Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations

andres3 · September 2016

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
Someone said how about enacting speed limits based on what the road was designed for; be careful what you wish for. Many engineers would agree our Interstates were designed to easily handle 100 MPH traffic. Now when traffic gets too heavy 100 MPH is obviously unrealistic, but that doesn't change the fact the road can support 100 MPH when not too many people are on it.
Actually the interstates, with few exceptions, were designed for 80MPH.

You mean 80 MPH for big rigs/semi-trucks. 100 MPH being the exception for basically most modern passenger automobiles. Of course, most people would like to see differential speed limits abolished. My fear is that they will pick the lower limit rather than the higher one as you seem to be doing.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2016

I'd say that 95% of Americans are not competent enough to drive at 100 mph, and that 95% of Americans think they are.

andres3 · September 2016

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well with no speed limits you could end up with fewer accidents but more deaths. It goes without saying that people are more likely to die in a 100 mph collision than in a 55 mph collision. I think actual Autobahn statistics would back this up.

I don't think your average American driver has the competence to drive much beyond 85 mph, nor are many "beaters" on the road safe to drive at those speeds. In Germany, they don't allow the piles of crap on the road that we do.

there have been multiple studies that support that increase speeds increase your likelihood of being in a fatal accident. Some suggest that it increases by as much as 5% per 1 MPH increase.

When you hit something going 100 MPH you are hitting it with 3.3 times as much force as you would at 55 MPH. Not to mention that going faster makes it harder to maneuver the car, brake or if something happens it is harder to maintain control. run over a 4X4 at 80 MPH and you will find out.

The one fact that people like Andres like to omit from statements about the worst performing states having never increased their speed limits is that 1.) the worse performing states are usually the most congested states and congestion is another factor that increases risk of accidents and 2.) the states that did raise their limits did see an increase in accidents.

Where are those studies that link increased speed to increased fatality rates? I'd like to see even just one. Doesn't seem plausible when fatality rates per mile traveled have pretty much gone down significantly every year since the abolition of the 55 federal maximum speed law (take '95-'14) as an example.

Regarding your point number two about facts omitted - Yes there are States where limits were raised that did see an increase in accidents, but those were not isolated or shown to be from areas where the limits were raised, and furthermore, those States still show better performance than States that chose not to raise their speed limits (less of an increase in accident rates is still a positive result as compared to peer States). Lastly, the congestion you speak of could be a direct result of the enforcement of those extra low arbitrary speed limits. Raise the speed limits; lower congestion; lower accident and fatality rates. How much is attributable to less congestion vs increased speeds; hard to say, but a positive result would still be positive. Certainly better than what were doing now.

nyccarguy · September 2016

Mr_Shiftright said:
I'd say that 95% of Americans are not competent enough to drive at 100 mph, and that 95% of Americans think they are.

Well Said! And there are a large percentage of cars on the road that would be unsafe to operate at that speed. "Who cares if the cords are showing on our Explorer's Tires? The lease is up in 2 months, I'm not going to waste money on a car that's not mine. Ford is just happy to get the car back and that I'm going to lease another one from them."

oldfarmer50 · September 2016

A while back I mentioned that I might have a car purchase story "to be continued". Well, it continued alright...into a frustrating mess.

My first selection was a 2005 LaSabre Limited 53k miles. $4600. Nice car, roof, leather etc. saw it and made an offer that was accepted. Then the fun began. The car was titled in Florida in the deceased husband's name. Normally, in New York the law says that ownership transfers automatically to the spouse. But this is NY State and nothing is ever simple. Seems that NY considers a Florida title some sort of bogus document and requires a complete probate procedure with named executor and testamentary letters. Since this estate never went to probate it would have cost the 92 yo widow thousands. Her son tried to get me to accept various alternate solutions but none of them would fly with the DMV gate keepers. When he started to suggest things that I wasn't even sure we're legal I bowed out. Big disappointment since I really liked the car.

