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
The Big 3 and the domestic issues that will affect them
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You should be able to find a fairly pristine late car for 20K tops. Not much more than half that for an earlier model. I wouldn't pay more. Last year the local MB dealer had a beautiful one owner 50K mile blue-green 97 S 420 for something like 18K. A coupe might bring a little more, but not a lot. These cars are a minimum of 7 years old now. But buyer beware...as is mentioned, they can bleed you dry. But I have known a couple people with earlier (92-94) cars that had few problems. I used to work with a woman who had a 93 300SE as a commuter, she loved it, put lots of miles on it with few hassles. If you're serious, find a specialist and have it gone over with a fine tooth comb. And be prepared for oil changes and all maintenance above that costing at least double that of a normal car.
It may be off topic...but at the same time...it does show that there are at least a few people who would rather go this route. Also, buying brand spanking new isn't always the best way to a good deal. There are also "connotations" to any kid driving a new car financed with daddy's wallet...not necessarily better than those that come with driving an old luxobarge.
Honestly, though, I had a old Buick back in college. Tons nicer than the crud everyone else was driving(mostly circa 1980 econoboxes - and let me tell you, Honda CVCCs with their 2-speed automatics were pitiful cars)
My family has always done this, in fact - buy a bigger luxury car a few years old for the price of a Corolla. So far, it's been a fantastic deal.
- way less money on insurance.
- way less money on registration.
- WAY DEAR LORD OMG WAYYYYY less on interest/loans.
- if the car has been maintained AND the transmission recently replaced, there's little to actually go wrong that is critical to the functioning of the car. We live with minor things like switches being a bit loose and tears in seats and so on that happen, so if you are only paying for mechanicals, yes, $1000 a year is easily doable if you don't insist on OEM parts(filters, brake pads, etc)
- decent power, space, safety. There's no comparing the ability to get out of trouble, stop, deal with bad roads and wind and such, and ease of driving between a fullsize sedan and any econobox.
Remember - a S500 was in the top ten cars in the WORLD when it was made. That you can haggle for one well under 20K... I can eat a boatload of maintainence before I get to anywhere close to what a new Lexus would cost me with everything factored in. Like 20K over ten years to just reach the purchase price, let alone depreciation and loans and all the other crap. With that added in, likely $30K.
(check out Edmunds - their true cost to own a 35K Lexus for five years is about 50K!)
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/lexus/es330/100610387/cto.html
Well, darn if a used luxury car doesn't leave a ton of room for maintainence in that equation. Buy for $12-14K, spend 20K less in the end to run it(gas, insurance, etc - same with both cars, more or less - don't know why Edmunds even bothers adding those lines in) One note - though - comprehensive isn't required if you pay cash/no loan, AND there's no interest - remove that line entirely.
(2002 Towncar - roughly the same specs as the older S class, which they lack data on, near as I can tell)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-yr Total
Depreciation $1,909 $1,674 $1,473 $1,306 $1,171 $7,533
(depreciation looks about right)
(financing removed entirely - cash, of course, or home equity for a few dollars more a month on your payment)
Insurance $819 $847 $877 $907 $939 $4,389
(cut in half. This is about right for comprehensive but no collision - see State Farm - they actually can sperate them for huge savings. Mine would cost about this with a good record and 200-500K coverage limits - not basic "just insurance - covered for everything in the universe other than repairs to my own car if it's my own fault)
Taxes & Fees $1,130 $101 $90 $81 $72 $1,474
Fuel $1,917 $1,975 $2,034 $2,095 $2,158 $10,179
Maintenance $1,812 $989 $743 $1,486 $1,339 $6,369
Repairs $591 $632 $679 $730 $782 $3,414
(maintainence and repairs are about right, IME, though a good condition properly maintained example can cut this in half)
Yearly Totals $9,911 $7,805 $7,323 $7,859 $7,525 $40,423 - $10K less than the Lexus.
