if you buy new, well.....you've just financed that risk
which is perfectly fine!!! as long as it's not a hardship to lose that money. If it is a hardship, then you made the wrong decision. Shouldda bought used.
- - - - -
I'm thinking maybe you guys should slow down a bit before you post. We've all been pretty well brainwashed to buy new.
Do we have a forum titled "Buying New or Buying Used? What does the Smart Buyer do?" ??
Do we have a forum titled "Buying New or Buying Used? What does the Smart Buyer do?" ??
Excellent topic. IMO the short answer is it depends on your financial situation, mileage, ability to choose a good used car, how important time is to you, miles travelled, whether the car is for work or just personal, and many more factors.
No doubt, for some people a used car is definitely better. I bought some new cars that I worried about if I was doing the right thing, but when I made the final payment, I was really glad I had bought a new car. I think I got more trouble free miles and the car lasted longer and actually cost less in the long run. Also, less hassle trading in cars instead of selling the old car privately, and then looking at cars that are advertised as gems...that aren't!! :sick:
I just decided to check out the; 2007 Toyota Camry Woes Forum, and boy, do some of those people ever have problems. A lot of them have had it with transmission problems and with no help from the dealer. I might have to reconsider my thinking about Camry's. I guess it is important to keep in mind these are the Camry "Woes" so this is the worst of the problems but still...
I never said my position was a "Save GM" position.
Agreed, I was just talking to the regular fans at that point because some people are very pro-GM but say the only smart way to buy a GM is to buy it used. Some, even say you are not patriotic if you don't buy GM (Ford or Chryco), but it is foolish to buy one new. I'm just saying if you really want to help save GM you will have to buy new ones, used ones won't help that much.
if you had just bought a used car instead of a new car, you wouldn't be worried so much about how much you are gonna get hosed when you trade it in
that is even further support for my argument, if a person plans to trade the car in
talk about a bad economic decision
but I understand why people do it, because selling a used car can be such a pain
so, let's summarize the bad economic decisions we make:
we buy new versus used - that's gotta cost us 5% of the purchase price, maybe more
then we trade it in - which has to cost us 50%, at least, of the resale value
Look at how much more money is in MY pocket if I buy the very same car two years old and sell it direct when I am done. On a car that costs 30K new, and 25K used, and then sold in 5 years, I bet if I buy it used and sell it myself that I put over 10k into my pocket. If you spend even 2K on buying the right used car, you are still wayyyy better off buying the used car over the new car.
I am a big proponent of buying NEW, provided you can afford to take the financial hit. Heck, even if you can't afford to take the hit, there's nothing wrong with buying new for all sorts of reasons. Just don't try and convince me that it was the smart thing to do. I can find a used car that is just as good as that spanking new car, though I will need to spend a bit of cash
if you had just bought a used car instead of a new car, you wouldn't be worried so much about how much you are gonna get hosed when you trade it in (The thing here is to choose wisely whether the car is new or used because you might want to sell it or trade it in - if it isn't popular it is going to cost a lot in depreciation if it is new or used.
Alp, I am not great at math, but the car you are going to save $5,000 on will probably be good for 2 or 3 years less than my new car because you will already have at least 20,000 miles on it - the best 20,000 miles of it's life by the way. I would rather enjoy that 20,000K even if I pay more because it is the best and most trouble free.
Every case is different, and there are many people where it makes more sense to buy used...especially low mileage drivers, second cars, where the car isn't used for work or to get to work. I'd rather pay monthly for a dependable new car than have breakdowns and get fired from my job for example.
To be clear, a used car suits many people and a new car is more suitable for others, just depends on finances and priorities. Also, you might have more time and skill at getting minor repairs done than other people. Lot's of factors and not just financial.
I guess it is important to keep in mind these are the Camry "Woes" so this is the worst of the problems...
Well, I think you've nailed it! Yes, the nature of the board is that it will attract those with real or perceived problems, as well as those who have perfectly fine Camrys but are now worried that their cars will develop the same problems.
I love the complaints from some that their 4-cylinder, 5-speed automatics have the audacity to downshift to 4th or even 3rd when ascending grades with the cruise on! Come on people, you're not driving a 427 Chevy!
These same people would likely still complain if the car stayed in 5th but didn't maintain the set speed.
I have bought both new and used, and among the used group, both lightly used and well used (as in over 100K miles). It just depended on what I needed or could afford at the time.