Second choice turned out to be one block over from my mechanic. 2001 LaSabre Custom 43k miles. $3000. Lower trim level but the milage was attractive. Called the number listed. No callback. Emailed. No response. Called again. No callback. Frustrating but this is Craigslist so I guess the flakes aren't just buyers. Anyway, the ad is still up there so who knows. I won't hold my breath.

The search for the cheap, low-mile unicorn continues. Stay tune.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2016

According to the Slate report, while speed limit increases do not necessarily increase the number of car accidents, higher speeds mean greater impacts during crashes, causing more fatalities and more severe injuries. Statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicate speed does play a factor in increasing the likelihood of fatal traffic accidents. Of the more than 32,000 car accident fatalities in a recent year, over 70 percent occurred on major roads and highways with higher speed limits. In terms of motor vehicle deaths in which speed was a contributing factor, more than half of the drivers were traveling at speeds of 55 miles per hour or greater at the time a crash occurred.

Read more: http://www.scottgottlieblaw.com/2016/05/increased-speed-limits-also-mean-increased-fatalities/#ixzz4K9zTkkEu

andres3 · September 2016

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well with no speed limits you could end up with fewer accidents but more deaths. It goes without saying that people are more likely to die in a 100 mph collision than in a 55 mph collision. I think actual Autobahn statistics would back this up.

I don't think your average American driver has the competence to drive much beyond 85 mph, nor are many "beaters" on the road safe to drive at those speeds. In Germany, they don't allow the piles of crap on the road that we do.

there have been multiple studies that support that increase speeds increase your likelihood of being in a fatal accident. Some suggest that it increases by as much as 5% per 1 MPH increase.

Man, if that 5% per 1 MPH holds any credibility, we all ought to vote immediately on reducing speed limits to Beijing's 7.5 MPH average travel speed. Their fatality rates must be non-existent then since their average travel speed is so slow. I imagine on average that would lower speed limits by nearly 60 MPH on our highways. That should be a solid 300% decrease in fatalities based on your figures and numbers. Why aren't we voting to do this today?

Mr_Shiftright · September 2016

On the Greek island of Hydra, no cars are allowed, and yes, fatalities from car crashes have dropped significantly

andres3 · September 2016

stever said:
I'm curious to see what happens when autonomous cars (that presumably will drive the speed limit) hit the roads in significant numbers. Might make it easier to speed in the left lane, but you may occasionally wind up behind longish car trains on the two lanes.

Gonna be a tough choice - "drive" and get there 5 minutes faster or "ride" and do something fun and immersive, like playing pinball on the iPad.

If autonomous cars are properly programmed to yield the left lane to faster cars (or a headlight flash), I'm now in the all-for-it camp. Would be fun to drive around flashing autonomous cars over to the right

stever · September 2016

andres3 said:
Where are those studies that link increased speed to increased fatality rates? I'd like to see even just one.

"During 1993-2013, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 4 percent increase on other roads." (IIHS)

I'll leave it to you to skim the footnotes.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2016

Any so-called "autonomous" cars that you are likely to see in the next 10-20 years will still be under proximate control of a human driver, so you may expect the same behaviors you see now, to prevail. Only when "smart roads" are built, would you be likely to notice machine intelligence on the highways.

andres3 · September 2016

Mr_Shiftright said:
According to the Slate report, while speed limit increases do not necessarily increase the number of car accidents, higher speeds mean greater impacts during crashes, causing more fatalities and more severe injuries. Statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicate speed does play a factor in increasing the likelihood of fatal traffic accidents. Of the more than 32,000 car accident fatalities in a recent year, over 70 percent occurred on major roads and highways with higher speed limits. In terms of motor vehicle deaths in which speed was a contributing factor, more than half of the drivers were traveling at speeds of 55 miles per hour or greater at the time a crash occurred.

