Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Several years ago we stopped at the local MB dealership that had a loaded C-class (I think a C230 Kompressor, not sure on the number but it was a kompressor) that was a year old with 16K miles on it and they only wanted $26K for it. Almost bought it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yeah. Maybe in Evanston and Oak Park. Otherwise, you would have to spend interminable amounts of time on errands and the like.
One good thing many Chicago suburbs are doing now is concentrating new development around the Commuter Rail stations.
I have noticed since moving to New York many of the suburban commuter stations are located in out of the way or formerly grand but now depopulated areas. When I tell NYers that Chicago actually is doing the suburban station thing better, they just kind of look at me.
On topic, someone working near a rail line in New York could use a sub-compact pretty happily to get to and from the station.
From my informal (Infrequent as well. I tend not to go to the 'Bubs.) surveys of commuter rail station parking lots, a lot of people in the Tri-State area insist on using big 'ole vehicles to drive to the train every morning. They are tying up a lot of money in something that sits in a parking spot at least 40 hours a week.
Really? It seems to me that most new construction is away from the train stations. There is very little good land along the commuter lines in the burbs nowadays. FWIW these days the growth is now getting beyond the reach of the commuter lines.
Another issue with the commuter trains is the lack of parking spaces. Aurora and Napervile have waiting lists that are at least 5 years long and most likely much longer.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Larger cars and trucks have far worse handling and vision than smaller cars - at the average consumer level. They give the illusion of personal safety, but at the expense of safety for everyone else on the road.
Well, when you're being hit by something, versus the one doing the hitting, more weight in your own vehicle is definitely your friend. Good engineering and the latest safety features are very important, but don't discount the value of weight.
Besides, if you're in a Yaris and get rear-ended by a Yukon, what good are those safety features going to do for you? Airbags only help in a front or side impact. Manufacturers usually pay more attention to the front crumple zone than the rear. Side door guard beams and collapsible steering colums won't help you if you're rear-ended. In this case, a bigger, sturdier, heavier car would work to your benefit, because...
1) a lighter car would get thrown forward much more quickly, increasing the acceleration forces on you. A Yaris might just stick to the front-end of a Yukon and barely slow it down, where, say, a '76 Electra would probably come close to stopping it dead. You'd still get thrown forward, but if a 5000 lb vehicle tries to have its way with your rear end, you're better off in another 5000 pound vehicle, even one that's not so greatly engineered, versus 2188 pounds or whatever of tinfoil.
2) more crush space to absorb the impact. The further you sit from the edges of the vehicle, the more of the impact gets absorbed by that vehicle before it gets to you. So usually more length is better, unless you're dealing with vehicles that are so rigid the shock goes right through them all way back, or something like a hood or engine comes back into the passenger compartment. In this case, our hypothetical '76 Electra has about a Yaris' worth of crush space between the rear bumper and where the driver's seat is. That's a lot of length to absorb the impact.
As for smaller cars handling better and having fewer blindspots, I say phooey. I actually say other things, but they'd get me banned here. Tires, suspension technology, brakes, and general car design have more to do with how well a car handles and its blind spots than size. In fact, small cars are often WORSE with blind spots because the B-pillar is going to block your side vision more, and the A-pillars are closer together, more in your line of vision than off to the sides.
My 1985 Silverado is about 212" long, and probably has less blind spot area than any new subcompact built today.
And if size were the sole determinant of handling prowess, then the 1998 Tracker my buddy used to own, all 144" or whatever of it, should have been a champ. Yet my 203" Intrepid would run circles around it.
Small cars tend to do better in the slalom test, and if their front wheels turn sharply enough they're easier to parallel park than a bigger car, but other than that, the tire/suspension/etc technology has more to do with it than size.
But to be honest, I'd rather NOT be rear-ended by a Yukon in anything! But if forced to choose, the bigger the better. Unless it's one of those old Fords with the drop in gas tank that would rupture at the drop of a pin. :surprise:
That C230 sounds about right, and it's a good car to negotiate on, as a new one might have only been around 30K.