My car:(just for fun)
'67 230S
$3000 initial cost, btw - $2K less than market value for this condition!!.
Depreciation: none(technically, -2500, due to initial cost and expected appreciation of ~$500).
Financing: none.
Insurance $619 $647 $677 $707 $739 $3389(comprehensive AND collision included!)
Taxes & Fees $195 $56 $58 $60 $62 $431
Fuel $1,917 $1,975 $2,034 $2,095 $2,158 $10,179 (okay, it's not good on fuel - it's almost exactly this, BTW)
Maintainence $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $2,000(do maintainence myself - mostly oil changes and stuff)
Repairs: $1,200+800+1000, $400, $400, $400, $400(initial $1200 was drivetrain and suspension - costs go down as I'm replacing stuff with new OEM parts and doing the labor myself. $3000 the first year includes:
- new A/C Compressor and components - not remanufactured, either.)
- new brakes and pads - OEM germany, new.
- new gaskets
- new plugs, distributor, coil, ,wires
- new fuel filter
- new belts
- new wiring
- new battery
- new tires
- new shocks, including steering damper(5 total, OEM, from Germany)
- new water pump
- new power steering pump
- new alternator
- all new hoses
- new radio(original period radio - $150 on EBAY, plus OEM NOS speaker - gotta keep it stock)6
- new bushings and such in steering components
- new filters, new carb seals/rebuild kits
- new headlights - Hela H4 and Euro driving lights for highbeams(OMG SO AWESOME!)
- european shoulderbelts(available in Europe that year, $300 - EBAY
Repairs: 4,200 total expected for 5 years(not much else TO replace after that, btw)
Yearly totals: $5,931 $3,278 $3,369 $3,462 $3,559 $19,599-$2500(if I sell it that is) = $17,099
Of course that's why old cars rock.
****
I've seen a of of Crown Vics at college lots, too - 8-10K for a few year old one is a good deal for any student. I also see a lot of old Mercedes, Volvos, and BMWs. As long as it's not the new style, and without alloy rims, there's zero "bling/yuppie" factor. If it's two generations old, it's clearly a commuter-box. I mean - a 91 S class? You can't get a new motorcycle hardly for what one costs in great shape.
Though, getting down to best car for a college student...
Three choices, really.
1:1998 Volvo S90/V90. This is the last year of the 100% Swedish designed and built 960. Totally bulletproof design, all the goodies, and cheap to maintain. 190HP, no turbo to break, safe as a valut, and the wagons are a godsend to students.
2:1993 Volvo 240 in minty condition. Yes, it will last ten more years - both Volvos will. Nothing to break on it that's not dirt cheap and put together with nuts/bolts and screws. Dead-simple engines. Quaint/old-school look. Absolutely nobody wil think she's driving "Daddy's car"
3: Old Mercedes W126 chassis station wagon. (notice the wagon theme - absolutely critical for a young student)
3b:(honorable mention):1975 BMW 2002Tii. *bwuh???* I can hear now. Anyone who has owned one of these in mint condition can attest to their strengths as virtually indestructable, inexpensive transportation. Not good in show/with rust, but if you live in milder climates, enjoy!(75 because no smog, obviously, otherwise it'd be 76)
None of these cars cost more than about 6-8K.
W123 wagons have quite a following and I have known a couple college students who had them. W124 to a lesser extent I think. I've only seen one 126 wagon, a custom body.
When I was in school I ran a W111 220SE (older brother to that 230S)...I paid $1500 for it, put about 3K into the engine, drove it for many years, and I still own it well over a decade later. Ownership cost has been very low on the old beast.
Anyway, it'll be 7 years in November that I've had my 2000 Intrepid. Currently has around 114,300 miles on it, and no real issues yet. About the biggest problem I had was the thermostat housing leaking and being replaced around the 50,000 mile mark. That was around $210.00. And around 86,000 miles the low oil pressure light would come on at idle when fully warmed up. Turned out there was a TSB on that one. Oil pressure was actually fine, but at idle, fully warmed up, the sensor would just overheat and give a false reading.
