Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

driver100

graphicguy said:

@ab348 ...what’s the CA$ to US$ Exchange rate now? I never could figure out the difference in pricing between Canada and the U.S. when the exchange rates were about on par.

Actual CDN is worth 74 cents U.S. How far the great ones have fallen.
The price isn't totally reflected in car prices though, as certain things are paid for in Canadian dollars, such as salaries, real estate, transportation etc etc....so I would estimate a car in Canada costs about 20% more. Mike gets an S550 for what I pay to get an E400.

driver100

stickguy said:

my guess is, it will cost just a bit more $ per year to keep it going. But I am sure you can make it. Car will last. software might not though.

I do wonder that about modern cars with so much computer control going on, and being software driven. Like a PC or phone, what happens when the company stops supporting the software? and if something goes wrong with the many computer modules. If it was a 5 year old phone you throw it out. Are we going to see otherwise fine 15 YO cars scrapped because it's OS is out of date?

Cars will be like TV sets. You used to get them repaired, now it is cheaper, plus you get all the latest technology if you just toss out the old one and buy a new one. Cars have almost reached that point, because they are getting more and more complex to make it cost effective to repair.

ruking1

...”Cars will be like TV sets. You used to get them repaired, now it is cheaper, plus you get all the latest technology if you just toss out the old one and buy a new one. Cars have almost reached that point, because they are getting more and more complex to make it cost effective to repair.”...

Cars are NOT getting any cheaper, unlike TV sets. The average age of the USA passenger vehicle fleet (11.5 years old, 290.4 M) & 39 M used car sales per year vs 17 M + new car sales absolutely do NOT indicate it’s cheaper to “TOSS”. If anything, new & used cars are becoming LESS affordable.

Recycled USA cars are roughly 4.1% per year of the PVF (12 M/290.4 M/2017 NHTSA stats)

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/auto-recycling-facts-and-figures-2877933

suydam

And new car prices have risen quite a bit, not the reverse.

fintail

I know for the E wagon anyway, spec for spec in Canada, it is cheaper thanks to the depreciated loonie. Canadian MB option groupings are different than US spec cars, which also adds to it. I like in a high sales tax/registration area, so that part is a wash.

driver100 said:

Actual CDN is worth 74 cents U.S. How far the great ones have fallen.
The price isn't totally reflected in car prices though, as certain things are paid for in Canadian dollars, such as salaries, real estate, transportation etc etc....so I would estimate a car in Canada costs about 20% more. Mike gets an S550 for what I pay to get an E400.

fintail

Cars are also more durable if maintained - I see a lot more cars at the lower end local auction with 250K+ on the clock than one would have seen a generation ago.

Compared to problematic real income issues, some cars may be less affordable, some have fared better. More favorable than housing/medical/educational cost trends anyway. A new S-class that was 85K in 1992 can be had for 120K(or less) today. I wish housing only moved that much!

ruking1 said:

Cars are NOT getting any cheaper, unlike TV sets. The average age of the USA passenger vehicle fleet (11.5 years old, 290.4 M) & 39 M used car sales per year vs 17 M + new car sales absolutely do NOT indicate it’s cheaper to “TOSS”. If anything, new & used cars are becoming less affordable.

stickguy

The ranger issue isn’t the size. That’s perfect. Just they did not do a good enough job hiding an old platform. The ride and handling is not great, and interior is dated. Basically it’s an off road and work truck, dolled up for US buyers. If the come out with a fully modern redesign, it will sell great.

A half ton now is just way too big to be a reasonable car substitute. A ranger or ridge line isn’t.

ruking1

fintail said:

Cars are also more durable if maintained - I see a lot more cars at the lower end local auction with 250K+ on the clock than one would have seen a generation ago.

Compared to problematic real income issues, some cars may be less affordable, some have fared better. More favorable than housing/medical/educational cost trends anyway. A new S-class that was 85K in 1992 can be had for 120K(or less) today. I wish housing only moved that much!

ruking1 said:

Cars are NOT getting any cheaper, unlike TV sets. The average age of the USA passenger vehicle fleet (11.5 years old, 290.4 M) & 39 M used car sales per year vs 17 M + new car sales absolutely do NOT indicate it’s cheaper to “TOSS”. If anything, new & used cars are becoming less affordable.

