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
As bad as that sounds, when you adjust for inflation, I don't think $30K is all that bad.
Exactly. Went back through the list of vehicles I've owned. The first one to crack the $30K barrier (in today's dollars) was the '88 Isuzu Trooper we bought for $16K.
By comparison, the first car I bought that stickered for more than $30K was the '99 Ford Expedition. Today, it would sell for over $46K.
I don't know why anyone would buy the Avalanche, it was a joke to start with. More of a gangsta PU than a practical vehicle. I was anticipating trading my Suburban for one until I saw that ugly pig. Foo Foo plastic POC. 2001 was the beginning of the end of GM trucks IMO.
Being gas guzzlers persuaded me to give them one final shot with the 2005 GMC Sierra hybrid PU truck. GM does not know how to build a decent hybrid. Now the odds on me EVER buying another GM product is somewhere near 1 in a million.
Chevy Volt comeback: gas prices spur best-ever monthly sales (csmonitor.com)
What a difference a month of $4 a gallon gas makes.
Green CAV decals will be issued to the first 40,000 applicants that purchase or lease cars meeting California’s Enhanced Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (Enhanced AT PZEV) requirements. Vehicles qualifying for this new CAV decal will be added to ARB’s website. For more information, visit www.arb.ca.gov.
Volt - Please note that eligible vehicles with the Low Emissions Package will have an E, F, G or H in the 5th position of the VIN
My mistake on the EV like the Leaf. They qualify for the white HOV sticker. That one is unlimited. Making the Leaf a better choice for those that commute and can use the HOV lanes.
I liked the overall shape of those '88-98 trucks. Very clean and modern looking, and it definitely set the tone for trucks ever since. The '94 Ram, another trendsetter, essentially took the basic style of the Chevy and gave it a more muscular look that combined retro and big-rig, taking it back to the old days when the hood was raised above the fenders.
One detail I didn't like about the GM trucks though, is that when they went to the composite headlights, which were the same size as the turn signal below, made me think a bit of the Griswold family's Wagon Queen Family Truckster!
I liked the '99 redesign at first, but once the Silverado took on that "angry appliance" look of the Avalanche, it lost me. I thought the GMC Sierra looked good though, right up through the end.
Oddly though, when they went to the current 2007+ style, I prefer the Avalanche front-end to the Silverado. The grille on the Silverado just seems too wide, and with the headlights pushed out so far, it just looks like the front-end of the truck is too big for the rest of it. Meanwhile the Avalanche, which appears to now use the same front clip as the Tahoe/Suburban, has a nice, well-balanced look to it. It still has a slightly aggressive stance, but doesn't seem so over-the-top like the previous Avalanche did.
As for the current crop of big trucks, I don't think any of them are what I'd call hideous. The Ram is my favorite, but even with the Silverado, I wouldn't say I hate it. We hated Hitler. This is more like Mussolini! :P
I have been hauling crushed rock in my Nissan this week. I can get a yard@2800 lbs in and still have spring travel. 1/2 yard in the Ranger had it down to the axle. And it struggled to get up my driveway. Hauling heavy loads with the Nissan is no strain and not any significant mileage hit.
I think the Domestics have lost me on light duty PU trucks. Plastic Foo Foo for urban cowboys.
But, that was before all the power window motors died, and the plastic dried out, and the back window seal started leaking, etc.
Did you have any problems with yours?
In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”
That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-c- rucify-them-just-romans-crucified
I hope so. The sooner gas is priced higher, the sooner people will start taking more seriously their conservation efforts, and the cleaner the air will get.
Bring on $5/$6/$7 gas. I've been hankering for a good EV anyway....:)
This is reminding me of a letter to the editor in the local fishwrap.
This guy says "we are LIBERALS, and we are PATRIOTS!"
My take is, if you espouse things that weaken this country(high gas prices, for example), you are no patriot.
You have "drank the koolaid" of "man-made global warming", and will not even listen to the opposing viewpoint.
There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
:lemon:
If it's any consolation, once the economy tanked, fuel prices would no doubt come tumbling back down, as well. Back in 2008, I remember paying a around $4.20 per gallon at the peak. By Christmas of that year, it was down to around $1.49.
Alas, my 401k, IRA, etc also tumbled by a little more than half. But hey, at least gas was affordable again! :sick:
It's a pebble in a pond effect.
Compare the price of various food products now, vs 1 year ago...
I'm a moderate member of the GOP who is tired of breathing dirty air and tired of seeing 1 person driving a 16 MPG SUV for commuting when I know a smaller car would in ALMOST EVERY CASE meet that person's needs. ( You don't have to tell me "well, maybe they have 6 people in their family blah blah blah and they need a bigger car blah blah blah." I know some people are like that. But a HUGE number of people drive bigger vehicles than they need to drive.)
I'm a believer in reduction of pollution. And in using more renewable resources.
This is not (to me) a liberal vs. conservative thing, although politics has turned it into one.
I still want limited government, low taxes, and to never hear anyone tell me, "We are from the government, and we are here to help you."