With regard to selling, I've only traded in once (in 1978) -- all other cars since then have been sold privately, as I soon learned that you rake in more money this way. None of the cars was particularly difficult to sell.
they own local franchises, which, in every state, are protected by so-called “franchise laws.” These laws do things like restrict G.M.’s freedom to open a new Cadillac dealership a few miles away from an old one. More important, they also make it nearly impossible for an auto manufacturer to simply shut down a dealership. If G.M. decided to get rid of Pontiac and Buick, it couldn’t just go to those dealers and say, “Nice doing business with you.” It would have to get them to agree to close up shop, which in practice would mean buying them out. When, a few years ago, G.M. actually did eliminate one of its brands, Oldsmobile, it had to shell out around a billion dollars to pay dealers off—and it still ended up defending itself in court against myriad lawsuits. As a result, dropping a brand may very well cost more than it saves, since it’s the dealers who end up with a hefty chunk of the intended savings.
I love the complaints from some that their 4-cylinder, 5-speed automatics have the audacity to downshift to 4th or even 3rd when ascending grades with the cruise on! Come on people, you're not driving a 427 Chevy!
Funny you'd mention that, because I had to get used to my Intrepid when I first bought it, because I wasn't used to a car that would downshift from 4th to 3rd with the cruise control on to maintain a speed!
Actually, now that I think about it, my '86 Monte and '85 LeSabre most likely downshifted, because they were pretty gutless in overdrive. But they were also geared really tall so the overall ratio in dropping from 4th to 3rd would go from something like 1.7X-1.8X:1 to 2.56-2.73:1, which didn't seem that noticeable, but when the Intrepid would go from ~2.6:1 to 3.89:1, now THAT was noticeable. Basically, those older cars were shifting to the same overall ratio that the Intrepid was shifting FROM!
And the older cars I had with cruise, that just had 3-speed automatics, were usually gutsy enough to maintain their speed without having to shift down into second. I don't know if you'd want one of those trannies to hold second at 80 mph, anyway! Well, maybe they could...if I'm doing the math right, my '79 NYer would be doing about 3700 rpm in second at 80 mph. I calculated that, with the tires that are on it, it should do about 1900 rpm @ 60mph in 3rd gear (1:1 ratio). So at 80 in 3rd it should do about 2533 rpm. In 2nd (1.45:1 ratio) at 80, that would put it to 3673. So am I doing the math right or do I need another beer?
Anyway, I guess with those newer 5-speed automatics, they might just take some getting used to, if you're used to an older 4-speed? Or are like me and *gasp* still deal with 3-speeds on occasion? I know the 5-speed auto in my buddy's '06 Xterra feels kinda weird to me. And oddly, it pulls 2000 rpm at a steady 60 mph, but also pulls 2000 at a steady 70! It's plenty powerful when you punch it, but it seems a bit tricky to modulate if you want to just take off gently. It's like it wants to be pushed hard, but doesn't like being run gently. So in that respect, maybe it's kinda like a 426 Hemi that doesn't have to be tuned up every other day? :P
but had you bought that same car ONE year old, instead of new, you would have paid less for the car on day one, and that extra money would be in YOUR pocket instead of being driven around in the body of your car
I've from DAY ONE always maintained that you should let someone else eat the depreciation. With almost any car nowadays good until 200K or more, getting one with 20-30K on it isn't a bad thing.
That, of coure, puts you at odds with resale value, though, because the best used deals are the ones that depreciate the most. But, there is a proper middle ground:
- Buy used, preferably factory certified.
- Get a nice extended warranty. Given that a transmission on a Camry runs you $3500(no joke - for real!), and a simple thing like an alternator can cost you over $300... It's silly not to get the extended warranty. Now, in the past they never were worth the money. Now they are slightly better than even in most cases(a significant change from 30-40 years ago) I personally like the peace of mind of not having to stretch my monthly budget. A few dollars more on my payment is easier to swallow than $500 for electronics or whatnot. That usually tanked my vacation or holidays or simmilar when it happened. NOw I know better.
- Buy something that is a solid semi-luxury car. These tend to depreciate quickly and then hit a plateau that they hardly budge from. This is the goal - the $15K Mercedes that is worth $8K-$10K five years later. Or something simmilar.
You save tons of money and face not even a year's depreciation on a new model over the lifetime of the loan. AND, if the car gets totalled, the resale value is maybe $1000 less than you could replace it for.
Lastly, you sell private-party to get the most money back and buy another used car. Total cost?
- $15K used car. - Sell in 5 years for $8K. - Apply $8K to a new $15K car. Total cost for each successive car is a paltry $7K. And it's a nice Lexus or Mercedes or simmilar. Sure, it may be 5 years old when you get it, but they drive practically like new for the first decade. Even used, a typical Lexus will run circles around a Civic.
If you are *really* smart, you save up and pay cash. That's a bit more than $100 a month($115 for 5 years). Since you have the extended warranty, your montly expenses are basically gas and oil changes.
No loans, no interest, tons of leverage in the haggling(cash talks big), and of course, less insurance and registration. Less tax, too.
Me - I've got my eye on a Lucerne CXS in a year when they hit three years old. $15K and worth every penny. Sell for about half that in 5 years and laugh at my sister's new Civic. She spent $20K on one recently and while it depreciates far slower, I start out $5K ahead and get a better car with more features.