North and Northwest, towns like Park Ridge, Mt. Prospect, Arlington Heights, Mundelien, Libertyville, have all encouraged dense developments around their commuter rail stations.
Even sparsely populated Grayslake has a subdivision with most of the land dedicated parkland and the homes all concentrated around a rail station.
I agree Chicago suburbs are no utopia, and there is a lot of sprawl there. But the examples I offered suggest at least a positive trend could be possible.
Ah my old stomping grounds, I have driven the length of Northwest Highway to many times to count. Most of the area around those tracks were developed by the 60's. It wasn't encouraged to be like that it just happened because the tracks were there and it was convenient. Most of the development in the burbs from Mt. Prospect to Palatine has been away from the tracks.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Most of the Chicago Northwestern suburbs are building major developments along the Metra Rail - Woodstock, Crystal Lake, Palatine, Arlington Heights, Mt. Prospect. Close access to the rails adds about $75-100k to the cost of a 2 BR condo in those areas.
Most of the land developed - other than the old brownfield spot in Woodstock (an old foundry) - is newly developed land.
Even in the city of Chicago, many condos are being developed in and around the tracks.
Having said that (and I have a CTA card and two METRA rail cards in my wallet as prepaid travel), The Metra trains are geared to those folks that commute between Chicago and the suburb. Other than that, they are fairly worthless.
What bothers me is that it costs me $3 OW to commute 11 miles. If I went to the Loop, it would cost me $6 to commute 65 miles.
Getting back on topic. Having seen some of the crash tests of the Smart car on Youtube and Google Video, they look like their protective cage holds up at some pretty high speeds.
Woodstock is way far away and really doesn't qualify as a suburb.
Getting back on topic. Having seen some of the crash tests of the Smart car on Youtube and Google Video, they look like their protective cage holds up at some pretty high speeds.
Yes I agree that it is very impressive.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes, yes, they aren't cheap, but then no new technology is until it filters down.
The large dinosaurs probably did cause the little mammals to hide under rocks until conditions changed in favor of the small guy.
Yeah but there's a re-enforced steel cage they sit in, and they wear fireproof suits with crash helmets. With emergency crews less than 200 yards away.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
LOL! Oh, you got me chuckling with that one! :-)
That terrible accident a couple of weeks ago here in the bay where the Tongan royalty were killed was, you guessed it, between a car and an SUV. Funny thing is, the Tongans were in the SUV, an almost new Explorer to be exact. And the other vehicle was, believe it or not, a Mustang. The Mustang just knocked that ol' Explorer right over on its side and it rolled a few times.
Your dinosaur and smaller mammals story made me think of that, I don't know why. The Mustang driver lived, with only minor injuries, of course.
Saw an accident the other day that runs counter to the generally accepted philosophy too, full-size Buick vs Chevy Aveo vs Volvo wagon. I can imagine what the alarmists might say about being in the "underpowered, underweight" Aveo, which got sandwiched between these two much larger, heavier cars. But it was an education in how safety cage design is supposed to operate to protect the occupants of cars big and small. In that one, all three cars were totalled, and the Aveo's entire trunk and engine compartment were gone, crumpled like a beer can. And the passenger compartment, between the A- and C-pillars? Perfectly intact. And everyone, thank goodness, was up and walking around, no-one needed the ambulance that showed up, although there were cuts and bruises and one of the drivers had burns from an airbag deployment.
One day, we WILL shake this notion that the biggest, highest, largest vehicles are what we need because they are inherently the safest, because believe me, YMMV on that one! But I don't know when it will be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There were three others who hit the same wheel-all with flats.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The consumer preference for somewhat larger car is not actually rooted in either build quality or safety. There were plenty poorly built large cars with bad safety record that sold really well . . . Ford Explorer came to mind. The first order of reason for buying a larger car is utility. Most of our daily commute needs can probably be fulfilled with a motorcycle; notice, "most" means 51% or more. The 25% of time when it rains may call for a bubble car (a la BMW Isetta) with tandem seats for the 10% of time when there is a passenger. Four-seaters are really only need for less than 5% of the time; cargo capacity more than 15 cu.ft needed perhaps 3% of the time . . . etc. etc. The whole process is a bit like fire-readiness or hurricane readiness . . . the cost of "readiness" go up quickly as you approach 99.9% and beyond. Yet, if you have the resources to play with, heck yeah, get that 99.9999% readiness.