Read more: http://www.scottgottlieblaw.com/2016/05/increased-speed-limits-also-mean-increased-fatalities/#ixzz4K9zTkkEu

I particularly like this paragraph from your cited link:

Statistics from several states which implemented higher speed limits seem to back up these notions (...my viewpoint...). A five-year study conducted in California concluded that higher speed limits in the state did not result in increases in car accidents, while here in New York, the 1995 speed limit increase to 65 miles per hour for highway traffic actually resulted in a 4 percent decrease in the state’s overall crash rate.

stever · September 2016

What happened to the injury and fatality rates?

stickguy · September 2016

Farmer, if I was them, I would just sign his name and reregister it. In jersey, they never check. I sign the title, and new owner takes it to DMV, where they have no way to validate my signature. I doubt NY is much better.

Now, no way you should, but if the wife or son did, and got it valid in their names, much easier for them to sell.

andres3 · September 2016

stever said:

andres3 said:
Where are those studies that link increased speed to increased fatality rates? I'd like to see even just one.
"During 1993-2013, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 4 percent increase on other roads." (IIHS)

I'll leave it to you to skim the footnotes.

I've already discredited the IIHS as a biased insurance scam artist accomplice. I'll just leave it at that. When you look at the definition of the word "rate" if it isn't tied to vehicle miles traveled then they are likely just talking about numbers out of context. Also, how do you attribute 4% on other roads to the high interstate speed limit? Sounds like a lot of hot air comes out of the IIHS.

sda · September 2016

nyccarguy said:

fintail said:
No car payments is a good thing, if you like the car/cars. Sometimes, life is too short

For many cars, if one wants to buy new but isn't going to keep it for maybe 6-7 years or more, I suspect leasing is cheaper, especially if one knows how to negotiate even just a little.

This is the internal battle going on within me on a daily basis.

X2! My wife has been the stabilizing force lately. I should be thankful, yet..

stickguy · September 2016

Farmer, want a wagon? Anytime I see something domestic below $3k, and well under 100k miles, I think of you.

http://www.royaleasing.com/detail-2002-ford-taurus-4dr_wagon_se_standard-used-15486023.html

sda · September 2016

Mom claims that I got the 'car bone' from her dad. He loved cars and typically bought a new Buick every 2-3 years. A funny story that she has shared with me. Her dad came in from work one day with a very long and unhappy face. They feared something horrible had happened. It had! He scraped the whitewall on the curb! Mom said her dad was none too pleased when she drove the Buick a little too fast into the garage and tapped the washer and dryer. Two days later her dad gave her her first car a rusted out green Olds. Unfortunately he passed at an early age of 47 and a year before I was born.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2016

andres3 said:

stever said:

andres3 said:
Where are those studies that link increased speed to increased fatality rates? I'd like to see even just one.
"During 1993-2013, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 4 percent increase on other roads." (IIHS)

I'll leave it to you to skim the footnotes.

I've already discredited the IIHS as a biased insurance scam artist accomplice. I'll just leave it at that. When you look at the definition of the word "rate" if it isn't tied to vehicle miles traveled then they are likely just talking about numbers out of context. Also, how do you attribute 4% on other roads to the high interstate speed limit? Sounds like a lot of hot air comes out of the IIHS.

Perhaps but the IIHS doesn't control the laws of physics. Would you like to hit a tree at 55 mph or 100 mph? I'd guess most people would pick 55, even if those odds aren't too good.

andres3 · September 2016

Mr_Shiftright said:
I'd say that 95% of Americans are not competent enough to drive at 100 mph, and that 95% of Americans think they are.

That's a pretty harsh criticism of 95% of the driving populace of Americans! I think 95% might be an exaggeration similar to half being in a deplorable basket (OK, no politics).

I'm not saying 95% of Americans can go 100 MPH everywhere. I'm talking about out on the open highway, such as between Escondido and Riverside on I15, between Barstow and Baker on I15 going out towards Vegas.