I'd imagine that very few people actually keep the same car for 10 years. Even if it's reliable, most people just get bored, or something better comes along. Or the car gets wrecked...it's not that hard to total out a car these days.
I think there's a good chance my '00 Intrepid will live to see its 10th anniversary with me. I've actually been wanting a new car for awhile now, but I'm just to cheap to scratch that itch! :P
My old 240? 230K miles on its second clutch and still going strong. Car was dirt-cheap to operate.
Oh - about the Mercedes Wagon - the idea is an old E-Class Wagon circa 1991-1995/6(pre-rounded modern body style - square older wagon) for college students. Diesels if they can stand it, naturally - the old Diesels were indestructable if smelly and cloud-spewing. (heh - take THAT you new 911 behind me!) Diesels also sell for less due to the stigma in the U.S.(despite every large delivery and semi truck in existance using them - go figure...)
For the rest of us, a S-class is a fine car. New cars are unbelieveably expensive and apparently any luxury car that doesn't have "M" or "AMG" or simmilar on it or isn't a convertable - well, it depreciates like any other car. Sedans are fine in my book, anyways - they make excellent commuter-boxes.(though I wish mine got better than about 15-20mpg highway - oh well...)
As for that itch - curb it.
Wrong...what do you think the 2006 Lincoln Town Car is? EXACTLY like that, but with modern safety features to boot.
I just never really cared for the Town Car all that much. And nowadays they seem kinda cheap and spartan, like their sole purpose is for limo and livery services to snatch them up and run 'em into the ground, and then hand them over to taxicab companies.
Not at the same time, there have never been more than 50 brands mass producing vehicles (1000 or mora anually) at any given time, and that counting the big 3 divisions seperatly.
Actually if I'm not mistaken I heard that in China now there are about 1,000 or so 'automakers'......interesting how history repeats itself.
I have a "tank" 1970 Volvo 144S in the garage that still is a daily driver, and built like a bank vault. It's easy to work on with only ordiary hand tools, and no computer diagnostic equipment. The 140-series is the basis for the 240, and is a much cleaner and classic design without the huge headllights and bumpers.
Rocky
Now, everyone says "Mercedes are expensive" - well, have you honestly priced what a new alternator from GM costs laately? Not rebuilt or remanufactured or aftermarket, but new? Toyota? Accura? Audi/VW?
Parts are hell to pay for lately no matter what you get, unless it's two generations old. Rocky - seriously take a look at a 1998 Volvo S90. It's as close to a Mercedes as Volvo ever built and is the last of the "Swedish Bricks". A previous generation Mercedes would also be a good deal - a 1991 420LWB.
Certain new models are also good deals.My friend has a 2-3 year old SLK 230 with the bigger V6 option(SLK 320?) and it's been solid as a rock for over a year. Icky fast, too. Well under 20K. It goes faster than my other friend at work's 968. Has had it up to 150mph. Superb car.
The only other car I'd recommend would be a 93-95 928. By then, Porsche had all of the gremlins worked out. Fast, actually has a back seat that someone other than a bulemic teenage actress could fit in(insert name of choice), and is fast. Has that timeless look, too, plus well, after 20 years of production, parts are easy to find. Shoot, a mint condition 968 convertable is also a hell of a car. My friend who has a 968 had his up to 145mph despite its age and he said it still felt solid up there. Now, I'm not advocating speeding, just if it is driveable at 140-150mph, at 75-80 passing someone, or climbing up that hill into Flagstaff at 80+, it's going to feel like it's glued to the road. My uncle's Lexus isn't even close. None of that same feeling.
No need to by new when you have Mercedes, Porsche, and Volvo to choose from - something will fit whatever your driving style and needs are
The Porsche suggestions are good too. Those 968s are excellent by every account I've seen. There are good used car deals out there for someone who doesn't want something to see 10x a day, and can handle more involved upkeep.