I listen to every opinion. I just think oil and gas need to be scaled down or cleaned up. I don't want to see Texaco commercials telling me "we are scouring the planet looking for more oil." I want them to say "we are R&D maniacs in an effort to clean up the air."
High gas prices haven't "crippled our economy." That's a conservative scare tactic.
If we can convert just a few million people from SUVs to AT-PZEV vehicles, then we can improve the life of asthmatics, we can reduce the cases of lung cancer, COPD, reduce heart attacks, and maybe even reduce insurance rates.
Politics Schmolitics when it comes to clean air. We all breathe it and want more of it, from Nancy Pelosi all the way through Rick Santorum.
Yeah my few mile commute in my Expedition is so much worse than my neighbors 80 mile commute in his Camry. I don't need anyone to tell me what to drive!
$7/gal gas means I'll get to buy a used full size SUV for that much cheaper:)
Instead of saying "caring about clean air is a GOOD idea for EVERYONE and I never thought about maybe trying to make do with a more efficient car !! GREAT IDEA Lars !!" you went the other way, which is "Don't tell me what to do!!"
I'm just here to remind you what the right thing to do is.
If you rebel against that, it's your right as an American, for which I fought 6 years in the Marine Corps.
Being an American means you have the right make the wrong choice also, so more power to you. :shades:
I just looked up my fuel records. In 2011, I put about 500 gallons of gas in my Park Ave, and 256 in my '85 Silverado. In terms of dollars, I spent $1876 to fuel the Park Ave, and $980 for the Silverado.
Even at $7/gal, which I don't think gas is going to hit anytime soon, that would put the Park Ave up to $3500 per year and the Silverado to $1792.
Or, about $135 extra per month to feed the Buick, $68 to feed the truck. Sure, I'll gripe about it. But, I don't know if that would be enough to make me want to replace either vehicle, before their time is up.
Like you alluded to though, at $7/gal, full-sized trucks and SUVs might go cheap enough, that it would pay me to replace my Silverado with one, and actually save on fuel in the process!
Plus my point I was trying to make is efficiency of a vehicle is only one factor, isn't actual fuel being burned really what's important? Seriously, what is worse for the environment, my driving my Expedition 100 miles M-F or my neighbor driving his Camry 400?
I'd guess it would be far worse for the environment if I bought a new "fuel efficient car" to save 3 gallons of fuel a week (considering all of the resources required to build a car)
Why is this your duty?
Just live your OWN life, and let others pay the consequences of their own decisions.
You say you are not a liberal, but your desire to tell others how to live their lives (to be like YOU) seems to belie that comment.
if I spend half my money on a gas hog, what is that to you?
:confuse:
To me, "SUV owner" is just synonymous with "gas guzzler" and personally, they are all just as bad.
But if you have a big family and can afford only ONE vehicle, you are sorta STUCK !!
Back when I was married with 5 kiddos, I owned a Suburban and an then traded into an Avalanche, although my personal belief was that we could have done with 2 5-passenger sedans....but the wifey won that battle.
So sometimes the situation makes the choice for you.
But my point is (and this is a personal pet peeve of mine for which I have ranted a LONG time) that SO MANY people want the "big vehicle" and do not stop for a second to consider that they COULD get by with a more efficient car.
People still equate "big" with "impressive" and think they have to drive something like the Joneses across the street to keep up appearances.
It just annoys me, probably unduly so.
That happened in '08 when I bought my Expedition. I was considering buying a new full size SUV until I saw 1 year old models were seeing huge discounts. I basically got a 1 year old SUV for 60% of a new one. All that money I save will pay my gas bill for nearly 10 years.
I'd really like to have a daily driver for M-F when I don't need the room or utility of the Expedition. I just don't drive enough during the week to justify the expense of an additional vehicle regardless of how efficient it is.
Insurance alone would eat up most of my fuel savings, then what about the money to actually buy the car.
But I don't think a Boss 302 or Shelby GT500 would save much gas;)
Whether you WANT to do what we BOTH agree is the RIGHT thing to do, it's for YOU to personally decide.
There is no debate in regard to the fact that we all would appreciate cleaner air.
But wishing for 5-6-7 dollar gas is over the top in my opinion, as it causes millions who are barely able to keep food on their tables, to suffer more than the average 1%er.
And, Lemmer, when gas tops $3, the economy DOES suck...unless of course the current economy is considered healthy...
Let me rephrase:
I would want that (higher gas prices) to happen only if it accomplished the goal of cleaner air and more efficient vehicles on the road without "crippling the economy" or putting people in the street.
But it more likely will put money in the pockets of certain folks like the Cap and Trade setup would have done. Also, suppressing the use of fuel here with high prices mean only that the same fuel will be burned in other parts of the world in less clean engines. To wit, the coal use suppression here means that coal is going down the Ohio River and to ocean ships to China and all, where it's burned in very dirty manners. Is that saving pollution? Nope.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
On another topic recently mentioned, I too would have no problem with high gas prices - if it didn't destroy the economy (which right now, it would) and we actually got something in return for the prices paid, as people do in other countries.