Now approach the issue from the manufacturer's point of view: when material cost is relatively low compared to labor, it really doesn't save much to build a small car vs. a larger car, provided that they are of the same build quality, and rolling off similar production lines and by the same kind of workers. The famous industry saying is that "you can strip value out of a car much faster than stripping cost out of it." I believe that's observed as early as the 1950's. Selling a smaller car for more money is a niche market endeavor. Europeans had been doing that for decades in the US market. Yet, even their cars get progressively bigger as they try to carve out a larger market share.
Cheapness and vulnerability come from the consumer demanding a lower price to compensate for their patronage, and the manufacturers' inability to take cost out of a car as quickly as they can take value out of it.
one thing for sure, the 'tongans' were not wearing their seatbelts.
I made clear that I have no problem with owning things. My point is that my happiness and sense of well being is not all caught up in ownership and acquisition.
As it is, I certainly do not live in a shack. I eat well enough. I have a decent computer. I travel.
Life is fine. I have no need for a car.
Basicly the lease is free money.
Then there is no problem with a subcompact appliance, provided it fits ones needs.
If they can do me a 599/mo lease on a E63, I'll be there.
I wonder what a Yaris would lease for.
My guess on the Yaris lease is either $99/mo or $149/mo, depending on the amount of down payment :-) Most Yarii (??) will probably be purchased/financed instead of leased, IMHO. Toyota does not offer much lease subsidy.
Seems like the $599/mo E63 is the better deal in that case! :-)
But then, I drive way too much to ever lease. All the MB promo leases seem to have really weird terms, like a 27-month duration with 7500 miles per year. Who drives that little? Why bother having the car if you drive that little?
brightness: "IMHO, the market niche wedged between no need for car at all and a subcompact being able to cover all needs is not that great"
Egads man! You know how much stuff you can fit in an xA or a Honda Fit? There is nowhere you couldn't drive those cars, very little in the normal course of things you couldn't fit in there, and plenty of passenger space for three of your friends if you're single, or two of them if you're a couple. I would say these cars would cover 90% of most childless folks' transport needs, and for the other 10% you could always rent. So silly to have a full-size pick-up (as a for instance) or something for that 10% of the time.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My mom only put 50,000 miles in just over 10 years on her last car. Of course she was retired and basically drove it for shopping, visiting her kids and the occasional trip to see her best friend up in Wisconsin.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
He had bought the car in December of 1993, mainly because Grandmom was deathly ill at the time, and he didn't trust their '89 Taurus to be reliable. So he traded for a new car so that he'd have something new and reliable to take Grandmom to the hospital, doctor, etc.
Now in all honesty, the '89 most likely still had plenty of life in it, but Grandmom and Granddad usually traded every 3-4 years, and at this point it was 5 years for this car, so in his mind it was past its prime.
Granddad said he always liked to trade before the car needed new tires. In fact, with this last car, when it needed new tires he didn't know where to go to get it done! What I can't figure out though is how he got 3-4 years out of bias-ply tires back in the old days? :confuse:
Still, 7500 miles per year would be awfully restrictive for many people. I could probably get by with a 10,000 mile per year lease, since if I have my antique cars that I often drive during nice weather. It would still probably be cutting it close though. My buddy who had the '98 Tracker did a GM "SmartBuy", where on the 48th month he could either make a balloon payment or turn it in and pay an over-mileage penalty. I think his mileage limit was 60,000, but he was up to around 90,000 at the time. The choice at the time then was to turn it in, pay $3,000, and have NO vehicle, or pay $5600 and keep the thing. He kept it. And the transmission went out the next month. :sick:
I know it's hardly a subcompact, but wasn't Nissan offering a killer lease deal on the Altima? Something like $169 per month? Do they offer anything special on the Sentra?