It goes without saying that cars are more durable and IF maintained, driveable longer. (my sic). & yes housing moves probably better. If you missed it, sorry.😱🤑 The used car sales of 39.5 million per year is probably one STRONG indicator of the lack of affordability of new cars @ 17 M +.

One example is given for a 3.4435e-9 .= .000000000344% 👀😴🤣 (1/290.4 M )

Ok! I like the 1965 Shelby Cobra 289 example @less than $10,000, (150 produced) which is now app $1.2 million+ . The (my)local dealer (insanely) let me test drive ONE, when new. It begs the question, so what? No change to the original post.

But, not that I had any brains about this. I liked/still do like the 1964 Porsche 356C and Jaguar XKE @ the time. Values are not even close to $1.2 M. 👎😇 But then on the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that a car wash gone wrong could lose you six $ figures of value.

roadburner

graphicguy said:

Not sure if any of you had seen this yet. Hard to argue, IMHO!

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/best-cars-under-30000/

I'd take the Mazda 3, Miata, and the Wrangler- maybe the Veloster N with the Performance Package.

oldfarmer50

henryn said:

graphicguy said:

Not sure if any of you had seen this yet. Hard to argue, IMHO!

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/best-cars-under-30000/

The only surprise (to me) was the Ford Ranger. The reviews I have read have not been kind.

Ditto on the Ranger. From what I hear the 2019 is just a place holder until better designs are developed. The CX5 has a nice interior and is comfortable to drive but the Jatco CVT leaves much to be desired. Same on the Subie. The Jetta IMO is a big step down from the Passat or Tiguan. I’ve driven them all and was disappointed by the Jetta.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

graphicguy said:

Not sure if any of you had seen this yet. Hard to argue, IMHO!

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/best-cars-under-30000/

I would find it hard to argue too. Surprised Camry isn't on the list though, not my thing, but good rock solid value.

I really like the new Camry. Just drove a couple yesterday. And this is coming from a guy who swore off Toyotas 20 years ago.

ruking1

oldfarmer50 said:

henryn said:

graphicguy said:

Not sure if any of you had seen this yet. Hard to argue, IMHO!

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/best-cars-under-30000/

The only surprise (to me) was the Ford Ranger. The reviews I have read have not been kind.

Ditto on the Ranger. From what I hear the 2019 is just a place holder until better designs are developed. The CX5 has a nice interior and is comfortable to drive but the Jatco CVT leaves much to be desired. Same on the Subie. The Jetta IMO is a big step down from the Passat or Tiguan. I’ve driven them all and was disappointed by the Jetta.

Any CVT is a deal breaker. (10 years test, for me) The only AT that make sense ARE (8, 9, 10) speeds made by AISIN (a Toyota subsidiary) .

henryn

oldfarmer50 said:

henryn said:

graphicguy said:

Not sure if any of you had seen this yet. Hard to argue, IMHO!

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/best-cars-under-30000/

The only surprise (to me) was the Ford Ranger. The reviews I have read have not been kind.

Ditto on the Ranger. From what I hear the 2019 is just a place holder until better designs are developed. The CX5 has a nice interior and is comfortable to drive but the Jatco CVT leaves much to be desired. Same on the Subie. The Jetta IMO is a big step down from the Passat or Tiguan. I’ve driven them all and was disappointed by the Jetta.

I haven't driven a Jetta in several years (5 or more?). But I have owned 3 Passats, I tend to like those (obviously). The Jetta was just a little on the small side for me, as was the Tiguan. I'll take a Passat over a Jetta, and a CR-V over a Tiguan.

fintail

My idea is that compared to many other cost of living factors, cars haven't exploded in price on an apples to apples basis. Replace that 92 500 SEL with an Accord or F150. Same thing. Definitely more expensive in raw dollars. Relatively, not more expensive especially when considering features and durability.

Collector cars can be fun, price out 300SL gullwings over time too. Also price evolution from the 60s til now for cars like Porsches and Jags, which were more along the lines of middle class exotics than they are now.

ruking1 said:

It goes without saying that cars are more durable and IF maintained, driveable longer. (my sic)

You give one example for a -9/3.4435e. .000000000344% 👀😴🤣

Ok! I like the 1965 Shelby Cobra 289 example @less than $10,000, (150 produced) which is now app $1.2 million+ . My local dealer (insanely) let me test drive it when new. It begs the question, so what? No change to the original post.