I was just going by the EPA ratings of a 550i and E550 4Matic which is rated at 15/23, not a huge improvement over something like a 4x4 Suburban rated at 15/21. The 550i xdrive is rated at 15/20.
If you only drive 10 miles to work and back, driving a Prius isn't going to save the world vs driving AMG Benz.
Well, as with any generality, there are scales......
For example - if EVERYONE driving 10 miles every day in an AMG Benz was instantly transformed into driving a Prius: the world would not change, but the pollution level would drop by a lot.
Additionally, from a devil's advocate position, I would ask "why, if you are only driving 10 miles a day, would a Prius NOT do the job for you just as well as an AMG?" :shades: You are not going to be getting a lot of "driving pleasure" from a 10 mile drive.
That was based solely on driving to work from the position of a single person commuting in large SUV.
For me, I generally put 150-200 miles on my Expedition on the weekends and only 50-100 during the week. On the weekends we head to the lake and I have the whole family plus a friend or two along. Since we have a boat and jetskis (yes we burn gas just for the fun of it), I use the Expedition to pull them and occasionally a camper.
I'm not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a fuel efficient car to save only $10-20 a week in gas.
For example - if EVERYONE driving 10 miles every day in an AMG Benz was instantly transformed into driving a Prius: the world would not change, but the pollution level would drop by a lot.
It would be a drop in the bucket.
You seem to forget the Oil Companies have been at the leading edge of alternative energy R&D for at least 40 years or more. When you take into consideration their business is providing fuel for several hundred million vehicles of every type from a smart car to a behemoth earth mover, looking for more oil is what they need to be doing primarily. Also looking for ways to get it out of the ground or ocean as safely as possible. Overall I would say they do a pretty good job having worked around them for 25 years. I don't believe it is the place of Obama and his minions in the EPA to Crucify the companies that are delivering our energy for today, tomorrow and probably the next 100 years.
I can tell you that BP, Exxon, Mobil, ARCO, Texaco, Conoco etc have not made as big of a mess in the Arctic as GM, Ford and Chrysler have made of Detroit. No talk of crucifying the D3 for using fossil fuel.... :P
Time to crucify the real villains in the government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCtcJCDXdxY&feature=youtu.be
Well, my commute to work is only 2.5 miles, but there is one spot where I get to have a little fun. It's where I have to make a right turn off my home street onto a divided 4-lane road with a 45 mph speed limit. It's the one time where I get the chance to test out 0-60 times.
There's something satisfying, in a delightfully-twisted sort of way, of hearing my '67 Catalina chirp the rear tires on the 1-2 shift. Happens around 50 mph.
Oh, and to throw fuel on the fire, if you have a really short commute, I'd imagine something like a Prius isn't going to really hit its full potential, either. I know hybrids usually do better in stop and go driving than out on the highway. However, on really short trips, like my 2.5 mile commute, wouldn't a hybrid depend more on the gasoline engine to charge up the batteries? I've heard hybrids don't usually do so hot in ultra-short trips like that.
I guess I should also confess that, last September, I came very close to buying a used hybrid Altima. I was miffed at my '85 Silverado because it was leaking coolant, and I was just getting fed up with it. So, I found this hybrid Altima online, emailed about it, but never heard back. After a week or so I called them, only to be told it had just been sold, but they hadn't updated the website.
So, rather than spend $15,000+ for a hybrid, I just used a spoon-full of Uncle Ben's in the radiator, and that leak magically disappeared! :P Okay, the reality is, I had to have the water pump replaced
Cars these days, regardless of what fuel economy they get, put out very little in the way of pollutants. I read somewhere that today's cars on average put out something like 75-90% less pollutants than they did in 1970. BUT, in 1970, cars were running on leaded gasoline, and emissions equipment consisted of, at the most, a pcv valve.
The biggest advancements in cleaning up cars came with catalytic converters and unleaded fuel. Heck even when I drive my '67 Catalina, which was rebuilt and has hardened valve seals so it can run on unleaded, is probably putting out a fraction of the pollutants that it would have when it rolled off the showroom floor.
Cars today, if kept in proper tune at least, pollute so little that it's inconsequential. Getting someone out of a modern Expedition and into a Prius really isn't going to clean up the air much. You'd actually do more for the environment getting someone to give up their beat-up, out-of-tune 1972 Bug and putting them into a brand-new Escalade.
Except Honolulu, at least in the airport. That is as close as I get.
Sealed fuel systems are a big reason too. A 70's pollutes while it's parked with gas evaporation.
IIRC, on Inside Line a while back they compared a 6.2L Ford F150 Raptor to a couple of weed wackers or chainsaws or something like that and the Raptor was significantly cleaner.
I wonder how my fintail pollutes compared to other period cars.
Whatever car replaces it likely won't be so powerful, however, very possibly a diesel.
Whatever car replaces it likely won't be so powerful, however, very possibly a diesel.
If my only vehicle was a Prius, I wouldn't drive more than absolutely necessary.
I'd love to get another diesel. Though if you pickup a MB or BMW diesel it may not have the HP, but I'd guess the torque output would be close to your E55.