7500 miles could be doable for me, commuting for work would be less than 6000 miles and I have the wifes car and the Caddy to keep me from going over, but your right it would be cutting it close. Plus the nature of my profession (or how I work within it to be more accurate) could see my daily commute double or triple three months from now.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Realisticly, I think the real need for something larger than subcompacts is more like 3%; i.e. 1 day out of a month. Even then, the extra $100/mo rental cost puts one comfortably in a midsize car like Accord or Camry . . . the fuel savings vs. higher insurance of a subcompact makes each other a wash. On top of that, most people are probably more comfortable driving their own cars instead of renting on semi-regular basis for three reasons:
(1) People are usually not comfortable with driving an unfamiliar car, especially one that is substantially bigger than their own regular car. Besides the accident concern, most people also have a ton of junk/customization in their own cars that they'd like to have access to when driving. Things like memory seats, pre-selected stations, garage door opener link, etc., not to mention that razor or lipstick in the glove box ;-)
(2) Most people owning cars live significant distance from car rental places. It takes time to get into the city and rental places, and time is money.
(3) The hassle of waiting in line to pick up car, and the hassle of putting up with rude counter person; on top of that, one has to work around someone else' schedule, which is the same reason why public transportation fails: most Americans do not like to work around someone else' schedule if they can help it.
Speaking of car rentals, from a pure monetary point of view, short-term rentals like ZipCar probably works out far better for most city-dwellers who do not need car for commute than owning a car and pay the exhobitant insurance and parking rates.
For those living in the suburbs and beyond, with half an hour or more to drive to get to a rental center, however, the 3% (1 day out of a month) rule works out in favor of bigger cars: 3% rental need works out to be $100/mo, and an upgrade in vehicle size usually works out to be about $50/mo for plebian cars, and $100/mo for luxury cars. Even if you need the bigger car only 3% of the time, most would just get the bigger car, for simple economic reasons and convenience . . . unless and until high energy price effectively reduces everyone to destitude, which is not exactly paradise regardless how much one loves small cars.
Plus, I doubt there is a metro area in the country where ANYONE is a half hour from a car rental company. Excluding the super-convenient ZipCar services, which are located every mile or two but only in dense urban areas, I have like four rental companies within three miles of my home, as do every city of any real size in my county. Between Enterprise's desire to blanket the nation with offices, and Hertz Local Edition's rapid expansion, there will always be at least two within ten minutes' drive, I would think.
Now if you live in a rural area, the rental argument is harder to make, and perhaps the whole subcompact argument is harder to make. I was mainly addressing the 80% of the country that lives in a metro area. I know that rural folks will go right on buying full-size pick-ups no matter what I say here! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Who pays $100/day for a rental car? I have relied upon car rentals as my backup for YEARS and have never paid over $50. In that you can PLAN a car rental, you can plan for the weekend when the rates are cheaper for the shopping trip.
Almost every weekend last summer, I was renting a midsizes for $10-20/day from Hertz or Enterprise.
for most people not living within blocks of a car rental center
That is why God created Enterprise. (g) Excluding dealerships, there are at least three rental agencies near work and two agencies near the house. And most deliver the vehicle.
Having looked at Zipcar and other services in the Chicagoland area recently, it was a lot cheaper to head to a suburban rental agency (like in Park Ridge) and rent a car from a standard agency. Renting by the hour (versus day or weekend), is very expensive.
For the heck of it as I haven't rented locally this summer, Hertz Local Edition has a Hyuundai Accent for $12.99/day weekend before discounts - $27.50 total. And since they don't have one, you get a midsized.
I use a similar service in New York for intense gorcery shopping or nights out in the suburbs. Being able to take the car to your destination then park it in the alloted spot is very convenient. Having a rental for a longer period of time inevitably means I have to park it somewhere near my home, which adds significantly to the price.
Or when you carve through the curves in that BMW 3 series, might you not gaze at your right kneee scrunched up against the console? Might you not grumble ever so slightly at your head bashing into the top of the door/roof curve on rough roads?
