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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
First it's anecdotal, at best.
Second we know nothing about the vehicle and it's background, damaged? maintenance ever done? ever?
Third was it abused?
Engine freezes up? You know what that sounds like. If you've had kids driving while in college then you know that the last thing that they want to spend their money on is auto maintenance.
Pulling something off the web like this and saying "Ah Ha!" is looking for the smallest blemish in a Da Vinci.
I said nothing about there being no 250K mile cars on the road - of course there are TONS of them.
But when a carmaker sees one, he cringes....believe me... :shades:
You think Henry Ford wanted people to buy one or two or three cars ONLY in their lifetime.....?
PUH-LEEZE.
Carmakers are in the business to SELL NEW CARS. They don't want cars lasting forever.
Neither do makers of TVs.
Neither do cell phone companies.
No one who sells a consumable product wants it to last forever. It's just bad business.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
kcram - Pickups Host
Now why don't Americans line up to buy these great Town Cars???? It's all in the advertising. The [non-permissible content removed] have the slickest advertising. They hire the best advertising talent. Detroit doesn't get it on advertising. As great as the Town Car is, you will be seen as either a cab driver or an "old man". That is the power of advertising.
Yes and no. They are great cars, but for their narrowly-designed purpose. Most people want a more general purpose vehicle. Please notice that Crown Vic is essentially the same car. I would buy it in a heart beat if it had the following features:
1. If it was offered as a wagon
2. Or at least had foldable rear seats - I do occasionally want to transport something longer - you cannot do it today. I DON'T want a truck in addition to my car. What's so hard to figure that out? Apparently it is real hard for domestic manufacturers who still believe that we all salivate for the monster SUVs or trucks just to carry something from Home Depot once in a while. If you go to Europe, almost all vehicles on the road are station wagons. That's practical. Dedicated sedan is good for commute to work only.
Also, I would like a more fuel efficient diesel engine in that Crown Vic (or Town Car).
BTW, in my area Town Cars were very popular until Ford decided to screw them up by changing their traditional, conservative appearance and then sealed their fate with that cartoonish smiley facia (who were they trying to appeal to with that bizarre look change and were the people in charge of that changeover fired?). They're been trying to walk away from it for a while now, but the damage's been done.
However, I would still consider either vehicle with at least the foldable rear seats and a more efficient engine (diesel, please).
Clean Diesels
The most interesting part for me was the 2008 Jetta TDI being a 60 MPG hwy car....I did not know they had reached that plateau yet....
As for the Mercedes Diesel (or any Merc.) it is extraordinarily expensive to maintain and repair based on the Ex Wife's experience as well as the local repair shop comments. Still in all, it is a very fine car and a pleasure to drive even if a bit sluggish and cumbersome in town.
For someone able to get the yearly mileage down (or up as the case may be) to 8,000 miles, indeed it makes absolutely NO sense to go out and specifically buy a diesel; let alone even a gasser due to mileage considerations alone. I keep two "old" Landcruisers simply due to the yearly mileage. Indeed I needed a 3x the mpg and 2-3x the mileage to even consider an economic switch. As you can well imagine not many gasser get 45 mpg.
Let me address the DIESEL fuel outlets. While I realize there are a lot of assumptions in your comment/s, in over 87,000 miles, I have yet to have even a remote concern about outlets. Indeed the only times I have had to so call wait was to wait for gasser vehicles to clear the area blocking the largely unused diesel pumps. I have even backed in perpendicular (T) for gassers taking a long time to fuel. When I bought my diesel in 2003, the diesel fuel outlets were averaged out to be 1/4 or 25% of fuel stations having diesel. This may seem like a problem but really it is almost total over capacity. The passenger vehicle fleet is upwards of 97% gasser and the diesel % is less than 3%. Further when traveling on the open roads getting diesel fuel is utterly a non issue.