Someone mentioned "Civic" and I parked next to one at the post office this morning. The sedan model has a look like a Dustbuster with jowls when viewed from next to it.
If GM had come out with this model people would be saying "Aztek," "Ventura," and "Dustbuster." I don't see styling as anything great there. The 20-something down the road has an SI and it looks badly proportioned! But this sedan is even weirder. Can you say "Element"?
Someone mentioned "Civic" and I parked next to one at the post office this morning.
Design preference is really personal. To me the Civic is a very good design. For a small car, it has a big passenger compartment, wide doors, very little wasted space, and nice clean lines that flow...unlike a Monte Carlo or Buick or almost all Pontiacs except the G6.
The problem is driving the d--- thing. Direct steering makes it like a go cart. That huge digital speedometer makes you feel you are playing a video game. Front windshield is way ahead with front pillars that are greatly angled forward needing a little window to see pedestrians and oncoming traffic...and worst of all, no hood. Feels like driving a bus or van.
An Accord would be better. I think if a LaCrosse cost a few thousand more I'd buy it before the Civic, at least I'd feel like a human being.
Good plan for most people. I think the factory certified could cost a few $1,000. You have to have the time to play around especially when selling your car and you will have some down time for repairs. Also, you have to be knowledgeable about what car to buy.
For some people thay don't have the knowledge or time to fool around or to gamble that the used car will be on the road more than in the garage - even if certified.
So, it is an excellent plan for many people and is a good alternative to a new car. One guy I know liked old Jaguars because he couldn't afford a new car, but he needed a fancy car for his image in sales. He could get a 10 year old Jaguar and his clients would think he was driving a new luxury car, since they look about the same.
the Pontiac G6 midsize sedan, is running at roughly the same speed it did before the buyout program. Quality levels have not slipped. And replacement workers say they have been readily accepted by the old-timers, even though many are new to jobs on a modern vehicle assembly line.
Experts say it is also a byproduct of hard-fought changes GM has implemented over the years to improve the efficiency and flexibility of its factories.
About 260 replacement workers in Orion have come from Delphi, a former GM subsidiary spun off in 1999 that will return 5,000 workers to the automaker in coming months. Another 64 are from the GM jobs bank, a pool of idled workers earning nearly full pay despite there being no work for them. And 300 temporary workers were hired by referral or off the street at about $18 per hour with no benefits. A typical UAW plant worker earns closer to $27 per hour and gets a pension and top-shelf medical benefits. Once the buyout program is completed and the temporary workers leave, there will be fewer workers on payroll.
"I thought quality would suffer greatly," said Eldon Renaud, president of UAW Local 2164, which represents GM workers at the Chevy Corvette plant in Bowling Green, Ky. But he has not noticed many slip-ups as 300 of the plant's 1,075 workers make for the exits. In fact, new workers have come up to speed faster than he thought they would.
"It's not rocket science," he said.
With Pontiac G6 sales on the rise and the recent addition of a convertible model, the plant kicked into high gear and even added Saturday hours.
Design preference is really personal. To me the Civic is a very good design. For a small car, it has a big passenger compartment, wide doors, very little wasted space, and nice clean lines that flow...unlike a Monte Carlo or Buick or almost all Pontiacs except the G6.
That's one thing I like about the Civic too, the generous passenger compartment. I'm 6'3", but can actually get comfy up front, and even with the seat all the way back can get comfy in the back. I don't think there's anything really that magical about it, though. It has a long 106.3" wheelbase, which back in the 80's would have been midsized. The first Taurus, IIRC, was only 106", and the Chevy Celebrity was only 104.9". And those old Dodge 600's and Plymouth Caravelles were only on a 103.3" wb!
But then when Honda can make a car on a 106.3" wheelbase and GM makes one with a 110.5" wheelbase, but I can fit in the back seat of the Honda better, maybe it is magic? :surprise:
I do think the styling is kind of out there, though. Looks like they took a Saturn front-end, and tried a little bit of Dodge Intrepid cab-forward experimenting with the roofline, and even the taillights look like a cross between a Honda and a Dodge. I guess I'd call the Civic a car that's well designed, but not necessarily well-styled. But then those far-forward windshields, and the little spacer windows they had to put ahead of the front doors, I dunno if I'd call that good design!
I think the Cobalt's a better styled car, but its fuel economy is worse (something like 24/32 with the automatic versus the Civic's 30/40) and I don't find the back seat to be as comfy on the Cobalt.
Does the Civic have a more upright seating position? A lower floorpan and higher roof can give more usable interior space. G6 seems to have a lower/sportier roof which makes a lower cushion height and then the legs go foward more. Styling drives comfort.