We can and should increase training, education, and enforcement of laws where safety is an element of the crime and a hazard is created.

Leaving a mile of space between cars such as air traffic does is absurd, as cars going 100 MPH isn't anywhere near flight travel speed.

NHTSA has issues too, as they presume and equate drunk driving and speeding to be equal offenses, and often lump them together to make their case that speeding is evil - Example below from their link:

In 2013, almost 3 in 4 (74%) of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes between midnight and 3 a.m. were alcohol-impaired (blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of .08 g/dL or higher) compared to 43 percent of non-speeding drivers.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Aug15_Speeding_2.html

So in other words, at least between midnight and 3 AM they unfairly blame speeding as a cause of death when it was actually drunken driving at least 74% of the time. The two are so unrelated that lumping them together is purely mythical. All they are showing is that drunk drivers tend to speed. That doesn't make speeding bad. They are falsely inflating their numbers, and they do this all the time. Speeding is there default go-to blame game no matter what the real cause of the accident is. For example, if the accident scene shows no braking occurred prior to colliding into the back of a semi-truck parked on the side of the road, does it really matter if they were going 5 over the limit rather than the speed limit? The cause of the accident was failure to yield and brake for an obstacle in front of them, not speeding.

Only if you can show someone was braking for XXX feet, and had they not been speeding they'd of avoided the collision due to shortened braking distance could speeding even BEGIN to be a causal factor in an accident.

Going too fast for conditions is different than speeding, and again, often gets lumped in to drive the agenda forward.

stever · September 2016

That IIHS article is linking to peer reviewed (mostly) studies in professional journals.

So where's your study from the National Institute of Man's God Given Right to Speed Association?

Mr_Shiftright · September 2016

I don't think it is harsh. Road & Track once quizzed top race car drivers and asked them to estimate at what speed, when on public roads, they ceased talking, smoking, or being distracted and applied their racing "focus".

Their Answers Averaged Out: 93 mph.

andres3 · September 2016

ab348 said:

fintail said:
No car payments is a good thing, if you like the car/cars. Sometimes, life is too short

For many cars, if one wants to buy new but isn't going to keep it for maybe 6-7 years or more, I suspect leasing is cheaper, especially if one knows how to negotiate even just a little.
Aside from the Cutlass, I have never kept a car longer than 6 years. This made me think about that history:

'77 LeMans - 4 years
'85 MR2 - 4 years
'90 GTI - 4 years
'64 Skylark - 5 years
'78 Delta 88 - 6 years
'79 Park Avenue - 3 years
'02 Intrigue - 6 years
'09 LaCrosse - 2 years
'11 Regal Turbo - 3 years
'14 ATS - ???

All were owned except the last 2 which were leased. I must take after my dad and like to change cars fairly often.

Interesting mix of cars there.

Seems like you have alternated between old-man cars and fun cars in your time; no offense.

Also, I'm guessing the VW experience caused enough problems that it drove you to Domestic cars in search of cheaper operating costs??? I wonder if your GTI had been flawless if you'd of been a repeat customer.

stever · September 2016

Speaking of speedy drivers and their rides;

A reporter would like to talk with car shoppers who either purchased or considered purchasing a Toyota Prius in the last few months. If you're willing to share your experience, please reach out to us at pr@edmunds.com by no later than Friday, September 16, 2016.

andres3 · September 2016

Another thing the NHTSA is guilty of doing in order to blame speeding regardless of cause:

Most speeding-related fatalities occur in crashes on non-interstate highways. Of those who die in run-off-the-road crashes, consistently more were speeding on curves than not speeding. The greatest proportion of speeding-related fatal crashes occur between midnight and 3 a.m.