Rocky
Again, I don't want to generate a political discussion here, but am just wondering about the basics of what they are doing wrong.
However hopefully that gap continues to close.
Rocky
There is a fundamental difference between being a supplier of GM/Ford and being a supplier of Toyota.
GM/Ford, since they have poor control of the costs in their own plants, beat up their suppliers to provide annual price reductions. If you can't produce the parts domestically, they want to send the parts to China or they will source them elsewhere.
The message communicated to the suppliers is that PRICE is THE main determinant of a continued relationship. If you look around at the GM supplier base, you'll see any number of companies that they have nudged into bankruptcy.
Dealing with Toyota is completely different. Their PRIMARY concern is that the supplier is ABLE to produce CONSISTENTLY high quality parts. They will tour supplier plants to ensure that quality practices are in place before awarding business to a supplier.
I am not going to imply that Toyota will pay a great deal more for a part than GM. My implication is that price enters in to the equation toward the end of the negotiation.
It's not just the parts quality. Toyota has a different manufacturing process that uses a team approach with an emphasis on zero defects:
-Old-style Henry Ford approach -- run an assembly line, assemble the car, then QC it for defects. Problem: It's much harder to find defects, and to change processes that might be causing defects, if the QC is shifted to the back end.
-Toyota TQM approach -- use a team to build in stages. Inspect for quality while building -- stop the line if needed to fix defects. Stopping the line is costly, but it is cheaper than tearing down the car to fix it at the end of the line, and produces better quality because more defects are detected. Plus, if there is a problem with the assembly process, a part, etc., it is more easily identified and fixed on the spot.
Plus, Toyota maintains cooperative supplier relationships and a JIT inventory system which also helps with product quality -- suppliers take a greater role in being sure that the parts are of high quality and serve the specific needs of the product.
****
Probably the most concise statement of GM's problems in this forum in the last month.
All of this and more - GM designs for fleet use and Toyota designs for individual use. "Just good enough" versus "last the distance" pretty much sums it up.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
JLawrence was quite right, and anybody familiar with the subject knows that he's right, because the nature of the relationship with the supplier is different. You might want to learn from his good summary, rather than hurl insults that betray your lack of knowledge of the subject.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Toyota: Wants visually good looking and burr-free bolts if possible. Wants zero defects if possible, but willing to wait a bit to get it, if zero defects is attainable.
GM: Wants bolts. Period. Zero defects if practical.
Toyota is squeezing you a bit less. Your entire factory wishes secretly that Toyota would be their only supplier, in fact. Of course your Q.C. is more lax with GM. Given that making bolts probably has a 5% margin of error/where the product it less than perfect in some way(being metal, afterall), well - GM just wants whatever you can spit out. So most likely, you get Toyota's rejects thrown into the order as well. Afterall, if you want 100,000 bolts and 5,000 were culled out visually by your workers... um... off they go to GM to bulk up their order a bit faster. Let them deal with sorting and quality control. Their order is now filled. You just saved having to melt down and recycle 5,000 bad bolts.
And yes, every place I've done business with or worked at does this - the clients that want full-boat services and quality - they get attention. The whining, griping [non-permissible content removed] over there who wants their shipment... yeah - toss some crap in a box and get it out. One less headache to deal with for a week.
Rocky
I cannot speak for Delphi or other manufacturers. However, I will say that we do not bid for business from **ANY** customer where we cannot make our desired profit margin. GM's business would be great to have ... but not at a negative profit margin.
I'll put the '87 SAAB 900S w/o an airbag up against a ton of other vehicles available today w/airbags. I've seen actual up-close-and-personal (unfortunately) collisions with Classic SAAB 900's and with the 3-point belt, the SAAB protects the driver and passenger extraordinarily well. My cousin in Indiana hit a semi-tractor broadside head-on at 65MPH - opened the driver's door and climbed out of the car with just bruises from the belt. Now granted, this was most likely a true anomoly, but the SAAB's structure did its job. Airbags can't make up for poor controlled unibody crushability and poor structural rigidity around the passenger safety cage.
