Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Nowadays we have the phenomenon of "technology status" where the car buyers wants the latest and greatest. He wants an OHC engine even if it works little better than a GM pushrod, but nonetheless he's aware that GM uses old tech.
American automakers are not thought of as innovative anymore, which is really a disadvantage in domestic marketing--although it might be advantageous for emerging markets like Africa and China.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So, as long as I don't have to put any more major money into it this year, I'll be happy. Of course, the year is young. :surprise:
I remember someone telling me I was nuts to put that much in a car with 100K but it's better than two years down the road with nothing but oil changes and now it's around 160K so I'd have to say it was worth it. My wife uses it as her primary now and puts on a ton of work miles. Between the fact there's no point in getting a new car when you're gonna roll that kid of mileage on it and that she has it more or less set up as her traveling office I imagine I'll have it quite some time.
Funny, my mechanic made a similar comment about a year ago, when the car started stalling out at random. He was trying to find cheap fixes for it, but I told him it was probably either the crankshaft position sensor, camshaft position sensor, or both. A couple of guys in the Dodge Intrepid forum here on Edmund's pointed me in that direction. Well, he asked me if I really wanted to spend that kind of money on a car this old. Turns out, it was only around $525, to do them both. I guess I shouldn't say "only", and make it sound like I can just throw 500 bucks around at the drop of a hat, but it sure beats the hell out of a car payment. And that was almost a year ago, and the car really didn't need anything else...until the a/c compressor blew, that is!
Back in 2007, when I was using another repair shop, they found that the cooling lines that run from the transmission to the radiator were leaking, and questioned me on whether I really wanted to spend the money to get them fixed! It was a slow leak, but the only available parts were OEM Mopar, and not exactly cheap. Still I figure it was cheaper to fix those leaks than it was to risk the leak getting worse, and end up losing the transmission! 2007 was an expensive year for the Intrepid; in the end, I think I sunk around $2,000 total into it. Still, a heckuva lot cheaper than a new car payment!
a) worth less than $5000
b) has cost you more than $150 in repairs per month averaged out over 24 months
then
c) you need another car.
My reasoning is:
a)) this is about 1/2 a car payment
b) it's only going to get worse
But it's an '02 and makes 40 mpg, so I don't qualify under any of the clunker proposals!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And if the car doesn't cost me anything more until after April 19 (I sunk $1053 into it on April 19, 2007, when they did the front brakes, coolant, hoses, transmission lines, spark plugs, and some suspension work), then my 24-month period drops down to $130 per month. :shades:
I guess my attitude with the thing is that if I got rid of it and got a new/newer car, I'd probably be out at least $2,000 right then and there, and guaranteed to pay several hundred $ per month for 4-5 years. But instead I sunk $1300 into it, and there's a good chance that the car won't need anything else for the rest of the year, other than adding a quart of oil every once in awhile.
Now if the car got to the point that it was breaking down and leaving me stranded every month, that would be a different story. But in the 144,600 miles I've had the car, it's technically only left me stranded once. I say technically, because while I had to get a ride home, the thing did start, reluctantly, the next day, and I was able to drive it to the mechanic. That was when he replaced the crankshaft and camshaft position sensors.
And I guess if I had a long commute or did a lot of long distance driving, I might be more tempted to get a newer car.
My example: We had a 10-year old Honda Accord with 217K miles and the trans went out. Everything else about the car was fine and it was in good shape cosmetically and mechanically. Spent about $2K on a rebuilt Honda trans and car easily went to 247K miles until we sold it to a private party through a newspaper want-ad.
On an American brand car, such as Dodge minivan, that if we had and it needed trans at say 70K miles, I would dump the car. Very hypothetical and would likely have not purchased it to begin with.
Really? They couldn't bend the tubing themselves using the old ones as a template?
If everything goes according to plan, the only additional money I should have to put into the Intrepid anytime soon will be a transmission service around 150,000 miles, which at the rate that car's going will probably be late this year. It needed new rear brakes at 51K and 102K, so when it goes in for the tranny service, I'll probably have him check the rear brakes to see if they're close.