A close friend of mine has bought a RX 350 - he paid $47,000 dollars for a decently loaded model. As far as styling goes, interior and exterior are both outstanding. There's something about RX 350's styling that makes people pay $47000 for a 3.5 V6 with 5 speed automatic. Would anyone pay that kind of money on a GM vehicle without a V8? I bet not (almost always). It seems that styling matters - I am not rich enough to buy a Caddy/ Lexus, but I can certainly read friend's mind to some extent. My friend even links styling to "prestige" (poor people like me can't understand how "car" and "prestige" are linked) - he told me that he wouldn't spend that kind of money on an Acura or Caddy because these brands lack style and prestige.
Does the Civic have a more upright seating position? A lower floorpan and higher roof can give more usable interior space. G6 seems to have a lower/sportier roof which makes a lower cushion height and then the legs go foward more. Styling drives comfort.
Yeah, the Civic definitely felt like it had a high seating position, but it still had great legroom for me. I could stretch out in it. And sometimes that more upright seating position backfires for me, because while they raise the seat up the pedals are still too close so I feel scrunched up. I guess it's better than a low seat with the pedals too close though! But I just prefer a position that's not too high, but where I can really stretch out.
The G6 doesn't seem too bad inside to me. The 110.5" wb car I was referring to was the Impala! I think the G6'es backseat might actually be a bit more comfy than the Impala's. But then, isn't the G6 on an even longer wheelbase, like 112.2"?
The ZipCar service location nearest my house has a regular and hybrid Civic.
I don't really like the look of the sedan, but think the coupe is alright. The seats are firm and comfortable, and I find it easy to reach the wheel, pedals and console controls.
I don't like visibility. There are too many doodads fighting for your line of sight. I also do not like the steering feel.
I drove the regular Civic shortly after returning from a trip where I drove a Chevy Cobalt. I have to disagree with those who say the Honda four is much quieter than the Ecotec. I heard and felt both pretty much the same. I found the Cobalt launches from stops better than the Civic. I've not had the opportunity to drive the Civic on a freeway, and cannot compare the two. The Cobalt did alright at speed.
Speaking of GM styling, I understand the October C&D has a comparo between the Solstice GXP and the Porsche Boxter. Appears the Solstice prevails on the track but loses the Comparo because the editors had quibble about the Solstice look and trunk space. Funny, in the past, Porsche used to win on the track and the competitors were run down for just getting the look right, not the mechanics.
It seems we are divided over the depreciation issue. So, if GM focuses solely on styling, GM would win hearts of those who don't care about styling. To win all hearts, GM would need to go a step ahead and take care of the depreciation.
I'm not at all a fan of the large raked windshield and small hood school of design. For one thing, you get too much sun load through the huge glass; secondly, the sloping A-pillars become too thick and obstructive of vision; last, you get that huge expanse of dashboard. At least in the Civic this last item is eased by the "terraced" (two-level) design.
But if the design works as a package to hold tall people like you in the front AND back seats, you really can't fault Honda for making the most of the available space. And the fuel economy is exemplary, with highway mileage better than the new batch of mini cars.
If Pontiac dealers feel there is sufficient evidence to show GM is breaching its contract with them by not providing support it provides others, yes, Pontiac dealers would sue GM.
Any business that feels its partners are breaching their contract will challenge if not sue its partner. Pontiac dealers are not charitable organizations. They do not want to be starved out of business.
That said, if GM were to somehow provide Pontiac with rare, high demand cars, that Pontiac could sell at high profit without marketing devices used by its competitors, then GM could offer different consumer loan programs.
As it is, Pontiac and Chevrolet sell to roughly the same market. All cars sold in that market tend to have some type of consumer incentive programs behind them. GM cannot pull a program for the one and leave it with the other.
If GM wants to shut down the GMC/Pontiac/Buick dealerships, it will either have to buy them out or give them low cost loans necessary to turn Chevy/Saturn or some competitor.
You can't just play most favorite nation with one and your a bad boy with the other. That would be just begging for a lawsuit with punitive damages.
Not in just yet, but last years sales were 355,180. That was down from the year before. So, what do we expect this year? 2005: 355,180 2004: 406,623 2003: 472,427 2002: 492,434
This August should run 400,000 is my prediction. That would be in line with June and July.
What if GM keeps offering 0% on Chevy but stops offering 0% on Pontiacs? Will Pontiac dealers sue?
For sure. You can't put the dealers out of business by trying to get around the agreement. Put yourself in a Buick dealers place, you have bought a franchise, invested and built it up, and now GM is going to try to dump you. No, they have to be paid as a buy out or maybe just let business get so bad they have to close down - hey, maybe that's the plan with the LaCrosse, at 4 cars a month maybe that is the plan!