But, not that I had any brains about this. I liked/still do like the 1964 Porsche 356C and Jaguar XKE @ the time. Values are not even close to $1.2 M. 👎😇

ruking1

fintail said:

My idea is that compared to many other cost of living factors, cars haven't exploded in price on an apples to apples basis. Replace that 92 500 SEL with an Accord or F150. Same thing. Definitely more expensive in raw dollars. Relatively, not more expensive especially when considering features and durability.

Collector cars can be fun, price out 300SL gullwings over time too. Also price evolution from the 60s til now for cars like Porsches and Jags, which were more along the lines of middle class exotics than they are now.

ruking1 said:

It goes without saying that cars are more durable and IF maintained, driveable longer. (my sic)

You give one example for a -9/3.4435e. .000000000344% 👀😴🤣

Ok! I like the 1965 Shelby Cobra 289 example @less than $10,000, (150 produced) which is now app $1.2 million+ . My local dealer (insanely) let me test drive, when new. It begs the question, so what? No change to the original post.

But, not that I had any brains about this. I liked/still do like the 1964 Porsche 356C and Jaguar XKE @ the time. Values are not even close to $1.2 M. 👎😇

Indeed! Your post was very clear the first time. The answers are still ...NOT!

Moving along.. many NEW cars are NOT, to even less affordable, for/to the so-called “middle class”. Sometime ago, it was surprising to read that the average age of the NEW car Civic owner was 44 years old.

So I am guessing that most people on this board are of the (upper) 12.5 % (of/8 deviations) 🤑So congratulations are in order, if/when indeed high $ cars are affordable!

Indeed, VW bought back two (of my) VW’s. In effect, VW paid me slightly more than I paid NEW on two models to put on app 180,000 miles. 🤑😎 That was the good/bad news. I’m happy to redeploy funds from lesser to NO % yields to...higher %’s.

While I was grateful (happy) for all the tax write off’s, credits, etc., it was neat to incur no taxable event/s consequences. While I wish VW all the best going forward, I’m not a fan of their EV’s, hybrids or gas turbo engines.

explorerx4

One of the reason there are so many used cars is that many new cars are leased and turned back in to become used cars after 2-3 years.
Mandatory safety equipment/features are but into all models of a car, but there a lot of luxury and performance features in new cars, too. They all drive up the price.

stickguy

the CX5 has a normal AT (6 speed), not a CVT.

ruking1

stickguy said:

the CX5 has a normal AT (6 speed), not a CVT.

Thanks for the correction, the six speed AT (for me) is another nonstarter. If not for that, it would be in contention. A relative has an earlier model & loves it.

explorerx4

I've read a some reviews of the Ranger where it did well.
Autoblog did 4 way with Colorado, Gladiator, Ranger, Tacoma.

fintail

If cars are less affordable now than back in the day when the lucky ones were getting things started, it is via depressing income/wealth trends for the masses rather than the prices of cars themselves. Adjusting for CPI does not show cars to be more expensive. Relative to wages when housing, education, insurance, fuel, food, medical costs etc are accounted for, then probably yes.

I wouldn't be surprised if all average ages have moved up, and Civics aren't as youthful a choice as in the past.

ruking1 said:

Indeed! Your post was very clear the first time. The answers are still ...NOT!

Moving along.. many NEW cars are NOT, to even less affordable, for/to the so-called “middle class”. Sometime ago, it was surprising to read that the average age of the NEW car Civic owner was 44 years old.

So I am guessing that most people on this board are of the (upper) 12.5 % (of/8 deviations) 🤑So congratulations are in order, if/when indeed high $ cars are affordable!

oldfarmer50

ruking1 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

henryn said:

graphicguy said:

Not sure if any of you had seen this yet. Hard to argue, IMHO!

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/best-cars-under-30000/

The only surprise (to me) was the Ford Ranger. The reviews I have read have not been kind.

