Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

tjc78

I’m not trying to stir the pot… honestly. Just giving a real world electric car report from a small road trip.

South Jersey to Manhattan (Times Sq area).

Left yesterday car was around 65%. Charged it to 92% (right at my 30 min free mark). Spent 15 mins grabbing a snack in the mall and 15 extra mins waiting for charge. Display read max 235 miles, min 220.

Round trip is 202 miles. We stopped at a service area on the NJtP on the way home because I wanted to check the facilities out for charging. As I suspected (typical NJ) both chargers completely inoperable and one the plug was actually damaged. No biggie we would have made it home with 10% left but stopped to top off to 80% near our home. 34 minutes… they didn’t charge me for the extra 4 mins like they do sometimes.

Cost me nothing other than tolls and about 49 mins extra to charge between the two days. If I had a home charger no wait but a cost associated to it.

Totally enjoyed the drive. It was just the wife and I so at times got a bit spirited. Wow can it really just cruise a highly illegal speeds without even knowing it (so I’m told…..)

stickguy

I just got an email from Allstate notifying me the next car insurance bill was out there. I am afraid to look. It’s on auto debit so I will find out eventually.

For the new house I plan to shop everything again. And hopefully save something.

explorerx4

On the ICE front, filled up on Jan 5. Low fuel light went on yesterday , so I started thinking about filling up.
Filled up today after 375 miles. Could have pushed further but it was nice out and I was out making a couple of stops anyway.

cdnpinhead

And, in related stories, water is wet.

ab348

Back to insurance, I was reading something online a week or two from a Florida newspaper about the skyrocketing cost of home insurance in much of the state but especially near the coasts. Premiums of well over 6 figures for luxe homes in those areas were floated in the story, along with quotes from people who were selling or had already sold because of the costs.

driver100

According to findings from Insurify's database of 97 million car insurance quotes from different insurance companies and a survey of 1,900 drivers across the country, the states paying the most for full coverage auto insurance are:

New York: $3,374, or $281 per month
Nevada: $2,975, or $248 per month
Florida: $2,917, or $243 per month

driver100

@tjc78 I'm not stirring the pot either but we don't have time to go for leisurely drives any more. Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to spend over an hour filling up twice for a 200 mile drive......and eating food I don't need or wandering around filling up time.

I have pickleball and tennis games to play, and maybe a play or people to visit, but I don't want to spend time trying to fill up.

I do appreciate your giving us the real facts...and you seem to be satisfied with the EV life style....if it works for you great!.

driver100

According to the Insurance Information Institute, homeowner's insurance has increased 102% in the last three years in Florida and costs three times more than the national average. The average cost of home insurance in the Sunshine State in 2023 was about $6,000, the highest average premium in the U.S.

We don't pay near that amount. Our Florida place is below average home price, we aren't in a flood zone, our exterior insurance is covered by the monthly condo fee which is extra high...$600 a month but includes a pool, cable TV, lawn care, maintenance exterior etc.

tjc78

@driver100 said:
@tjc78 I'm not stirring the pot either but we don't have time to go for leisurely drives any more. Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to spend over an hour filling up twice for a 200 mile drive......and eating food I don't need or wandering around filling up time.

I have pickleball and tennis games to play, and maybe a play or people to visit, but I don't want to spend time trying to fill up.

I do appreciate your giving us the real facts...and you seem to be satisfied with the EV life style....if it works for you great!.

Couple facts that have nothing to do with the EV lifestyle.

1 - it was not a leisurely drive. I accompanied my wife to a work event.

2 - we felt we needed the food considering we didn’t eat anything that morning and would have stopped to get something regardless

3 - I wish I had time for pickleball and tennis

4 - it was my choice to fill up the second time. Vehicle would have made it home and back to a charging station.