Or when you bungie the trunk of your Accord to stuff something in there, or call the tow truck one more time for your fast sleek but tempermental X car, or hang your head in shame when someone points at your vehicle and says "mommie van"?
LEASING: tricky business. That "down" payment is lost forever---like burning money in a bar-b-que pit for amusement purposes; no equity; nervousness on miles and damage; fewer tax benefits than before; sneaky way to get you into a car you really can't afford; if you hate the car you're stuck; need gap insurance; buy out may not work for you.
Sure. If it means you have more money for things like health care, retirement, and travel.
I gave up my car primarily because parking in Manhattan scared me. Since doing so, I have been pleasantly surprised that getting rid of the autos means my cost of living in New York is about the same as when I lived in Chicago. Factor in my raise, and suddenly I have a lot more money for other things.
And, personally, I find not having to worry so much about my emergency fund, 401K, and taking an extra trip every year is a lot of fun.
You are correct about leasing under most circumstances. However, with some luxury marques nowadays, the lease subsidy is so heavy that one has to grind through the numbers to see the details. I'm only in the market because the bank is paying me $500+ a month in interest on my operating cash account. . . so being able to afford a car is not a problem, but money is still money (and I'm not splurging on a LS600L either). . . if I can save a pretty penny by taking advantage of lease offers, I will do it. Equity in a car is burned when you burn almost as expensive fuel in it :-)
Add to that the car payments, licensing fees, tolls, maintenance, gas, car wash, wax, etc. and having a car in my circumstance arguably becomes an extravagance.
Enterprise can pick you up in about 15 minutes after calling.
Not a lot of planning.
Honda Pilot---solo flip on guardrail. Driver seriously injured
BWM 325i -- driver injured
Ford F150 -- driver injured
Harley Davidson -- dead
I bet all those folks bought cars they thought were "safe", and perhaps the poor biker thought he could "maneuver" his way out of trouble on a motorcycle?
So, rationalizing about safety vs. the real world is an interesting thing to study.
I'm intrigued by all of the subcompacts coming our way. I'd say for an awful lot of folks they make perfect sense. I'm in a compact RWD wagon that handles up to semi-local trips (up to two hours one way) with the Mrs. and two young'uns (13 and 10) with no troubles whatsoever. I can easily see a single person or a couple without kids or even with one small child easily tending to the daily grind. No problem at all, comfy as pie.
What I'd like to see is some more performance skunkworks for the little boogers. Some of them look like they'd be a lot of fun with some help on running gear, brakes and go-go.
OBSERVATION:
Watching the Lincoln Navigator in front of me this morning. It was like driving behind a building. No trailer hitch, one occupant (driver), older lady, too old for kids, no bike rack.
So why is she driving this vehicle?
No need for AWD in San Francisco, that's for sure, or for ground clearance.
Does she think it's safer? This is questionnable.
Does she like sitting high up?
Does she like the gadgets inside?
Well then, does sitting high up and playing with a few gadgets alone justify driving a car 1/3 larger than most others, using twice the fuel while in the process of doing no useful/meaningful work for anyone?
Just thinking about all that.....scratching my head.
Or does it just boil down to
She drives it because she can......
That rings very hollow to me at any rate.
or she is on her way to pick up her grand kids, even if only once a month;
or she is borrowing the car from her kids, who regularly haul the soccer team.
or she hauls other ladies to the Church and gardening picnic every Sunday.
The bottom line is that we do not know, and it would make no sense for her to own a subcompact as second car if she drives very little distance to begin with.
Seriously, 1 person commuting does not need an xA; a moped can do just about as well.
BTW, I never paid more than oil change for the first 5k service on any of my cars. Part of the appeal of some new cars is free maintenance.
Grand kids fit nicely in xAs and 325iTs
No one ever hauls the whole team - I've done soccer-dad duty for five years now; those Suburbans carry one pissed-off parent, one disinterested kid and a small Coleman of juiceboxes and orange quarters
Bottom line is that most people think they need something they won't ever use...
Some people don't care about image or perceptions about their needs or wants. But looking at cars sales they aren't the people buying vehicles in this country.