I have absolutely no qualms of her driving this vehicle on a daily basis. Yep, and I still drive the 37 year old Volvo, along with a late model Dodge Grand Caravan on a daily basis. I'd rather be in a serious collision in the Volvo. You need to really study the safety features included in these cars, even those of this vintage. For example, how many vehicles today include knee impact protection? Certainly a number do, as well they should, but all Volvo and SAAB models included this feature 40+ years ago.
An air bag is no panacea for a well constructed vehicle specifically designed to essentially destroy itself while protecting its occupants. The best application of air bag technology is for side impact protection.
I admit I like some of the vehicles of yesteryear too. But the safety advances of the past few years make them too risky.
****
True, but when you have two customers wanting the same or simmilar parts and one is an [non-permissible content removed] to you and is squeezing you - where do you think your best attention to detail and quality control goes to? It's human nature and GM seems to be just having a grand old time peeing in its suppliers' cornflakes.
***
Re: the airbags.
What you want is a car that came without airbags and then had them added. The problem is that for non-European designed(ie - BUILT and sold as that model over there), the designers figured that since the seatbelts are considered primatry restraint devices, as if nobody was wearing a seatbelt(!), that they could pass the tests just as well with the airbag factored in.
So a 2000 Buck Regal crashes no different than a 1988 Park Ave, even though they are about the same size and weight.
Now, take sometihng like a 1989-1993 Volvo 240. Same tank, just airbags added. Noticeable jump in safety with them added, but just as safe as most modern cars without. A win-win situation.
Mercedes and BMW and others - they never played this game of cost-cutting and designing to the crash tests, at least not for a good ten years or so, which is why the older Mercedes still fare so well.
Well actually we had a good relationship with GM. GM didn't want to pay the same amount of $$$$ on a higher grade part as Honda or Toyota. I specifically worked on the GMT headliner line most of the time. I however di make parts for various manufactorers on occasions. I felt that Honda used the best "grade" of material for car interior parts.
Rocky
1) Seat belts. Cars simply didn't have them in 1955. A few independents or foreigners might have offered them, and they may have been optional, but were rarely ordered. So even in a relatively slow impact, the driver would be thrown into the...
2) ...non-collapsible steering column. Prior to 1967, one of the biggest safety factors in car design was where the steering box was located. Many of them had it located ahead of the wheels and suspension, so even a light impact would push the box back, which would also push the steering column back, like a spear, into the driver. Safer cars had them mounted even with the front axle or even a bit aft. Once the collaspible, energy absorbing steering columns bcame standard equipment in 1967, this problem was pretty much remedied.
So if instead of a '55 Chevy, you took a '68 Chevelle and ran it into a 2000 Impala (a '68 Impala wouldn't be fair here, as it would be considerably bigger and outweigh the new Impala), the driver would come out much better. Now, I'd still rather be in the 2000 Impala, as it would have airbags and its unitized body would be designed to diffuse the impact forces better. But I wouldn't be afraid of the '68 Chevelle, either.
Similarly, since those old cars, like the '55 Chevy and '68 Chevelle, aren't designed to crumple, to the 2000 Impala they become more like running into a brick wall. That is, the Impala and its driver would most likely get hurt more by running head-on into one of these older cars than, say, another 2000 Impala. While those older cars didn't have crumple zones, in effect the newer car becomes the older car's crumple zone.
And likewise, the '55 Chevy driver would most likely come off better running head-on into a 2000 Impala than another '55 Chevy. Still not anything I'd want to try out first-hand, though.