To me running off the road on a curve is a driver error and/or mechanical car failure unrelated to speeding (more like driving too fast for conditions). For example, you have either exceeded the car and/or the driver's capabilities for that turn, and that is a driver error unrelated to speeding. That same car with a professional driver could potentially navigate that turn safely at the same exact speed, and vice versa, that same turn could be navigated in my TTS at that speed with almost any driver, while a bus fully loaded during a thunderstorm downpour on bald tires might not regardless of the driver.

thebean · September 2016

Not to be harsh, but does anyone else think all these speed limit posts are a .44 Magnum bullet to the brain pan? If not, then just ignore this post.

andres3 · September 2016

Proof I'm not making this up:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/speed/qanda

What was the effect of the national maximum speed limit of 55 mph?
The National Research Council attributed 4,000 fewer fatalities to the decreased speeds in 1974 compared with 1973 and estimated that returning the speed limits on rural portions of the interstate highway system to pre-1974 levels would result in 500 more fatalities annually, a 20-25 percent increase on these highways. 12

Notice they claim 500 more fatalities without mentioning that vehicle miles traveled went up at a greater ratio than the increase in fatalities. What does that mean? In fact, fatality RATES went down, but you wouldn't know it from reading IIHS's website unless you are educated about this trickery beforehand.

same with the claim about 4,000 fewer fatalities; they don't mention that miles traveled went down in '74.

Bottom line, if they are not using a rate like fatalities per million miles traveled; don't buy it.

murphydog · September 2016

thebean said:
Not to be harsh, but does anyone else think all these speed limit posts are a .44 Magnum bullet to the brain pan? If not, then just ignore this post.

I am with you - agree to disagree and move on.

ab348 · September 2016

andres3 said:

Interesting mix of cars there.

Seems like you have alternated between old-man cars and fun cars in your time; no offense.

Also, I'm guessing the VW experience caused enough problems that it drove you to Domestic cars in search of cheaper operating costs??? I wonder if your GTI had been flawless if you'd of been a repeat customer.

You're right, it has been several phases over the last 30 years. The first three cars were my "young single guy" phase. Fun times. Then I had a fairly major illness around the same time as I lost my dad, and a few years after that decided to buy a house. The illness/dad death led me to the Skylark convertible (and the current Cutlass) as a fun car. The house purchase left me broke for a few years so that led to the Delta and the Park Avenue as cheap wheels (the P.A. was a far nicer car that I coulda/shoulda have put some money into preserving - fortunately the guy I sold it to did that). In the early 2000s I started making some decent money so that led to the Intrigue and Lacrosse (mistake on that one) as workaday cars, before the last two which sort of take me back to my younger days. Being retired now I can drive whatever I want within reason.

The VW was actually a great car, no real issues with it, and I loved driving it. I was living downtown then though and wasn't using it all that much, so I decided to sell it. Wish I still had it.

ab348 · September 2016

thebean said:
Not to be harsh, but does anyone else think all these speed limit posts are a .44 Magnum bullet to the brain pan? If not, then just ignore this post.

Yeah. I thught the past discussion about wristwatches was bad, but this is coming up fast.

andres3 · September 2016

the IIHS is hilariously biased; they actually publish this drivel:

What are radar detectors?
Radar detectors are radio receivers tuned to the frequency range used by police radar guns. Radar detectors are bought and sold for the sole purpose of helping speeders avoid speeding tickets.

As a radar detector owner I can categorically state they are 100% wrong. The detector is an informational device giving a driver greater information about his surroundings (that could and do impact the driving around them), thereby increasing my own personal safety levels.

For example, I will often hear radar (that can't be seen) with the detector, which alerts me to the fact that cars may bunch up and brake in front of me for no other reason than there is a cop ahead. I'm given an early warning system. It is simply another tool and gauge to better inform the driver about their surroundings; a definite safety device.