So, GM can't get rid of Pontiac/ Buick/ GMC. The problem is each brand eats up some advertising dollars. Also, putting Pontiac logo on Equinox reduces the exclusivity of Equinox. Then, the brands compete against each other. Designing new vehicles for so many brands is also no easy task. Finally, all these fringe brands that don't sell well adds to a negative perception about GM in general.
GM really needs to find out ways to change things. Chevy and Caddy needs to be top priority if GM still has any desire to survive. Any decent Chevy model sales well, e.g. Equinox or HHR. GM would have made big bucks if it made Chevy Solstice, Chevy Aura, Chevy Enclave.
Enclave is not on the market yet, so it is hard to tell how it will do. Pontiac dealers sell every Solstice GM makes.
The Aura is well received. Having Saturn as an outlet for Opel cars shouldn't have to distract from Chevrolet. On the other hand, selling Opels in Chevrolet dealers could turn off many among the very sizeable number of buyers in the US who simply do not care for European styling.
Well, certainly a lot of 80s and beyond US cars are not going to hold their own.
But as much as I like the BMW 2002 and Porsche 365, I would be just as happy with a 58 or Stingray Covette or an early '60s Impala. You cannot go wrong with a first or second generation Mustang, either.
I never liked the hemi Chryslers, I am sorry to say. Now Dodge Darts were cool!
You have to remember, in the old days, 50's to 90's having Chev and Olds together, and Pontiac, Buick Cadilac was genius marketing. The idea was that a Chev buyer would graduate to an Olds or cross over and go up a bit to a Pontiac. An Olds buyer could graduate up to a Buick. When they arrived they could all graduate to a Caddie. Ford tried it but not as well with Ford and Mercury, and Chryco with Plymouth and Dodge.
But, as with most great plans, the new guys come in (Toyota, Honda) and ruin that plan. They did keep the plan but really distinguish their luxury lines better, and by limiting the number of lines. Now it is better to limit your dealers and car lines, but the giant dinosaur is finding it hard to undo what has been established.
But then those far-forward windshields, and the little spacer windows they had to put ahead of the front doors,
When my wife had a 1989 loaner Mercedes it seemed so nice to have the windshield pillar almost straight up and down, just a slight slope. It felt like the vision was so much better, and the sight lines of where the hood and fenders was much better too.
Opels in Chevrolet dealers could turn off many among the very sizeable number of buyers in the US who simply do not care for European styling.
This statement is true. I took a walk today from work and there is a big yard where Chrysler leaves their 2007 cars. It is filled with 300's and Chargers. I used to like the 300's but never liked Chargers. Now, I don't like any of them. Made me think, you can see a 10 or 20 year old Mercedes, BMW, Audi and they still look great. Known as "Classic" styling that doesn't go out of date. But, most American designs get worse as time goes on. A few hold up over time, but not too many!
used to have: Plymouth, Dodge, Desoto, Chrysler and Imperial. That is 5 brand names. Ford tried to add Edsel to their line up, but for some reason it did not do well. GM did add a sixth too, Saturn, which have survived, while they dropped Oldsmobile.
A close friend of mine has bought a RX 350 - he paid $47,000 dollars for a decently loaded model. As far as styling goes, interior and exterior are both outstanding.
Exterior styling of RX350 is mediocre in my eyes. The vehicle kind of looks too tall and tipsy. SUVs of Chevy Equinox and 07 Chevy Tahoe have far better styling and are better balanced. I know, some people will say that styling is subjective and that therefore any style, including Aztek, is outstanding and beautiful in the eyes of the beholder.
I like them too! An example of great styling...square simple styling. Huge glass area and a nice big square hood. Looks like what it is, a car. Not a rocket ship, not a slippery bubble so it can cut through air, not a wedge shape. Lines and design you just don't get tired of.
My mother had a yellow 2 door with a black vinyl roof. They were nice to drive too. Slant 6 was a great little engine.
Well not that good of news, because last August was quite bad after two record breaking months. Sales over 400,000 would have been good. see post #9292 for details.
. Ford tried to add Edsel to their line up, but for some reason it did not do well.
Didn't do well for a few reasons. Edsel was introduced in 1958, but the name hurt it a lot. Ford family wanted to name it after one of their sons, too bad his name wasn't Camry. Also, the front grill which was a big vertical shaped oval was compared to someone sucking a lemon. Or, some called it a horse collar. On top of that it was a poor year any way for car sales, the Edsel was too expensive (might as well get a Mercury) and Ford gave up quickly and dropped advertising money. The '59 was changed but still had the distinctive grill, and the '60 which only lasted for part of a year looked more like a Ford and was pretty nice, but it was too late. I liked the push button automatic idea although I liked it more in Chrysler cars. The Edsel push buttons were in the centre of the steering wheel. I had a Plymouth with push buttons and I thought it was great. Very good in snow, just press the button from Drive to Reverse, probably burn the tranny, but it was easier than shifting.