Ditto on the Ranger. From what I hear the 2019 is just a place holder until better designs are developed. The CX5 has a nice interior and is comfortable to drive but the Jatco CVT leaves much to be desired. Same on the Subie. The Jetta IMO is a big step down from the Passat or Tiguan. I’ve driven them all and was disappointed by the Jetta.

Any CVT is a deal breaker. (10 years test, for me) The only AT that make sense ARE (8, 9, 10) speeds made by AISIN (a Toyota subsidiary) .

AISIN also makes Toyota’s CVT which according to many sources is more reliable than the Jatco CVT in Nissan, Mazda, Hyundai/Kia and others. It’s that reliability that makes me afraid. I too want a 10 year (or more) reliability.

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

the CX5 has a normal AT (6 speed), not a CVT.

Good to know. That would put the CX5 back into the acceptable category. Mazda does use CVT in some of it’s cars.

stickguy

I don't think Mazda does. I can't think of any. they all use the SkyActive driveline, which includes the regular slushbox. No DSG boxes either.

explorerx4

@driver100,
I saw that Car & Driver spent just over $700(US) for their 20k service on their E class wagon.
Seems pretty close(more than?) to what you paid, assuming Canadian $ for your service.

explorerx4

The Canyon/Colorado was first sold in Australia starting in 2012, so the Ranger chassis is pretty much from the same time frame.
GM started selling it here in 2014(?) and has refined it to local preference over those years.

driver100

explorerx4 said:

@driver100,
I saw that Car & Driver spent just over $700(US) for their 20k service on their E class wagon.
Seems pretty close(more than?) to what you paid, assuming Canadian $ for your service.

Yes explorer, mine only has 15k miles since it is only used 7 months of the year, so the extra mileage could mean a few more items.....even like wiper blades.
Next time I will decide what I want done.....getting a full A or B Service is a rip off if you have low mileage.

explorerx4

@driver100,
C&D's service did include new wiper blades, so probably pretty close.
It was the 2nd service for the vehicle.
Mileage isn't the only consideration.

ab348

driver100 said:

They weren't necessarily picked because they are "drivers" cars, though the Jetta sounds like it could be fun. I think they just mean these cars a great value for the typical average non-enthusiast car owner.

Well, I dunno what they are thinking. I think the presence of the 3 Mazdas, the GLI and maybe even the Veloster indicate the usual auto journalist slant towards drivers cars, and the two Hondas also are typical journo favorites. I have no idea what they are thinking with the Ranger and the Wrangler. And the author compares the Forester to a Volvo, which is just nuts.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

One of the reason there are so many used cars is that many new cars are leased and turned back in to become used cars after 2-3 years.
Mandatory safety equipment/features are but into all models of a car, but there a lot of luxury and performance features in new cars, too. They all drive up the price.

Don’t forget the 2 million or so units released to the market every year by the rental companies.

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda does. I can't think of any. they all use the SkyActive driveline, which includes the regular slushbox. No DSG boxes either.

That’s odd as I know I’ve read that Mazda used Jatco trannies.

All I could find with a quick search was this:

“In October 2001, as part of its restructuring, Mitsubishi Motors agreed to merge its transmission division with Nissan's transmission subsidiary Jatco TransTechnology Ltd.[4][5] The combined company settled on JATCO Ltd. in April, 2002. Nissan and Mitsubishi equity holdings in JATCO after the share exchange stood at 82% and 18% respectively.

When it was still the transmission manufacturing division of Nissan, it partnered with Mazda, and thus Jatco, had long been supplying Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Isuzu, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen, MG Rover Group and Land Rover. However, once it was independent, Jatco quickly began supplying other automakers:

December 1999 — Hyundai Motor Company
January 2001 — Jaguar Cars
December 2001 — London Taxis International
January 2002 — Ford Europe
April 2002 — Renault Samsung Motors
April 2002 — Ford Lio Ho
April 2004 — Changan Ford
December 2005 — DaimlerChrysler U.S.A.
October 2006 - Renault
Today, JATCO has become one of the biggest supplier of CVT,[6] and products from nearly every auto maker have used Jatco transmissions, with the notable exceptions of Honda Motor Company, who makes their own transmissions, and Toyota Motor Company, who has always used transmissions made by Aisin, a subsidiary of Toyota. GM continues to produce a majority of its transmissions through GM Powertrain, an outgrowth of Hydramatic.

As of March 2015, JATCO is 75% owned by Nissan, 15% owned by Mitsubishi Motors, and 10% owned by Suzuki.[2]”

stickguy

oh, they are made by Jatco, but they aren't CVTs. JATCO makes normal ones too.

roadburner

I spent the week in Pigeon Forge TN at a Vehicular Homicide/Accident Reconstruction training course. It's a fascinating topic. Tuesday the Tennessee Highway Patrol set up a staged t-bone crash. Unfortunately, a weld broke on one of the cable attachments, and the striking car swerved right and hit an equipment trailer- about 20' from where I had parked my car.
Anyway, my 2er returned over 32 mpg for the whole trip- excuse the dusty infotainment screen:

The OBC is pessimistic by about 5%.

Michaell

@roadburner - nice choice for road trip music!

When my dad was in his early 40's, he switched jobs within the FD. He went from being a captain in a station to a fire cause investigator (think the DeNiro character in Backdraft). The city sent him to all sorts of training - mainly at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, MD. He also attended some sort of FBI bomb disposal school in Alabama, IIRC.

ruking1

fintail said:

If cars are less affordable now than back in the day when the lucky ones were getting things started, it is via depressing income/wealth trends for the masses rather than the prices of cars themselves. Adjusting for CPI does not show cars to be more expensive. Relative to wages when housing, education, insurance, fuel, food, medical costs etc are accounted for, then probably yes.

I wouldn't be surprised if all average ages have moved up, and Civics aren't as youthful a choice as in the past.

ruking1 said:

Indeed! Your post was very clear the first time. The answers are still ...NOT!

Moving along.. many NEW cars are NOT, to even less affordable, for/to the so-called “middle class”. Sometime ago, it was surprising to read that the average age of the NEW car Civic owner was 44 years old.

So I am guessing that most people on this board are of the (upper) 12.5 % (of/8 deviations) 🤑So congratulations are in order, if/when indeed high $ cars are affordable!

Yes, cars & their yearly upkeep are less affordable, even as one refuses to acknowledge the truths. Indeed the concepts are starting to sink in, even as one continues to blame both ones fathers’ & grandfathers’ era’s for their so called generational “inequities”, or their failures to get further up on the income inequity scales.

oldfarmer50 said:

explorerx4 said:

One of the reason there are so many used cars is that many new cars are leased and turned back in to become used cars after 2-3 years.
Mandatory safety equipment/features are but into all models of a car, but there a lot of luxury and performance features in new cars, too. They all drive up the price.

Don’t forget the 2 million or so units released to the market every year by the rental companies.

If indeed it is 2 million rentals, that means that 5% every year are added to the used car markets.

ruking1

oldfarmer50 said:

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda does. I can't think of any. they all use the SkyActive driveline, which includes the regular slushbox. No DSG boxes either.

That’s odd as I know I’ve read that Mazda used Jatco trannies.

All I could find with a quick search was this:

“In October 2001, as part of its restructuring, Mitsubishi Motors agreed to merge its transmission division with Nissan's transmission subsidiary Jatco TransTechnology Ltd.[4][5] The combined company settled on JATCO Ltd. in April, 2002. Nissan and Mitsubishi equity holdings in JATCO after the share exchange stood at 82% and 18% respectively.

When it was still the transmission manufacturing division of Nissan, it partnered with Mazda, and thus Jatco, had long been supplying Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Isuzu, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen, MG Rover Group and Land Rover. However, once it was independent, Jatco quickly began supplying other automakers:

December 1999 — Hyundai Motor Company
January 2001 — Jaguar Cars
December 2001 — London Taxis International
January 2002 — Ford Europe
April 2002 — Renault Samsung Motors
April 2002 — Ford Lio Ho
April 2004 — Changan Ford
December 2005 — DaimlerChrysler U.S.A.
October 2006 - Renault
Today, JATCO has become one of the biggest supplier of CVT,[6] and products from nearly every auto maker have used Jatco transmissions, with the notable exceptions of Honda Motor Company, who makes their own transmissions, and Toyota Motor Company, who has always used transmissions made by Aisin, a subsidiary of Toyota. GM continues to produce a majority of its transmissions through GM Powertrain, an outgrowth of Hydramatic.

As of March 2015, JATCO is 75% owned by Nissan, 15% owned by Mitsubishi Motors, and 10% owned by Suzuki.[2]”

It’s becoming more graphically apparent why certain Toyota’s/Lexus’ are THE cars to get! (aka, Scotty/not)

So while this is strictly anecdotal, I’ve had six AISIN AT’s each with ZERO issues. note worthy are the ZERO issues with those having over 250,000 miles.

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

oh, they are made by Jatco, but they aren't CVTs. JATCO makes normal ones too.

Good point. We don’t have many Mazda’s but I enjoy driving them.

oldfarmer50

roadburner said:

I spent the week in Pigeon Forge TN at a Vehicular Homicide/Accident Reconstruction training course. It's a fascinating topic. Tuesday the Tennessee Highway Patrol set up a staged t-bone crash. Unfortunately, a weld broke on one of the cable attachments, and the striking car swerved right and hit an equipment trailer- about 20' from where I had parked my car.
Anyway, my 2er returned over 32 mpg for the whole trip- excuse the dusty infotainment screen:

The OBC is pessimistic by about 5%.

Wow, if they had hit your beloved 2 series I imagine they would be reconstructing the real homicide you committed. :@

oldfarmer50

I’ve received two car surveys this week. One by email by Ford was pretty standard “how much do you love your car/dealer” type of thing.

The second one from an independent company supposedly associated with Kia came in the mail. While I was initially going to answer it I noticed as I read further that the survey started asking more and more personal questions like income, race and education level. I found that rather intrusive so I tossed the whole thing.

What do you folks do when you get these things? I’m always suspicious as to what will be done with this information. I’d hate to get buried with robo calls because I revealed personal information not related to the car I bought.

ab348

If you asked me if my next car could have a transmission produced by (1) a Nissan/Mitsu/Suzuki joint venture or (2) anyone else, I would take box #2.

stickguy

don't answer those surveys. just trying to get personal info to sell to advertisers. Nothing at all in it for you.

driver100

stickguy said:

don't answer those surveys. just trying to get personal info to sell to advertisers. Nothing at all in it for you.

+1

I have a bit of time to add, it is probably a company that wants to target ads to you. Just ignore so they think you aren't alive.

graphicguy

oldfarmer50 said:

I’ve received two car surveys this week. One by email by Ford was pretty standard “how much do you love your car/dealer” type of thing.

The second one from an independent company supposedly associated with Kia came in the mail. While I was initially going to answer it I noticed as I read further that the survey started asking more and more personal questions like income, race and education level. I found that rather intrusive so I tossed the whole thing.

What do you folks do when you get these things? I’m always suspicious as to what will be done with this information. I’d hate to get buried with robo calls because I revealed personal information not related to the car I bought.

I used to get those relatively often...sometimes requesting an “in person” interview. I think the most I was paid was $100.

Now, they send those long surveys and they want me to answer a bunch of questions with the promise I’ll be entered into some sort of contest.

I’m not giving them marketing data for free, so I normally toss them, unless it’s about my Acura dealer, who I really like.

snakeweasel

abacomike said:

Sometimes life has a way of surprising you with situations when you are least expecting them.  That just happened to me earlier this evening,

My daughter flew in a few weeks ago to interview for a job in a suburb just north of where I live.  She stayed with me a couple of days.  After the interview, she flew home.  I got a phone call earlier this evening that she got the job!  She will be moving here to Southeastern Florida on or before July 12th.

After being separated by a thousand miles+ for over 30 years, my baby is moving here.  I could not believe my ears when she told me.  I don’t know much about how she is going to manage selling her house and driving down here in just 4 weeks, but I know she is motivated to finally get away from the cold midwestern winters.  What she doesn’t realize is how hot and humid it gets down here from late May through early November.

But it is definitely a change in my life - for the better! 😁😀😜🤪

Hot and humid looks real good when you experience subzero temps and strong winds. As for me I am looking forward to never shoveling snow again.

On a related note the kids came in from Orlando for a wedding and got here at 5 AM Thursday, it was in the low 50s and the first thing my daughter said to me was "it's suppose to be June".

explorerx4

Washed the truck today including wheels and tires. Didn't really take too long, but drying it took forever.

snakeweasel

thebean said:

I think what hurts the Ranger is the small real world purchase price difference between it and the F-150. You have to really want the smaller size to make the choice of a Ranger. If Ford made the Ranger interior more plush and provided more of a reason to choose it other than size, they would sell more. But, with gas at it’s current price, most people are going to choose the F-150 thinking they are getting more for their money.

The Ranger is to close to the F-150 to make it a real alternative. FWIW around here if you dont need or want a back seat you can actually get an F-150 for less than a Ranger or for slightly more bucks than a Ranger you could get an extended cab on the F-150. It's really only the F-150s with the crew cabs that are significantly higher in price than the Ranger. Now for the disclaimer, I am using dealer prices listed on the internet for 4WD not MSRP. Your experience may vary.

snakeweasel

ruking1 said:

...”Cars will be like TV sets. You used to get them repaired, now it is cheaper, plus you get all the latest technology if you just toss out the old one and buy a new one. Cars have almost reached that point, because they are getting more and more complex to make it cost effective to repair.”...

Cars are NOT getting any cheaper, unlike TV sets. The average age of the USA passenger vehicle fleet (11.5 years old, 290.4 M) & 39 M used car sales per year vs 17 M + new car sales absolutely do NOT indicate it’s cheaper to “TOSS”. If anything, new & used cars are becoming LESS affordable.

Recycled USA cars are roughly 4.1% per year of the PVF (12 M/290.4 M/2017 NHTSA stats)

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/auto-recycling-facts-and-figures-2877933

The fact that the average age of a car getting older is not necessarily an indication of higher car prices, it could be a result of better designed and built cars. Cars today do last longer than cars in the past, this would definatly age the current fleet.

ruking1

Why one would one not compare a 4 door Ranger to 4 door F-150?

snakeweasel

suydam said:

And new car prices have risen quite a bit, not the reverse.

The question does come to mind, is the increase in the average cost of a new car due to car prices going up or is it due to more people buying more expensive cars? We have an aging population and statistically the older one gets the more money they will make. The more money they make the more disposable income they have meaning that they can buy more expensive vehicles. This can be in the form of buying a more upscale brand or model or buy getting a higher trim with more options.

It would be interesting to research this.

ruking1

snakeweasel said:

suydam said:

And new car prices have risen quite a bit, not the reverse.

The question does come to mind, is the increase in the average cost of a new car due to car prices going up or is it due to more people buying more expensive cars? We have an aging population and statistically the older one gets the more money they will make. The more money they make the more disposable income they have meaning that they can buy more expensive vehicles. This can be in the form of buying a more upscale brand or model or buy getting a higher trim with more options.

It would be interesting to research this.

Indeed that is reasonable ? , but the answers are both yes & no. Its already posted in the options packages & $ numbers. It’s almost impossible to get a so called ‘basic” vehicle &/or truly “pick” one/s option/s. So say one wants an option. It is usually bundled with many other (unwanted) options that are WILDLY overpriced. DEFACTO that $150. option is/can now be $2,500. +.

So for example, a 2004 Honda Civic “value package” aka., basic sold for (to me) $12,364. (I thought I paid too much) How much would one think it can be had in 2019/2020? App 250,000 miles were posted. It sold for $4,000 (priced cheap to move) in late 2018. CPMD: depreciation .0335 per mile. One hidden cost savings, the rear brake drums & shoes lasted past when it sold. More to the point, IF it had options one didn’t want is it a reasonable expectation that one’s dealer would not charge for the options?

oldfarmer50

More mail from the dealer.

This time they had a “great offer”. Imagine, trade my 15’ Mustang in on a 19’ and get my payment reduced $5 a month. Who could resist that?

Well, anyone who can read I guess. The fine print says the deal is for 72 months instead of the current 60 and at 6.8% interest. My credit union is currently offering 3.1% car loans. Plus they only offer $750 rebate as opposed to the $4k that I got off my current ride at the same time of year. Sounds like a home run for the Ford store.

Wow, I will so not be running out to the dealer today. They should know better than to try that old payment scam on an Edmunds poster.