Some drivers choose to be informed, educated, and welcome devices that give them additional information. Others like the IIHS, prefer drivers remain ignorant, and just stick their heads in the sand, and pay for the speeding ticket.

andres3 · September 2016

Mr_Shiftright said:

andres3 said:

stever said:

andres3 said:
Where are those studies that link increased speed to increased fatality rates? I'd like to see even just one.
"During 1993-2013, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 4 percent increase on other roads." (IIHS)

I'll leave it to you to skim the footnotes.

I've already discredited the IIHS as a biased insurance scam artist accomplice. I'll just leave it at that. When you look at the definition of the word "rate" if it isn't tied to vehicle miles traveled then they are likely just talking about numbers out of context. Also, how do you attribute 4% on other roads to the high interstate speed limit? Sounds like a lot of hot air comes out of the IIHS.
Perhaps but the IIHS doesn't control the laws of physics. Would you like to hit a tree at 55 mph or 100 mph? I'd guess most people would pick 55, even if those odds aren't too good.

A better analogy to pick from:

Would you rather be blindfolded and drive through a space 50' wide with one 3' wide tree somewhere in the path at 100 MPH, or drive through that same 50' wide space with (5) five 3' wide trees somewhere in the path at 55 MPH? Risks and balances...

fintail · September 2016

Isn't IIHS also linked with law enforcement and the crony capitalist photo enforcement industry? Always beware.

andres3 · September 2016

Okay, this will be my last post on speed limits being anti-safety the way they currently are set since many are tiring of reading about it, but @stever did ask for some links to actual studies.

1) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp (US Dept. of Transportation Study confirms Speed not a significant Causal factor in collisions).

2) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp (Purdue Univ. Study - Higher Interstate Speed Limits are Safe)

There are prominent links within the links above to the actual study (both from 2008 coincidentally).

Meanwhile, IIHS says things like stopped or slowing traffic making turns disproves the Solomon curve while failing to mention that our Interstates don't have cars slowing or stopping to make a turn?????!!!!???

Using the absolute safest or most dangerous intersection in a Florida city to compare to a red-light camera'd intersection in Chicago isn't above the IIHS either. How a camera in Chicago would be relevant to an intersection in Florida or CA is beyond me.

stever · September 2016

Sorry, no time to read, busy setting up a "What would it take for YOU to speed in a diesel SUV wearing your Tag Heuer?" discussion....

andres3 · September 2016

fintail said:
Isn't IIHS also linked with law enforcement and the crony capitalist photo enforcement industry? Always beware.

Absolutely! If you look at the IIHS link someone provided above, you'll see a bunch of propaganda for speed enforcement cameras, red-light cameras, and anti-radar detector rhetoric.

fintail · September 2016

Did you lose your shirt on any of the new cars? I imagine the LaCrosse was either a bargain new, or they gave you something good in trade to move the Regal.

The car is also as important as the term, I guess. For a new Civic or Accord, they hold value so well that it might be cheaper to buy. But for German cars that depreciate like week old bread, or some Korean and domestic cars, leasing might be cheaper for those who don't want to keep a car greater than maybe 5-8 years. And for those,late model mint condition used is probably a good value.

ab348 said:

Aside from the Cutlass, I have never kept a car longer than 6 years. This made me think about that history:

All were owned except the last 2 which were leased. I must take after my dad and like to change cars fairly often.

nyccarguy · September 2016

sda said:

nyccarguy said:

fintail said:
No car payments is a good thing, if you like the car/cars. Sometimes, life is too short

For many cars, if one wants to buy new but isn't going to keep it for maybe 6-7 years or more, I suspect leasing is cheaper, especially if one knows how to negotiate even just a little.

This is the internal battle going on within me on a daily basis.
X2! My wife has been the stabilizing force lately. I should be thankful, yet..

There is nothing out right now within reason that JUMPS out at me and ticks all the right boxes. Nothing that says: this cost $X more than the Legacy and is THAT much better that would warrant me spending $Y more per month plus $Z depreciation, and $W that I've spent in maintenance & upgrades over the last 2 years.

imidazol97 · September 2016

stever said:
Sorry, no time to read, busy setting up a "What would it take for YOU to speed in a diesel SUV wearing your Tag Heuer?" discussion....