This is GM like thinking. Well, don't you want to sell an HHR to the spouse of the person driving a Solstice? GM currently does some of this by rebadging (e.g. rebadging Equinox as Torrent) - but rebadging does more bad than good.
I like the Lexus RX, but I agree it isn't much different (in looks) from an Aztek. I saw two parked side by side, and the similarities were striking, especially since we all hate the Aztek and are at least luke warm or better on the Lexus. Seat height, vehicle volume, etc. etc. were very similar. They were more alike than I expected, that's for sure.
Thank GOD beauty is in the eye of the beholder....otherwise the human race would have gone extinct long ago
LOL, that is for assembly workers, a monkey can learn over time to do those jobs, even though the labor can be back breaking hard. Now people who make parts like the Delphi plant workers are making $14 an hr. ZERO benefits and their skill level is much higher than the assembly monkey's at GM's final assembly plants. They also are still having problems getting below 50-60% scrap off the machines
Comments
if you buy used, you eliminate MOST of that risk
if you buy new, well.....you've just financed that risk
which is perfectly fine!!! as long as it's not a hardship to lose that money. If it is a hardship, then you made the wrong decision. Shouldda bought used.
- - - - -
I'm thinking maybe you guys should slow down a bit before you post. We've all been pretty well brainwashed to buy new.
Do we have a forum titled "Buying New or Buying Used? What does the Smart Buyer do?" ??
And, as someone wisely stated, and it is worth repeating, when it comes to trade in time it means the new car you are buying will cost you less.
Some cars are of so little value the dealer won't take it, and you have to sell it privately. Why take on those problems if you don't have to?
Depreciation shouldn't be a major consideration, but a wise buyer should throw it into the equation, unless money is not an issue at all.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Excellent topic. IMO the short answer is it depends on your financial situation, mileage, ability to choose a good used car, how important time is to you, miles travelled, whether the car is for work or just personal, and many more factors.
No doubt, for some people a used car is definitely better. I bought some new cars that I worried about if I was doing the right thing, but when I made the final payment, I was really glad I had bought a new car. I think I got more trouble free miles and the car lasted longer and actually cost less in the long run. Also, less hassle trading in cars instead of selling the old car privately, and then looking at cars that are advertised as gems...that aren't!! :sick:
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2007 Toyota Camry Woes
Forum, and boy, do some of those people ever have problems.
A lot of them have had it with transmission problems and with no help from the dealer. I might have to reconsider my thinking about Camry's.
I guess it is important to keep in mind these are the Camry "Woes" so this is the worst of the problems but still...
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Agreed, I was just talking to the regular fans at that point because some people are very pro-GM but say the only smart way to buy a GM is to buy it used. Some, even say you are not patriotic if you don't buy GM (Ford or Chryco), but it is foolish to buy one new. I'm just saying if you really want to help save GM you will have to buy new ones, used ones won't help that much.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
That hurts...4 cars a month!
GM bought out the Oldsmobile franchise dealers, don't know if they can afford to buy out Pontiac/Buick at this time?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
that is even further support for my argument, if a person plans to trade the car in
talk about a bad economic decision
but I understand why people do it, because selling a used car can be such a pain
so, let's summarize the bad economic decisions we make:
we buy new versus used - that's gotta cost us 5% of the purchase price, maybe more
then we trade it in - which has to cost us 50%, at least, of the resale value
Look at how much more money is in MY pocket if I buy the very same car two years old and sell it direct when I am done. On a car that costs 30K new, and 25K used, and then sold in 5 years, I bet if I buy it used and sell it myself that I put over 10k into my pocket. If you spend even 2K on buying the right used car, you are still wayyyy better off buying the used car over the new car.
I am a big proponent of buying NEW, provided you can afford to take the financial hit. Heck, even if you can't afford to take the hit, there's nothing wrong with buying new for all sorts of reasons. Just don't try and convince me that it was the smart thing to do. I can find a used car that is just as good as that spanking new car, though I will need to spend a bit of cash
Alp, I am not great at math, but the car you are going to save $5,000 on will probably be good for 2 or 3 years less than my new car because you will already have at least 20,000 miles on it - the best 20,000 miles of it's life by the way. I would rather enjoy that 20,000K even if I pay more because it is the best and most trouble free.
Every case is different, and there are many people where it makes more sense to buy used...especially low mileage drivers, second cars, where the car isn't used for work or to get to work. I'd rather pay monthly for a dependable new car than have breakdowns and get fired from my job for example.
To be clear, a used car suits many people and a new car is more suitable for others, just depends on finances and priorities. Also, you might have more time and skill at getting minor repairs done than other people. Lot's of factors and not just financial.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Well, I think you've nailed it! Yes, the nature of the board is that it will attract those with real or perceived problems, as well as those who have perfectly fine Camrys but are now worried that their cars will develop the same problems.