The front brakes were replaced at 39K, 69K, 99K, and 130K. I put cheap pads on myself at 39/69/99K, but had the mechanic do it at 130K, and he used OEM parts, so I guess there's a good chance I might get around 40K or more out of them, instead of the 30K I'd been getting with the cheap pads. Heck, I might get more than that, as that initial 39K miles represented a lot of stop-and-go pizza delivery driving.
I put the alternator in myself.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Also my plan presumes that you can sell your clunker and use that as a down payment on the new car. Doing that, you could probably finance about a $20,000 car for $300, more or less, and with all the rebates and incentives you might do better than that these days.
Remember that many new cars have little or no maintenance costs during their warranty, so for at least 3 years you aren't going to spend very much if anything at all. Maybe $10-$20 a month or so.
Bill unveiled to pay cash for trading in old clunkers
BY JUSTIN HYDE • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • March 18, 2009
"WASHINGTON -- A 'cash for clunkers' bill in Congress that would pay vehicle owners to trade in old models for new, fuel-efficient ones won support Tuesday from Detroit automakers and the UAW, but drew immediate rebuke from foreign automakers for excluding models not built in North America.
The hurdles to passing any such program through Congress remain formidable, with automakers, environmental groups and dealers all holding different views on how such a plan should work. Yet most of the industry's troubles can be traced to slumping auto sales of about 10 million vehicles a year, which aren't expect to rebound until next year at the earliest.
General Motors Corp. Chairman Rick Wagoner said Tuesday that such plans could have a huge impact, citing ones in Germany and Brazil that boosted sales last month while the rest of the world's auto industry struggled.
'We do see some well-thought-out programs, and it would be very helpful to do that in the United States,' Wagoner said.
The bill unveiled by Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, would offer $3,000 to $7,500 to owners of vehicles at least 8 years old to buy more fuel-efficient models. Purchasers of vehicles with the best miles-per-gallon ratings would get the best deals.
The program would apply only to new vehicles built in North America, with cars having to hit at least 27 miles per gallon on the highway if built in the United States and 30 m.p.g. if built in Canada or Mexico. Truck models would have to make 24 m.p.g. on the highway.
The old vehicles traded in under the program would have to be crushed or recycled. And in a nod to plug-in hybrids such as the Chevrolet Volt, the bill would offer a $7,500 voucher toward any U.S.-made vehicle that garners 100 m.p.g.
All the new vehicles would have to carry sticker prices less than $35,000.
GM spokesman Kerry Christopher said the Sutton bill was a good starting point for a scrappage plan. Ford Motor Co. said in a statement that the bill was 'a win-win-win for consumers, the environment and energy independence,' while Chrysler LLC said it was generally in favor of the idea.
UAW Legislative Director Alan Reuther said the plan 'would help to stimulate auto sales, and thus would help support jobs for American workers in the auto industry.'
But Toyota Motor Co. spokeswoman Martha Voss said the plan would not cover the most fuel-efficient model on the market -- the Toyota Prius hybrid, which is built in Japan.
The plan 'also runs counter to Toyota's long-standing support of free trade,' she said."
The Jetta Diesel and Fusion Hybrid both built in Mexico. What else built in NA comes close mileage wise? I would not count on the Volt getting a 100 MPG rating. The initial rating was around 50 MPG as the engine has to run for their test to work. Like with the diesel tests, the one size fits all EPA test, will not be complimentary for the plug-in hybrids. Some of the Camry hybrids are built here in the USA.
As I see it, clunker plans are just another form of pork.
But the Aveo? Built in Korea. Yaris? Built in Japan. Fit? Built in Japan. Mini Cooper? Built in England.
At least the Corolla and Civic would be eligible.
I would agree with other posters that on limited-run models like Jetta diesel and Fusion hybrid, dealers would just see the voucher as incentive not to offer discounts, in fact to offer mark-ups instead. They will see the buyer's "discount" as coming from the government.
I think that in trying to keep all interested parties (auto industry, environmentalists, dealers, taxpayers) happy, the clunker plan inevitably ends up satisfying nobody.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If they're basing that on the same raw numbers used to calculate CAFE averages, then it might not be that hard to attain. For instance, my 2000 Intrepid is rated at 18/27, using today's EPA calculations. But when it was built, it was rated 20/29, according to the window sticker. However, I looked up the raw numbers one day, and it's actually something like 24/37!
Any truck that's currently highway EPA-rated at 20 mpg or higher would easily break 24 in raw numbers. And just about any car made today will break 27 or even 30 mpg highway, in raw numbers. Unless you go for something like a Viper, or perhaps a 300C or Charger with the 6.1 Hemi.
Don't they make Accords, Camrys, and Altimas in the United States? Even going by the window sticker, any 4-cyl version of those would break 27 mpg on the highway. I think even the 6-cyl models are above that.
Yes, Camry, Accord, Altima, Civic, and Corolla - the top five best-selling cars in the U.S. (not in that order) - are all made in America and would qualify under this plan.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We need an entirely new electoral gene pool.
Yeah, but this time it could be my pig that gets fatter. I need a new ride. :shades:
I'm interested in the tax credit for upgrading my heat pump too.
Do you guys give away Green or S&H Stamps btw?
The other one we had were Quality Stamps.
You could probably get a '67 Ford Falcon with 4,000 books of them.
Out this way we also had Plaid stamps. you went to Plaidland to redeem them.
I heard there's a big flap on the radio about very rich people applying for and getting foord food stamps because they don't count your assets.
The world's gone mad I tell you!
There is something you and I are in 100% agreement. Scary heh?
I would clean out Arnold and the bunch in Sacramento also..
If they used the EPA numbers and bought a PU truck there are not many with 24 MPG highway. No V6 models? It is really hard to see what they think this will do.
Junking perfectly good cars----that's swell, that's just swell.
So will the clunker plan allow you to trade in an old but fuel-efficient car (Suzuki Swift for example) for a new but less fuel-efficient car (a new Camry 4-cylinder, for instance)? If so, doesn't seem like there's much point in THAT.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm not sure this "Clunker" plan was EVER a serious proposal, the more I look at how/who presented it and how fast it disappeared.
More like political posturing to me.....
my wife has the cash saved up to buy a new car, but we are gun shy, because her company is still cutting workers, and it would be awkward showing up in a new vehicle. they might think she is getting some kind of AIG bonus, :surprise:
But I would take a 1980s Mustang GT (or LX with the 5.0 V- and manual). Those could be good, cheap fun.
I always thought those GP 2+2's were really awkward, too. For some stupid reason, GM used a different wraparound rear window on them than they did on the Monte SS Aerocoupe. I think the GP's window was even longer, making a correspondingly smaller decklid, which made the trunk even harder to get into. I think they only mad around 200-300 of the GP 2+2, and maybe 3500 Aerocoupe Montes. With volume that low, I don't see how using two unique rear windows made any sense. :confuse:
Even worse, while the GP 2+2 looks like it might be in the same league as a Monte SS, Cutlass Supreme 442, or Grand National, it wasn't. It used a tame Chevy 305-4bbl with 150 hp, same as the base V-8 on a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix. At least with the Monte SS, you got 180 hp.
I think the GP 2+2 also came fairly well-loaded, so its base price was well above what a Monte SS, 442, or even a Grand National started at.
No wonder the thing was such a sales flop!
In a lame effort to boost performance a bit, they put a 3.55:1 axle ratio in it, which might have been what the Monte SS used. Stock in these cars was just something like a 2.56:1. I wonder if throwing in the faster axle, but without doing any performance mods to the engine, ended up making the car any faster? Or did it just make it suck more fuel?