That may be more interesting than my true story of an S8 driver who bulled his way into the one car space between me and pickup driver in front of me at 25 mph and then almost hit the pickup before Audi had completed the bullying into the lane, because the truck quickly slowed to take the entrance to the gas station instead of the turn into the street for ChickFilA 80 feet further on. Audi driver probably drives that way on the interstate as well. LOL BTW his license plate was Workhorse. Him or the Car? Either way I'd suggest a different end of the horse would be more descriptive of him and his driving. Or of his psyche.

stickguy · September 2016

Bradd, I have the same problem. Keeping a budget in mind, there isn't much yelling at me "I'm the one!" Good thing I have lots of lead time.

jmonroe · September 2016

ab348 said:

thebean said:
Not to be harsh, but does anyone else think all these speed limit posts are a .44 Magnum bullet to the brain pan? If not, then just ignore this post.
Yeah. I thught the past discussion about wristwatches was bad, but this is coming up fast.

Well, at least with the old time wrist watches if you let them alone they would wind down and shut up but there is a poster in here that won't do that. I guess he has one of those new fangled watches with a run on and on battery that lasts forever.

Oh for the good old days of posting.

jmonroe

snakeweasel · September 2016

stickguy said:
snake, actually you can keep the same car on a lease. Right there in the contract how much it costs to buy it out.

like I said, it is just a different way to finance vs. taking out a loan. Instead of a big DP then pay until you own, it is payments for a set period, then a balloon payment at the end. At least on the lease, all the figures are locked in up front. On a purchase, the buyer assumes all the market risk.

I have not worked out the numbers but my understanding is that's an expensive way to buy a car. My understanding is that it really extends the time you pay on the car and that increases the interest paid overall.

snakeweasel · September 2016

nyccarguy said:

cdnpinhead said:

snakeweasel said:
. . . part of that . . . is interest on the loan, add to that title, tax, license, Doc fee, nurse fee, nitrogen in the tires, helium in the trunk (makes the car lighter and saves on gas, get with it guys), advertising fees, delivery fees, set up fees, undercoating, overcoating, inside coating, mop and glow, rinse and spit, rise and shine, Rowen and Martin, Martin and Lewis, lot boy fee, inventory lookup fee, you're breathing our air fee, papal blessing fee, because we can fee and the ever present "if you want to buy this car you have to pay this fee" fee . . .
As I heard on one of these boards many years ago and will repeat here: "I bow down to this post."

Well done!
Have you ever watched the SEINFELD episode when he's trying to get the "insider's deal" on a new car from Elaine's Boyfriend? In the middle of the episode, Elaine breaks up with him and the guy starts "sticking" Jerry with all these fees. Jerry is of course going nuts as he reads the laundry list:

Jerry: "finder's fee? It was on the lot!"

Putty (Salesman): "That's right. I had to go find it."

The actual car is a side show compared to the circus of extras:

Doc Fees (or Conveyance Fees as they call them here in CT) that cost anywhere from $199 - $599 (I know it's higher in GA & FL).

I sat in the F&I office with my Dad when my parents bought their 1st Cayenne in 2011. I watched the guy try to sell them a $5,000+ extended warranty & a $5,000 + Tire & Wheel warranty. I asked the salesman what kind of car he drove: "An Acura TL." I then asked the F&I guy what kind of car he drives: "They give me a 911 Turbo Cabriolet as a DEMO." Guess who makes more money for the dealership?

Isn't that the same one where Kramer is trying to find out how far the car will go with the gas gauge on 'E'?