Look at what Daimler-Chrysler did with the Jeep Liberty CRD. They did not ever advertise it except at the very end of MY2006 and then only in passing. In 2005, DCX thought they might sell 5000 Liberty CRDs but sold more than 8000 of them all by word of mouth. In 2006 they sold even more again without a single advertising dollar spent. I have not seen a single advertisement for the VW TDI as far as I am able to recall.
America is ready for clean diesel.
All the fuel stations in Canada had both gas and diesel..
It the EPA was really interested in protecting the environment they would force the automakers to give 10 years of warranty on their vehicles. Stop this ridiculous buying a new vehicle every 3 years. Keep in mind MOST of the pollution put out by our vehicles is in the manufacturing process.
In the future if I buy a car with such a warranty, I will certainly ask for a written list of "normal wear & tear" items.
You are right of course but it's a Utopian fantasy. Tell the automakers to downsize because they pollute too much?
I still however there are some makes and models being built than are more condusive to going the distance. While folks can all point to their favorites, I have had good luck with Toyota Landcruisers. The interesting thing: a very meager warranty at 3 years/36,000 miles with 1 year/12,000 mile new car adjustment. I just recently met a guy whose 1993 TLC has app 350,000 miles. he was kind enough to let me swarm all over the vehicle. He offered a long test ride. He still runs the original shocks! This of course trumps a 1987 I sold with 250,000 miles and a 1993 with 138,000 miles. The good news is this has the "legendary" Toyota durability and the even better news is this is one line of Toyota that is NOT made by Toyota! (Landcruisers are made in a separate location and assembly line by Arakara or some such) We of course waxed on about how we both wanted a turbo diesel in a TLC!
In his case the bain of the TLC existence has been 20,000 mile brake pads and at 40,000 miles new pads and rotors!!!
My experiences have been 40,000/50,000 mile brake pads and rotors at 80,000 miles. Toyota to their credit based on clicked miles did pony up for low yield brake pads and rotors, and I did forget to ask him if he got his check.
I'd say yes and no or at worst the cracks are showing if this couple day bru ha ah about Chrysler being on the market and GM of all companies rumored to be a bidder!!??
What is little understood is that most people who buy new cars do so for the advances in performance, safety, comfort, features and the enjoyment of buying and owning "a new car". The high mileage cars I have referred to in other posts here have been or are in their teens and twenties, as for me; I have not had to replace a computer in any of the cars, and have always bought used rather than new for the economic advantages. I will probably buy new soon to indulge in that joy of "buying and owning a new car" which is as much a Right of Passage as anything in American culture.
============================================================
It still comes down to our (my) irrational idea that driving and owning polluting vehicles as an expression of our individuality can be maintained. Mass transit is the inevitable brick wall that everyone is heading toward. Diesel vs Gas (or hybrid) discussions are a time filler at best as we watch the approaching storm.
I would like to take a subway from my work to my home, but it is not going to happen in my lifetime. The cities in this country are so spread out, it is utterly impractical. Even in Europe in densely populated agglomerations with well developed mass transit there are still huge traffic jams. Mass transit will not serve everyone, and the reality of individual transportation is here to stay. We should think about how to improve it and make it as efficient as possible.
Jose
There are. And I agree with the line developed in your post. But look out! London Traffic Authority is charging 9 Sterling Pounds per day per private car that enters London Downtown.
Jose
To see an example of how out of sync the marketplace is when CARB becomes involved is the example of the Prius.
CA is 12% of the population of the US and CA accounts for 40% of Prius sales.
quote Detroit News 02/21-
Then there's the problem of Toyota's reliance on California for so many hybrid vehicle sales.
Last year the Golden State accounted for some 40 percent of Toyota's hybrid sales.
And two cities alone -- Los Angeles and San Francisco -- accounted for an estimated 76 percent of all hybrid registrations in the state, according to HybridCars.com.
No wonder.
-end quote
Meanwhile, in the LA Times there is an example of what is NOT available in CA due to CARB. LA Times E320 CDI
California.....Hiss...Boooo.... :mad:
Also I read the CA DMV has hit its issue quota/goal (85,000?)for "single access commuter lane stickers" and is no longer even processing the applications.