5 - I’ve basically said if I had a home charger I wouldn’t have had to stop anywhere. I plan to install one, just need to get through other projects first. I have a kitchen remodel starting at the shore I have to check on and travel for work next week.

driver100

@tjc78
No problem, the trip all worked for you.
It's too complicated for me to deal with and I don't want to eat every time I fill up. I admit that is just me.
I could have made that same trip and it would have been much less complicated, and more on my terms with options whether to eat before or after and not take into account the temperature or where the charging stations are.
EV sales are slowing and there are lots of reasons why....I could identify with this article;
https://driving.ca/column/motor-mouth/electric-vehicle-ev-messaging-skepticism?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Driving Newsletter 2024-01-27&utm_term=Driving_HeadlineNews

tjc78

Where did I say I have to eat every time I fill up ?

You can debate all you want but quote me for what I said.

I’m not reading the article right now… but you know why they are slowing IMO? When new car prices were through the roof I believe a lot of people bought one because at least they got the $7500 credit (or lease CCR).

driver100

@tjc78 I wasn't referring to you having to eat every time you fill up.
The article says EV owners often say, oh, you can always get something to eat or go shopping whenever you have to charge up for 40 minutes. This sounds OK until you really think about it, and these responses backfire in the long run because eating or shopping or emailing etc. for 40 minutes every time you want to charge up (on a long trip) is not what most people want to do.
But, I'll leave this topic...it has become like politics or religion, people are too polarized.

I will repeat, if the EV life suits you go for it.....I just don't think it suits a lot of people, and I think we should have a choice until it is perfected.

oldfarmer50

abacomike said:

Just got my auto insurance renewal from State Farm - premium for 6 months went from $1198 to $1378. No tickets, no claims. I shopped Allstate, Progressive, Hartford, Liberty Mutual and all of them ranged from $1900 - $2600 for 6 months. Car is almost 3 years old and I drive about 7400 miles a year.

The cost of auto and condo insurance down here in southeast Florida has doubled and tripled over the past 3 years. Remember, no tickets or accidents in over 20 years.

What the heck is going on in this economy?☹️😩😫

Lots of fraud and no insurance drivers in south Florida. We’re starting to see more of that up here. This happened this week:



Van went on to crash into another car. No license, no insurance.

oldfarmer50

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

Speaking of Carvana, they just offered me $23,600 for the Mustang, up $2400 from their December offer. They made that offer estimating 7k more miles than I actually have on it.

Their algorithm must know something I don’t.

Probably something as simple as "When Mustang inventory = < or equal to 1 offers are 1.3(X).

The $64 question is, what is "x" in that equation? KBB? Mannheim aggregate?

I’m guessing tax season and impulse buyers.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

According to findings from Insurify's database of 97 million car insurance quotes from different insurance companies and a survey of 1,900 drivers across the country, the states paying the most for full coverage auto insurance are:

New York: $3,374, or $281 per month
Nevada: $2,975, or $248 per month
Florida: $2,917, or $243 per month

I pay less than $3k for 4 vehicles, two with full coverage, all with about $500k liability limits. That NY figure must include NYC.

stickguy

I think we are about $1800 for 2 newer cars, full premium coverage.

dino001

oldfarmer50 said:

Speaking of Carvana, they just offered me $23,600 for the Mustang, up $2400 from their December offer. They made that offer estimating 7k more miles than I actually have on it.

Their algorithm must know something I don’t.

Perhaps that the check won't clear anyway?

dino001

stickguy said:

Carvana likely had some duds. But also home runs. What really matters is how they average out in the end!

And IIRC their real profit center was doing financing.

Carvana was a crooked business from the start. They have had their dealer license suspended multiple times by multiple jurisdictions for failure of filing the title/registration paperwork in timely manner (some people would not get their registration for months), in response crying persecution of "disruptor". They did not inspect their cars as they advertised, basically hoping that you won't notice the problems within the guaranteed refund period (7 days of ownership), their pricing algorithm was a complete joke, running up wholesale and retail values beyond ridiculous. They did not properly disclosed nature and extent of relationships with DriveTime, business owned by CEO's father. They were burning cash for most of their existence, their income statements and cash flows are just spooky. They couldn't make GAAP profit even at best of times, i.e. during car shortage and zero interest periods (-$2.63 EPS in 2020, -$1.63 in 2021, so no surprise that we get -$15.74 in 2022). Their balance sheet is currently showing net debt of $7.8B, basically matching market cap, which means shareholder. They burned through billions of cash in last few years. It just amazes me that there is still $7.5B market capitalization on that company. In my opinion it should be around zero.

stickguy

Sometimes it is the execution, not the business model, at fault.

kyfdx

In May, 2022, the stock price was closing in on zero. I think the founders quit stealing money and double dealing, and the stock stabilized.

On a related note, there was a Carvana flatbed on my street, this morning, picking up a neighbor's Corolla.

driver100

I am printing one of two letters in Dennis O'Sullivan's column because it explains why we never use to change brake fluid and now we are advised to do it. I am printing it for safety reasons;

QUESTION

I enjoy your column in the KW Record. I drive a 2014 Chev Equinox with 64000 miles. It has a V6 and is a great car. I take good care of it and I am a believer in preventative maintenance. I
also think, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It’s been suggested by the car dealership that I have the brake lines flushed and refilled with new fluid. I really like the dealership and go there regularly. I’m only hesitant because in over 55 years of driving, I’ve never had it done before. Is this a new thing? I do trust the dealership but I’m a senior on a fixed income and I believe it might cost between two to three hundred dollars. I have the brakes checked every year and they work perfectly. Should I consider having it done for safety reasons? Your advice would be most welcomed.
Thanks for your time, Steve from Cambridge.

ANSWER

Brake fluid is hygroscopic and it can overtime absorb moisture and become contaminated, lowering its boiling point to where it might turn to vapor when overheated. If this happens, your brakes can fail during a sudden stop and after about four to five minutes, your brakes will be back to normal. If the dealership has tested the boiling point/and or noticed a difference in color, they will recommend that you change the brake fluid. Most manufacturers recommend that you change the brake fluid every two to three years or sooner, if you are driving in hilly country or pulling a trailer. You are correct when you say that we never used to do this years ago and while I was on the bench, I seldom ever recommended the brake fluid to be changed. So, what has changed? Well, to begin with, a very short answer is that in order to increase fuel efficiency, vehicles’ brake parts became lighter and thinner, therefore they will heat up more quickly than the larger brake rotors and calipers of the past. These smaller brake parts put more heat strain on the brake fluid and contaminate the brake fluid faster which requires it to be changed sooner than that of the past. We in Canada seldom ever required brake fluid to be changed in the past, other than on a complete brake job. Garages in England did recommend brake fluid to be changed every year because of the very small brake parts which would heat up much faster and contaminate the brake fluid. The dealership service manager is there to guide you on the correct maintenance that your vehicle requires so do not be afraid to sit down with him or her to discuss the need for why or if you should have the brake fluid changed in your vehicle.

stickguy

Honda for a long time has had brake fluid in their maintenance schedule. I think every 3 years.

imidazol97

I used to hear the salesmen at the desk of the tire store chain tell some folks they need to have their brake fluid flushed. Or their power steering fluid flushed. Never did they say they needed to test it with a test strip to see if it had adsorbed enough water to be a risk if someone were driving a long downhill mountain and needed to use their brakes continually.

Often these were phone calls to someone whose car they had in for service that had been left. So it was a blind sales call.

I likened it to the time they put the first wrong oil filter on my Cruze and the mechanic came out with my engine air filter showing me the dirt side with blades of dead brown grass on it. I had changed the air filter 2 years earlier and I don't think I've been driving through long, dead grass that would be sucked up from behind the radiator side power where the air intake is. Hmmmm. Where did the grass come from? I said, "No."
I was in there for oil change and tire balancing and rotation.

Diagnose before replacing.

kyfdx

BMW recommends every two years, and it's been that way for as long as I can remember (so, at least a week)

Just had it done on Tuesday for my wife's car.

roadburner

driver100 said:

I am printing one of two letters in Dennis O'Sullivan's column because it explains why we never use to change brake fluid and now we are advised to do it. I am printing it for safety reasons;

QUESTION

I enjoy your column in the KW Record. I drive a 2014 Chev Equinox with 64000 miles. It has a V6 and is a great car. I take good care of it and I am a believer in preventative maintenance. I
also think, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It’s been suggested by the car dealership that I have the brake lines flushed and refilled with new fluid. I really like the dealership and go there regularly. I’m only hesitant because in over 55 years of driving, I’ve never had it done before. Is this a new thing? I do trust the dealership but I’m a senior on a fixed income and I believe it might cost between two to three hundred dollars. I have the brakes checked every year and they work perfectly. Should I consider having it done for safety reasons? Your advice would be most welcomed.
Thanks for your time, Steve from Cambridge.

ANSWER

Brake fluid is hygroscopic and it can overtime absorb moisture and become contaminated, lowering its boiling point to where it might turn to vapor when overheated. If this happens, your brakes can fail during a sudden stop and after about four to five minutes, your brakes will be back to normal. If the dealership has tested the boiling point/and or noticed a difference in color, they will recommend that you change the brake fluid. Most manufacturers recommend that you change the brake fluid every two to three years or sooner, if you are driving in hilly country or pulling a trailer. You are correct when you say that we never used to do this years ago and while I was on the bench, I seldom ever recommended the brake fluid to be changed. So, what has changed? Well, to begin with, a very short answer is that in order to increase fuel efficiency, vehicles’ brake parts became lighter and thinner, therefore they will heat up more quickly than the larger brake rotors and calipers of the past. These smaller brake parts put more heat strain on the brake fluid and contaminate the brake fluid faster which requires it to be changed sooner than that of the past. We in Canada seldom ever required brake fluid to be changed in the past, other than on a complete brake job. Garages in England did recommend brake fluid to be changed every year because of the very small brake parts which would heat up much faster and contaminate the brake fluid. The dealership service manager is there to guide you on the correct maintenance that your vehicle requires so do not be afraid to sit down with him or her to discuss the need for why or if you should have the brake fluid changed in your vehicle.

dino001

stickguy said:

Sometimes it is the execution, not the business model, at fault.

True, but I don't think it's Carvana's case. They sure had terrible execution, double dealing, etc., but they also operated on flawed assumptions that used car market can be run from somebody's server in real time, i.e. everything can be put in the algorithm. There can be only two results - either too many cautions lowballs offers (and no sales) or massive overbidding (and losses). Carvana chose the latter, partially because their founders weren't aligned with Company's long term success. BTW, similar thing happened to Zillow with real estate bids, when they thought they had the algo - that one looked more like hubris than wrong incentives, as they backed off the downward spiral of real estate losses pretty quickly, whereas Carvana seems to try to burn every last cent of its cash.

roadburner

BMW called for an annual DOT 4 brake fluid change up until the '90s when they switched to a two-year regimen. To participate in most HPDEs the brake fluid is required to be no more than six months old.
I know that I've mentioned this before, but I once heard a European automotive engineer accurately describe the difference between European and American drivers:

"Europeans don't care if the brakes squeal- just as long as they stop the car.
Americans don't care if the brakes stop the car- just as long as they don't squeal."

tjc78

I have 33% of a Titanic model. Such a fun build and also relaxing after a long day.

qbrozen

@tjc78 said:
I have 33% of a Titanic model. Such a fun build and also relaxing after a long day.

Are there little people hanging off it for dear life? Is that the side that sank first or last?

stickguy

how do the sections tie together? Don't see legos to attach to.

And keep saving your allowance, and maybe soon you can afford to buy the rest of the pieces.

Michaell

@dino001 said:
True, but I don't think it's Carvana's case. They sure had terrible execution, double dealing, etc., but they also operated on flawed assumptions that used car market can be run from somebody's server in real time, i.e. everything can be put in the algorithm. There can be only two results - either too many cautions lowballs offers (and no sales) or massive overbidding (and losses). Carvana chose the latter, partially because their founders weren't aligned with Company's long term success. BTW, similar thing happened to Zillow with real estate bids, when they thought they had the algo - that one looked more like hubris than wrong incentives, as they backed off the downward spiral of real estate losses pretty quickly, whereas Carvana seems to try to burn every last cent of its cash.

Zillow was fine when they were just providing prices and selling ads. When they decided to start buying and flipping houses is when they got into trouble.

The housing market does not always go up.

tjc78

@qbrozen
LMAO… the bow went down first.

@stickguy
It has long rods that connect the three sections together. I have all parts. It is one kit separated into three sections.

stickguy

Michaell said:

@dino001 said:

True, but I don't think it's Carvana's case. They sure had terrible execution, double dealing, etc., but they also operated on flawed assumptions that used car market can be run from somebody's server in real time, i.e. everything can be put in the algorithm. There can be only two results - either too many cautions lowballs offers (and no sales) or massive overbidding (and losses). Carvana chose the latter, partially because their founders weren't aligned with Company's long term success. BTW, similar thing happened to Zillow with real estate bids, when they thought they had the algo - that one looked more like hubris than wrong incentives, as they backed off the downward spiral of real estate losses pretty quickly, whereas Carvana seems to try to burn every last cent of its cash.

Zillow was fine when they were just providing prices and selling ads. When they decided to start buying and flipping houses is when they got into trouble.

The housing market does not always go up.

it is also vastly more expensive, and time consuming, to buy and sell houses.

jmonroe1

stickguy said:

Michaell said:

@dino001 said:

True, but I don't think it's Carvana's case. They sure had terrible execution, double dealing, etc., but they also operated on flawed assumptions that used car market can be run from somebody's server in real time, i.e. everything can be put in the algorithm. There can be only two results - either too many cautions lowballs offers (and no sales) or massive overbidding (and losses). Carvana chose the latter, partially because their founders weren't aligned with Company's long term success. BTW, similar thing happened to Zillow with real estate bids, when they thought they had the algo - that one looked more like hubris than wrong incentives, as they backed off the downward spiral of real estate losses pretty quickly, whereas Carvana seems to try to burn every last cent of its cash.

Zillow was fine when they were just providing prices and selling ads. When they decided to start buying and flipping houses is when they got into trouble.

The housing market does not always go up.

it is also vastly more expensive, and time consuming, to buy and sell houses.
————————————————-
In our case it takes time to get a flip ready for sale but selling them takes almost no time. Never more than 2 days but the winner was flip No. 3 that sold in a little less than 4 hours. Too bad we can’t make our hammers work that fast.

jmonroe

roadburner

tjc78 said:

I have 33% of a Titanic model. Such a fun build and also relaxing after a long day.

I'm definitely picking up this Lego kit:

Michaell

Is that Lewis’ or George’s car? Lewis’ will be a collectors item after this season.

roadburner

I'm assuming that there will be labels for both versions.

roadburner

I'll probably buy this one as well...

tjc78

Love those. My son loves Back to the Future so for his birthday in March, we got him the Lego Delorean.

roadburner

I suppose I'll also need this set:

imidazol97

Wow. Legos have changed since out son (now 30's) was building them, avidly.

In fact, he has a huge spaceship that he built last year. Star Trek?

andres3

driver100 said:

@tjc78 I wasn't referring to you having to eat every time you fill up.
The article says EV owners often say, oh, you can always get something to eat or go shopping whenever you have to charge up for 40 minutes. This sounds OK until you really think about it, and these responses backfire in the long run because eating or shopping or emailing etc. for 40 minutes every time you want to charge up (on a long trip) is not what most people want to do.
But, I'll leave this topic...it has become like politics or religion, people are too polarized.

I will repeat, if the EV life suits you go for it.....I just don't think it suits a lot of people, and I think we should have a choice until it is perfected.

You're onto something wise and true here.

"Speed Kills" crowd uses similar arguments. They say things like a long trip evens out over time driving slow because the guy driving fast has to stop for bathroom breaks. As if driving slow makes your bladder twice as big. NEWS FLASH: There's a reason people make apples to apples comparisons. Slow drivers have to take bathroom breaks too.