Michaell · September 2016

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:
snake, actually you can keep the same car on a lease. Right there in the contract how much it costs to buy it out.

like I said, it is just a different way to finance vs. taking out a loan. Instead of a big DP then pay until you own, it is payments for a set period, then a balloon payment at the end. At least on the lease, all the figures are locked in up front. On a purchase, the buyer assumes all the market risk.
I have not worked out the numbers but my understanding is that's an expensive way to buy a car. My understanding is that it really extends the time you pay on the car and that increases the interest paid overall.

The point is you're not buying, you're renting.

I get that it's not for everybody. I lease my cars since I have "car ADD" (wife's term), but are buying hers as the plan is to keep it for 10+ years.

explorerx4 · September 2016

@snakeweasel,
In the past, leasing is more expensive than buying, was true.
Now, it's a bit fuzzier with 84 and 96 month loans.

snakeweasel · September 2016

fintail said:
I'm curious to see if/how the powers that be will even allow mass market autonomous cars on the road - if we can assume they won't be speeding or violating other well thought out and defendable laws , what will compensate for those revenue streams? What will the LEOs do with their time? What will become of the useless little goshforsaken heckholes that rely on speedtrap revenue?

Going 75 in a 65 for a 6 hour drive will save a lot more than 5 minutes, If Americans could fathom lane discipline, a lot of these arguments wouldn't exist.

How often do you drive for 6 hours at a time? Most people drive an average of less than 50 miles a day, which would translate into a 5 minute savings.

That being said every year we have a family reunion in the Dells. It's just under 200 miles from me, all but 5 miles Interstate highways and takes under 3 hours. doing 75 will save you maybe 20-22 minutes over 65. Now one year I decided to take it slow, no interstate highways all back roads. All my starts were very mellow and I stayed within a few miles of the speed limit. Just relaxed and enjoyed a slow ride. It took me an extra hour but taking it easy and not rushing myself made the trip more relaxing and I arrived more relaxed tham I did when I was rushing there.

There is a zen in driving that you must experience.

jmonroe · September 2016

explorerx4 said:
@snakeweasel,
In the past, leasing is more expensive than buying, was true.
Now, it's a bit fuzzier with 84 and 96 month loans.

If the guys in the back room can convince anybody to lease a new car for 96 months, I guess that explains why a 60 month lease for a CPO luxo ain't so far away.

jmonroe

Michaell · September 2016

jmonroe said:

explorerx4 said:
@snakeweasel,
In the past, leasing is more expensive than buying, was true.
Now, it's a bit fuzzier with 84 and 96 month loans.
If the guys in the back room can convince anybody to lease a new car for 96 months, I guess that explains why a 60 month lease for a CPO luxo ain't so far away.

jmonroe

No, those would be traditional finance terms.

Most leases don't go beyond 48 months - and, we recommend nothing more than 36 months unless there is a compelling reason to go longer.

snakeweasel · September 2016

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
Someone said how about enacting speed limits based on what the road was designed for; be careful what you wish for. Many engineers would agree our Interstates were designed to easily handle 100 MPH traffic. Now when traffic gets too heavy 100 MPH is obviously unrealistic, but that doesn't change the fact the road can support 100 MPH when not too many people are on it.
Actually the interstates, with few exceptions, were designed for 80MPH.
You mean 80 MPH for big rigs/semi-trucks. 100 MPH being the exception for basically most modern passenger automobiles. Of course, most people would like to see differential speed limits abolished. My fear is that they will pick the lower limit rather than the higher one as you seem to be doing.

No I do not, the original specifications were to facilitate an 80 MPH speed for traffic. Most cars in the 50's couldn't maintain speeds of 100MPH. A mid 50's T-Bird with a 312 CID V8 had a top speed of just under 115 MPH, an early 50's Vet was just over 100 MPH. And you would be hard pressed to get an early 50's semi to 80 MPH.

snakeweasel · September 2016

Mr_Shiftright said:
I'd say that 95% of Americans are not competent enough to drive at 100 mph, and that 95% of Americans think they are.

I do believe that 95% of all drivers (American and others) overestimate their driving ability.

Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles