintained, though you don't know
>>>everything. If you have good ear and feel for how a car should run,
>>>all it takes is drive a and a look-see in the engine compartment.
>>>I've stuck with 2.0/2.2 and 2.8/3.1 series engines since I dropped the
>>>350's, so I know them well. Never been hit by a big expense.
>>>Might be some luck there. Even new cars sometimes turn out bad.
>>>But some people only want a new car. I can understand that.
>>>I like that. I like that a lot. And I like even better the high
>>>depreciation of GM cars. That's how I could retire at 59 1/2.
>>>Different strokes, but 4-stroke is best. With pushrods.
>>>
>>>--Vic
>>A $2500 midsized GM or a $5000 Chrysler or Ford of the same age (aprox
>>5 years) shows the "value" of the vehicles. My Fords and Chryslers
>>outlast my GMs by enough that I don't bother with GMs any more.
>
>"Value" is subjective with cars, not much different than clothes.
>How much cost does that little gator logo add to a shirt?
>Is that "value?"
>Wonder how much the Toyota shutdown is affecting Toyota resale value
>already. And it's got nothing to do with "reality." Perception
>becomes reality.
>If your comment about Ford/Chrysler vs GM is meant to suggest that
>it's better to pay $5000 for a used Chrysler/Ford than $2500 for an
>equivalent age/condition GM, it only indicates your perception of
>reality, not mine.
>If I can pay $2500 vs $5000 and get the same reliability/cost, I chose
>the $2500 reality.

Hey, I agree with you 100% - but the reality for me has been I don't
GET the same reliability. Nor has anyone in my family, or many of my
friends. If you buy NEW vehicles and keep them 5 years, GM is mabee
as good as Ford or Chrysler. In some ways mabee even better. But
buying 5 year old vehicles I've not found that to be true. The cost of
operation for the second and third five year period is higher.
Significantly. And Cadilac? Don't even get me started.

Some of the Chrysler and Ford stuff is a bit harder to work on than
some of the GM stuff, perhaps, but some of the GM stuff is also harder
to work on than some of the other Ford or Chryco stuff - so that all
boils down to what you buy. My Mystique and PT are both miserable to
work on. My aerostars were too - but absolutely no worse than that
dang TransSport!!! And I don't need to work on them as often.

They are all harder to work on than my Corolla and Tercel were - and I
DO need to do more work on them than I did on the Toys - but not
enough difference for me to pay the premium for the used Toy or Honda
at this stage in my life.. I will, however, pay a premium NOT to have
to work on a GM....
Just my preference, from MY experience.

The best car I've owned, cost and repairs per mile, in the last 25
years has been the old 1988 New Yorker I sold back in '06.

Total cost of ownership, not counting oil, gas, insurance, licence and
tires, was less than $500 per year over the 12 years I owned it.
And it always looked good and rode well - right to the end.



(and I've been a licenced mechanic since age 19 in 1971)

>With the recent busting of financial balloons and debt, I suspect
>*all* used car prices to escalate.
>
>>At $10,000 for Honda, Toyota etc for the same age, I'll put up with
>>Chrysler and Ford - although I'd rather drive some of the Honda and
>>Toyota offerings.
>
>No accounting for tastes, so you should drive what you want to drive.
>Personally, if a car is reliable, quiet on the highway, and decent on
>gas, I'm okay with it. I'm not into logos, and I laugh at commercials
>showing cars on mountain roads, not another car in sight, and just
>music playing while the beautiful chick in the passenger seat smiles
>at you as she touches the rich Corinthian leather with one hand and
>your crotch with the other.
>Somehow, my driving experience never works out like that.
>Well, not for about 30 years anyway.
>
>>Money talks, and I do most of my own servicing and repairs.
>>The less required the better,ut at least the little stuff doesn't kill
>>me financially.
>>
>>On my GM there was no such thing as "little stuff" Didn't have a LOT
>>of trouble, but it was all the more major stuff.
>>
>>My only NEW vehicle gave me more grief than any two used cars I've
>>owned, except the GM.
>
>My luck is better. Always small stuff. Going way back, my '76
>Caprice needed trans work, which cost me maybe 6 bills, but I only
>paid 9 bills for the car and drove it for years. Great road car.
>I do my own maintenance/repairs (actually now I mostly watch my
>wrencher kid do it) but when I was working and commuting I used a good
>mech who wasn't cheap, but fair. Still didn't spend much on fixes.
>In the last 40 years of the wife and I commuting while driving cheap
>Chevys we had 2 tows. Ignition switch failed on '90 Corsica and the
>ECU on my '88 Celebrity. Even including the tows, it didn't add to
>500 bucks total for both fixes.
>I probably could get the same reliability with a Ford or Chryco if I
>got into them enough to know the right engine/trans combos and the
>quirks, but I figure concentrating on knowing one make very well has
>worked out fine. Gives me a big edge.
>Buying cheap cars only works if you know what you're doing.
>If I had no interest in wrenching at all, I'd just buy a new Corolla.
>No thinking about it, and cheaper in the long run.
>When somebody who has no knowledge or interest in the mechanics of
>cars asks me for car buying advice, but money is tight, I won't
>recommend any used car. Too much like a box of chocolates.
>Get a new Corolla. No surprises.
>
>--Vic
>
>

From: Vic Smith on 29 Jan 2010 00:52
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:23:02 -0500, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:


>
>Hey, I agree with you 100% - but the reality for me has been I don't
>GET the same reliability. Nor has anyone in my family, or many of my
>friends. If you buy NEW vehicles and keep them 5 years, GM is mabee
>as good as Ford or Chrysler. In some ways mabee even better. But
>buying 5 year old vehicles I've not found that to be true. The cost of
>operation for the second and third five year period is higher.
>Significantly. And Cadilac? Don't even get me started.
>

You have to talk specific cars. Saying GM, Chrysler, Ford don't do it.
Lots of variation. You couldn't give me a Cadillac.
My son takes care of his gal's 1990-something Caddy - think it's a
Deville. He's done some work on it, and his main complaint is the
parts cost. But he loves wrenching.
I stick with Chevys, though I also have a '93 Grand Am in my garage.
Going to dump the '90 Corsica. Still runs good and looks decent, but
I dropped the insurance this month. Just too old, and the headliner
if coming down.
The Grand Am is a much nicer ride. 3500 engine. And I paid $3500 for
it about 7 years ago. Had about 80k miles on it, now at 140k miles.
Bought it for a daughter who was commuting Chicago/Champagne
every weekend while in college. Never did anything but brakes on it,
but it threw a quad 4 driver code on her a couple times, and stalled.
And the A/C gave up.
Then she suddenly graduated, got a job teaching and left the car at my
house saying it wouldn't move off right away when you pressed the gas.
Didn't want it. She already had a Corolla then.
When it warmed up my son saw a puddle of trans fluid under it.
Leaky trans pan gasket, which he replaced. That's why it was giving
her problems - trans fluid was almost off the stick.
A steth pinned down an engine noise to the water pump, and we replaced
that. Unlike the 3.1's had to jack the engine and take off a motor
mount to get at the pump. So it was a 2 hour job versus a 15 minute
job. It sounds real sweet now, but I haven't driven it enough to know
what's in store. Though it hasn't happened to me yet, the quad 4
driver issue isn't resolved.
Free car now anyway.
But I don't know what you mean about GM's "The cost of
operation for the second and third five year period is higher."
Means nothing without talking about a specific car and the specific
repair.
At $2500-3500 for the car, it's already 5-10 years old anyway.
I usually expect to get only another 5-10 years before rust gets it.
Rinse and repeat.

--Vic


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: {BS} I onluy had a couple courses in Economics...
Next: Toyota's massive recall woes halt production, ding topquality rep