The cars were like tanks in front end strength. That meant the car slowed quickly at the passenger compartment before the driver and passenger hit the windshield if not restrained.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Years ago I saw a pic of a 1959 DeSoto Firesweep that was hit head-on at something like 90 mph by a drunk driver in a 1979 Camaro. The DeSoto was really torn to hell, with the passenger cabin horribly compromised. They didn't show any pics of the Camaro. Miraculously nobody was killed.
Now in this case, the cars actually were fairly closely matched in weight. A 1959 DeSoto Firesweep is a smaller model, based on the Dodge platform, and considered by many not to be a "real" DeSoto. And a 1979 Camaro really was a porker of a car. With a V-8, I believe they were around 3400-3500 lb, whereas a '59 Firesweep might be around 3700-3800 lb. So not a HUGE difference. Not like running a Pinto into a Mark IV or anything like that!
The DeSoto was also a 2-door hardtop. And pillarless designs usually don't hold up so well in really hard impacts. Just look at the NHTSA tests a few years back of the full-sized trucks with the suicide doors, basically a pillarless design. With the exception of the Toyota, they all did pretty bad and have all been beefed up since then.
One thing that was kinda interesting though about this accident, is that even though it got whacked at 90 mph (might be an exaggeration, you never know), the car was still instantly recognizable as a 1959 DeSoto. Most modern cars, when they get whacked in the front, go to pieces as all that plastic stuff shatters and the fascia pops off, and the Coors Can fenders and hood buckle into obscene, distorted shapes.
Cars nowadays do truly sacrifice themselves to save the driver.
It was way ahead of its time and probably the first "modern" car other than the Volvo 140 series. Domestics - you have to add another ten years before they were as safe. I feel safe in my car, but wouldn't in anything older or without these features.
That said, a Volvo 240 - crashes very well. Not called a "swedish Brick" for nothing.
GM and Ford just didn't seem to put as much effort into their smaller unitized designs, often cutting corners too far. I've seen Darts in the junkyard that looked like they were used in offset crash testing. Fronts would be horribly crumpled in, but very little passenger cabin intrusion. Sure, a newer car would still do better, as they've learned a thing or two since the time of the Dart (also learned how to cut a few more corners here and there).
Back in 1998 I bought an '89 Gran Fury from a place that specialized in refurbished police cars. They had a yard around in back where they had wrecked cruisers that they used for parts. All of the Crown Vics and Caprices they had, which had been hit in the front, had horrible passenger cabin intrusion. Dash and steering column pushed back into the passenger area, frame buckled under the floorboards, yet still maintaining structure in the fender/axle engine area. In contrast, they had one Diplomat back there that had been hit in the front, hard. Crumpled up just like a decent modern car, with the very front taking most of the damage, and you could see how by the time the force of the impact got back to the passenger area, it had been diminished greatly.
Years ago I worked with a lady who drove a 1977 Catalina. She had hit a 240 once with it. A 1981. He ran a stop sign and she knocked him into the next zipcode. Totaled his car and tore it all to hell. But he survived, which was the important thing. As for the Catalina, it ended up getting a new front bumper, fascia (header panel and such) fender, hood, and driver's side door. And was never repainted, so the car itself was light blue with all these primer gray parts on it. Looked real ghetto, but I liked it. Asked her if I could buy it, once I found out it had a 400 in it! But unfortunately, her husband had promised it to a friend, who wanted to put the 400 in a Firebird.
It just seems like a fraud to me that in 5 years, someone will buy a 2007 model and think it's 4 years old. Yeah, I know there is a build date on the sticker on the door...but again why designate model years at all if they aren't at least close to being factual? And the imports do this sometimes too, so this is not a "bash GM/Ford/DCX" issue.
It took the others decades to grasp the simple concepts that Mercedes had learned from professional racing. What's amazing about the videos is that the car is so amazingly "50s" looking - and yet it might as well be a 70's era Volvo they are testing. Looking at the car, you honestly don't think for a minute that something this thick and heavy has crumple zones.