I love the complaints from some that their 4-cylinder, 5-speed automatics have the audacity to downshift to 4th or even 3rd when ascending grades with the cruise on! Come on people, you're not driving a 427 Chevy!
These same people would likely still complain if the car stayed in 5th but didn't maintain the set speed.
I have bought both new and used, and among the used group, both lightly used and well used (as in over 100K miles). It just depended on what I needed or could afford at the time.
With regard to selling, I've only traded in once (in 1978) -- all other cars since then have been sold privately, as I soon learned that you rake in more money this way. None of the cars was particularly difficult to sell.
No, I do not remember this. Did this happen before the 70's when I was not around?
they own local franchises, which, in every state, are protected by so-called “franchise laws.” These laws do things like restrict G.M.’s freedom to open a new Cadillac dealership a few miles away from an old one. More important, they also make it nearly impossible for an auto manufacturer to simply shut down a dealership. If G.M. decided to get rid of Pontiac and Buick, it couldn’t just go to those dealers and say, “Nice doing business with you.” It would have to get them to agree to close up shop, which in practice would mean buying them out. When, a few years ago, G.M. actually did eliminate one of its brands, Oldsmobile, it had to shell out around a billion dollars to pay dealers off—and it still ended up defending itself in court against myriad lawsuits. As a result, dropping a brand may very well cost more than it saves, since it’s the dealers who end up with a hefty chunk of the intended savings.
Funny you'd mention that, because I had to get used to my Intrepid when I first bought it, because I wasn't used to a car that would downshift from 4th to 3rd with the cruise control on to maintain a speed!
Actually, now that I think about it, my '86 Monte and '85 LeSabre most likely downshifted, because they were pretty gutless in overdrive. But they were also geared really tall so the overall ratio in dropping from 4th to 3rd would go from something like 1.7X-1.8X:1 to 2.56-2.73:1, which didn't seem that noticeable, but when the Intrepid would go from ~2.6:1 to 3.89:1, now THAT was noticeable. Basically, those older cars were shifting to the same overall ratio that the Intrepid was shifting FROM!
And the older cars I had with cruise, that just had 3-speed automatics, were usually gutsy enough to maintain their speed without having to shift down into second. I don't know if you'd want one of those trannies to hold second at 80 mph, anyway! Well, maybe they could...if I'm doing the math right, my '79 NYer would be doing about 3700 rpm in second at 80 mph. I calculated that, with the tires that are on it, it should do about 1900 rpm @ 60mph in 3rd gear (1:1 ratio). So at 80 in 3rd it should do about 2533 rpm. In 2nd (1.45:1 ratio) at 80, that would put it to 3673. So am I doing the math right or do I need another beer?
Anyway, I guess with those newer 5-speed automatics, they might just take some getting used to, if you're used to an older 4-speed? Or are like me and *gasp* still deal with 3-speeds on occasion? I know the 5-speed auto in my buddy's '06 Xterra feels kinda weird to me. And oddly, it pulls 2000 rpm at a steady 60 mph, but also pulls 2000 at a steady 70! It's plenty powerful when you punch it, but it seems a bit tricky to modulate if you want to just take off gently. It's like it wants to be pushed hard, but doesn't like being run gently. So in that respect, maybe it's kinda like a 426 Hemi that doesn't have to be tuned up every other day? :P
I've from DAY ONE always maintained that you should let someone else eat the depreciation. With almost any car nowadays good until 200K or more, getting one with 20-30K on it isn't a bad thing.
That, of coure, puts you at odds with resale value, though, because the best used deals are the ones that depreciate the most. But, there is a proper middle ground:
- Buy used, preferably factory certified.
- Get a nice extended warranty. Given that a transmission on a Camry runs you $3500(no joke - for real!), and a simple thing like an alternator can cost you over $300... It's silly not to get the extended warranty. Now, in the past they never were worth the money. Now they are slightly better than even in most cases(a significant change from 30-40 years ago) I personally like the peace of mind of not having to stretch my monthly budget. A few dollars more on my payment is easier to swallow than $500 for electronics or whatnot. That usually tanked my vacation or holidays or simmilar when it happened. NOw I know better.
- Buy something that is a solid semi-luxury car. These tend to depreciate quickly and then hit a plateau that they hardly budge from. This is the goal - the $15K Mercedes that is worth $8K-$10K five years later. Or something simmilar.
You save tons of money and face not even a year's depreciation on a new model over the lifetime of the loan. AND, if the car gets totalled, the resale value is maybe $1000 less than you could replace it for.
Lastly, you sell private-party to get the most money back and buy another used car. Total cost?
- $15K used car.
- Sell in 5 years for $8K.
- Apply $8K to a new $15K car. Total cost for each successive car is a paltry $7K. And it's a nice Lexus or Mercedes or simmilar. Sure, it may be 5 years old when you get it, but they drive practically like new for the first decade. Even used, a typical Lexus will run circles around a Civic.