On the EFFECTS side, there is absolutely NO study detecting or even indicating, the hybrid population (Prius) makes even a DETECTABLE let alone make a measurable effect on the air quality in either or both areas. Indeed if anyone knows about it PLEASE POST. Statistical verification is still in the hypothesis stage. There is also NO hypothesis as to how large the hybrid population has to be in (CA state) vehicle fleet of 30 m vehicles, it would take to even make a DETECTABLE measure, let alone the Mt Everest climb to statistical verification and correlation.
While it is very apparent why the CA legislature wanted to issue the stickers, in terms of effect, it is bas ackwards. Indeed IF the aim is to limit the emissions, you really want the hybrid to do the GREATER percentage of the idling vs the non hybrid, again using the logic for buying it in the first place.
Another is the disengenuous application of lower fuel mileage in the diesel vs gasser. My 50 mpg is truly better than almost ALL gassers, yet the state saw fit to ban certain years of these diesel fuel sippers. Again IF (it does) diesel has a app 30% savings advantage, DO THE MATH! This very same math is even taught in 49/50th CA K-12 grades, public schools.
Another is the same CARB anti diesel agency basically lets ALL other than the passenger vehicle fleet run diesel almost 100% TOTALLY UNABATED! Keep in mind that fully 1/2 of all fuel consumed in the USA is diesel or a diesel equivalent!!! The list of products that do this is literally almost unlimited and in effect would totally cripple life as we know it if it where shut down to receive even minimal emissions controls!!! Indeed a normal container ship entering the Port of Long Beach, CA is equivalent to operating 30,000 cars all day. Not only is this ship unabated, it runs on up to 3000 ppm sulfur fuel oil. By contrast my 50 mpg diesel was design and does run on 15 ppm #2 diesel. This converts to 200 x more!
Permit me a crass analogy as this is like going to an orgy and being totally offended because you saw someone's ("naked") face!!!! The so called enforcement is almost completely disengenuous!
How would you propose this "mitigation" if you had two weeks as the man in charge?
Ban airplane flight? Make them change their fuel systems to a cleaner fuel at the cost of maybe millions of dollars per aircraft?
Ban gasoline lawnmowers and blowers?
Ban diesel generators?
Please let us know all your brilliant mitigation ideas instead of constantly harping on the fact that there are so many things unmitigated.....in other words, give a solution rather than complain about the problem.....
Are you saying that because all these other devices are not monitored that cars and trucks should ALSO be not monitored?
I think one can look at 9/11, as tragic as it was to learn that answer. Even as the USA Secretary of Transportation grounded all planes in USA airspace, There was literally no measurable overnight change to the USA "pollution picture." So 13 more days of that still would be about the same. This of course is both the good news and the bad news.
Keep in mind here, the 350 or so wells burned (AGAIN your hated concept) UNMITIGATED 24/7 for app 6 months. A real vision of HELL on earth. A University of California Davis alumni,(retired pollution control expert) was sent to the area to measure and report. The upshot: while it was a local or regional disaster, it had no statistically significant contribution difference/effect on global warming.
Indeed your inability to either acknowledge or understand the SCALE has been at the core of your mantra or the gist of your argument. Does "dirty diesel" ring a bell? Again YOU are capable of doing the equivalent math to get same same pollution yields. So please do me and you a favor and do not claim ignorance. For ignorant YOU are not.
But in regard to controlling the diesel exhaust of passenger vehicles WHERE WE CAN, anyone again who disagrees that we should is not seeing the larger picture.
We in the USA only have control ( and very little control at that ) over that pollution which is created on our shores, basically. So even if attempts to clean the air are a virtual "drop in the Global bucket" it should still be attempted and monitored.
Our lives and health and the lives and health of our children and future generations of Americans and other global citizens depend on making the air as clean as can be with reasonable (ie non-financially-crippling) means.