In fact, one could argue driving faster reduces bathroom breaks/stops, because you get to your destination before you need one.

jmonroe1

roadburner said:

I suppose I'll also need this set:

————————————————
When we went over to Son #1’s house for dinner last week, Grandson #4 showed me 2 Lego cars that he had just build. He said they cost around 60 bucks each and took about 8 hours to build both. Sorry I can’t remember what the cars are even though he told me twice.

jmonroe

andres3

dino001 said:

stickguy said:

Carvana likely had some duds. But also home runs. What really matters is how they average out in the end!

And IIRC their real profit center was doing financing.

Carvana was a crooked business from the start. They have had their dealer license suspended multiple times by multiple jurisdictions for failure of filing the title/registration paperwork in timely manner (some people would not get their registration for months), in response crying persecution of "disruptor". They did not inspect their cars as they advertised, basically hoping that you won't notice the problems within the guaranteed refund period (7 days of ownership), their pricing algorithm was a complete joke, running up wholesale and retail values beyond ridiculous. They did not properly disclosed nature and extent of relationships with DriveTime, business owned by CEO's father. They were burning cash for most of their existence, their income statements and cash flows are just spooky. They couldn't make GAAP profit even at best of times, i.e. during car shortage and zero interest periods (-$2.63 EPS in 2020, -$1.63 in 2021, so no surprise that we get -$15.74 in 2022). Their balance sheet is currently showing net debt of $7.8B, basically matching market cap, which means shareholder. They burned through billions of cash in last few years. It just amazes me that there is still $7.5B market capitalization on that company. In my opinion it should be around zero.

Based on all of the above they should quit the car business and enter the Auto Insurance business. They might do quite well in that field building the skills used above.

qbrozen

@andres3 said:
You're onto something wise and true here.

"Speed Kills" crowd uses similar arguments.

Of course speed kills. You ever throw a bullet at someone? Terribly ineffective.

andres3

qbrozen said:

@andres3 said:

You're onto something wise and true here.

"Speed Kills" crowd uses similar arguments.

Of course speed kills. You ever throw a bullet at someone? Terribly ineffective.

But a thrown tomahawk used to work pretty effectively.

roadburner

jmonroe1 said:

roadburner said:

I suppose I'll also need this set:

————————————————
When we went over to Son #1’s house for dinner last week, Grandson #4 showed me 2 Lego cars that he had just build. He said they cost around 60 bucks each and took about 8 hours to build both. Sorry I can’t remember what the cars are even though he told me twice.

jmonroe

The bigger Mercedes-AMG F1 Lego kit is over 2 feet long and has 1,642 parts.

roadburner

imidazol97 said:

Wow. Legos have changed since out son (now 30's) was building them, avidly.

In fact, he has a huge spaceship that he built last year. Star Trek?

Star Wars; I'd love to build the Razor Crest, but at $600 it's a bit pricey...

driver100

qbrozen said:

@andres3 said:

You're onto something wise and true here.

"Speed Kills" crowd uses similar arguments.

Of course speed kills. You ever throw a bullet at someone? Terribly ineffective.

I saw a guy in an underpowered Chev Spark that was going slower than everyone else and he was in the left lane of course. When he stopped for red lights he was like a turtle taking off...the 0 to 60 in 11 seconds doesn't help. This guy was dangerous as other cars were trying to get around him so they could get to their destinations....he was a menace on the road.

Not saying going ultra fast is safe, but driving too slow can be just as much if not more of a hazard.

andres3

driver100 said:

qbrozen said:

@andres3 said:

You're onto something wise and true here.

"Speed Kills" crowd uses similar arguments.

Of course speed kills. You ever throw a bullet at someone? Terribly ineffective.

I saw a guy in an underpowered Chev Spark that was going slower than everyone else and he was in the left lane of course. When he stopped for red lights he was like a turtle taking off...the 0 to 60 in 11 seconds doesn't help. This guy was dangerous as other cars were trying to get around him so they could get to their destinations....he was a menace on the road.

Not saying going ultra fast is safe, but driving too slow can be just as much if not more of a hazard.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve#/media/File:Solomon_Curve.png

The reason this curve holds true is due to the fact not all objects in the world are stationary, and it takes 2 objects to tango.