If by banning the sale of certain vehicles which we KNOW are damaging to the air and are in such low demand that banning their sale does not severely and adversely affect the economy we can "help" even a little bit, then why should we not attempt that?
If by banning the sale of certain vehicles which we KNOW are damaging to the air and are in such low demand that banning their sale does not severely and adversely affect the economy we can "help" even a little bit, then why should we not attempt that? "
Outside of it being intellectually dishonest, in practice (just to address your statements and not the plethora of other issues) it WILL NOT achieve what you are hoping it will. It is like marveling over a handful of beach sand while disregarding the literally hundreds of thousands of miles of ...beach sand. Of course this is not to undervalue the handful of sand you do have in your hands
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The arguement that supports diesel is not limited to contesting the impact on smog levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Strictly an aside, and do NOT try this at home, you can expect 124 gals from an acre of opium poppy production.
So if my argument is so weak, that would mean you AGREE that we should not even ATTEMPT to have ANY AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS at ALL?
Disband the EPA, CAFE, CARB? Let people do whatever the heck they want?
And it won't even MATTER in regard to our air quality AT ALL?
Anyone who believes that (whether they post on this board or not) is a total fool.
And agreeing that we should not even TRY to help clean the air as a society is classifying oneself as such.
Live Free and Breathe Clean My Friends,
Lars
Your arguments are in general lopsided in favor of screwing the little guy and letting the big guy get away with murder. Why should I a lonely soul wanting to have a diesel car that gets 50 mpg be squeezed and American Airlines get a bye on pollution with their jets? Or the big cargo ships burning the nastiest bunker oil with 3000 PPM sulfur be allowed to dump that off our coasts with little or no regulations. You do know the prevailing wind is from the West? I think the government started at the wrong end of the pollution scale. It started with removing the lead from gas. If they had forced the fuel producers to remove the sulfur from all diesel we would be using a lot less oil today and have 50% of our our vehicle fleet diesel as they do in the EU.
You seem worried that the airlines would have to spend money to upgrade their planes. How does that compare to the buyer of a car? I think you will find we are expected to pick up a much larger portion of the pie than the big polluters. How much of that hybrid you are driving is directly related to cutting pollution. I would say at least 20%. And you are worried about the poor airlines having to add a million bucks to a $200 million airplane.
First of all, there is no "little guy vs big guy" thing in my argument, anywhere. "Big Guys" like the airlines SERVE US and EMPLOY US and WE PAY for anything they need to do to their planes via higher air fares. I don't know about most people, but most middle-class Americans (the "little guys?) have a problem already affording to fly their family these days. I had to fly my two kids and myself 900 miles to go to a funeral and it cost us almost $1600 in air fare alone.
Now, that said, there is this: Would I want to see airlines increase their fares SUBSTANTIALLY in trade for cleaner burning planes?
A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y I would like to see that.
Is it economically feasible? Probably not, unfortunately. It would never get passed into regulation because of the exorbitant costs.
And the big cargo ships and their high sulfur fuel? What would you propose we do to those big ships which belong to OTHER COUNTRIES outside of the USA? I could see sanctioning American-born ships and ship companies, sure I would. Force them to use cleaner fuel and engines. Sounds like a job for the EPA. Now, that said, is that easily accomplished? NO. Once again, it's more likely not in the range of economic feasibility. Should it be done? Of course !!!
As far as taking the lead from gas before the sulfur out of diesel, that's a "technology problem." It was technologically feasible and possible to take the lead out in the 1970s and the technology for the removal of sulfur from diesel (and the engine technology and catalysts and cleaners required for that) has only been recently feasible.
As far as how much of my TCH is related to reducing pollution? At the very MINIMUM it would be 20%. Remember - that's an AT-PZEV car, and the only cleaner technology is the Civic GX.
So, like I have said MANY times: The EPA has attacked pollution in many, many areas, and done so with the intent of trying to keep our economy from suffering serious blows and striking a balance between caring about the environment and doing something that is technically feasible.