If you are *really* smart, you save up and pay cash. That's a bit more than $100 a month($115 for 5 years). Since you have the extended warranty, your montly expenses are basically gas and oil changes.
No loans, no interest, tons of leverage in the haggling(cash talks big), and of course, less insurance and registration. Less tax, too.
Me - I've got my eye on a Lucerne CXS in a year when they hit three years old. $15K and worth every penny. Sell for about half that in 5 years and laugh at my sister's new Civic. She spent $20K on one recently and while it depreciates far slower, I start out $5K ahead and get a better car with more features.
If GM had come out with this model people would be saying "Aztek," "Ventura," and "Dustbuster." I don't see styling as anything great there. The 20-something down the road has an SI and it looks badly proportioned! But this sedan is even weirder. Can you say "Element"?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Design preference is really personal. To me the Civic is a very good design. For a small car, it has a big passenger compartment, wide doors, very little wasted space, and nice clean lines that flow...unlike a Monte Carlo or Buick or almost all Pontiacs except the G6.
The problem is driving the d--- thing. Direct steering makes it like a go cart. That huge digital speedometer makes you feel you are playing a video game. Front windshield is way ahead with front pillars that are greatly angled forward needing a little window to see pedestrians and oncoming traffic...and worst of all, no hood. Feels like driving a bus or van.
An Accord would be better. I think if a LaCrosse cost a few thousand more I'd buy it before the Civic, at least I'd feel like a human being.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Good plan for most people. I think the factory certified could cost a few $1,000. You have to have the time to play around especially when selling your car and you will have some down time for repairs. Also, you have to be knowledgeable about what car to buy.
For some people thay don't have the knowledge or time to fool around or to gamble that the used car will be on the road more than in the garage - even if certified.
So, it is an excellent plan for many people and is a good alternative to a new car. One guy I know liked old Jaguars because he couldn't afford a new car, but he needed a fancy car for his image in sales. He could get a 10 year old Jaguar and his clients would think he was driving a new luxury car, since they look about the same.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
the Pontiac G6 midsize sedan, is running at roughly the same speed it did before the buyout program. Quality levels have not slipped. And replacement workers say they have been readily accepted by the old-timers, even though many are new to jobs on a modern vehicle assembly line.
Experts say it is also a byproduct of hard-fought changes GM has implemented over the years to improve the efficiency and flexibility of its factories.
About 260 replacement workers in Orion have come from Delphi, a former GM subsidiary spun off in 1999 that will return 5,000 workers to the automaker in coming months. Another 64 are from the GM jobs bank, a pool of idled workers earning nearly full pay despite there being no work for them. And 300 temporary workers were hired by referral or off the street at about $18 per hour with no benefits. A typical UAW plant worker earns closer to $27 per hour and gets a pension and top-shelf medical benefits. Once the buyout program is completed and the temporary workers leave, there will be fewer workers on payroll.
"I thought quality would suffer greatly," said Eldon Renaud, president of UAW Local 2164, which represents GM workers at the Chevy Corvette plant in Bowling Green, Ky. But he has not noticed many slip-ups as 300 of the plant's 1,075 workers make for the exits. In fact, new workers have come up to speed faster than he thought they would.
"It's not rocket science," he said.
With Pontiac G6 sales on the rise and the recent addition of a convertible model, the plant kicked into high gear and even added Saturday hours.
That's one thing I like about the Civic too, the generous passenger compartment. I'm 6'3", but can actually get comfy up front, and even with the seat all the way back can get comfy in the back. I don't think there's anything really that magical about it, though. It has a long 106.3" wheelbase, which back in the 80's would have been midsized. The first Taurus, IIRC, was only 106", and the Chevy Celebrity was only 104.9". And those old Dodge 600's and Plymouth Caravelles were only on a 103.3" wb!
But then when Honda can make a car on a 106.3" wheelbase and GM makes one with a 110.5" wheelbase, but I can fit in the back seat of the Honda better, maybe it is magic? :surprise:
I do think the styling is kind of out there, though. Looks like they took a Saturn front-end, and tried a little bit of Dodge Intrepid cab-forward experimenting with the roofline, and even the taillights look like a cross between a Honda and a Dodge. I guess I'd call the Civic a car that's well designed, but not necessarily well-styled. But then those far-forward windshields, and the little spacer windows they had to put ahead of the front doors, I dunno if I'd call that good design!
I think the Cobalt's a better styled car, but its fuel economy is worse (something like 24/32 with the automatic versus the Civic's 30/40) and I don't find the back seat to be as comfy on the Cobalt.
Yeah, the Civic definitely felt like it had a high seating position, but it still had great legroom for me. I could stretch out in it. And sometimes that more upright seating position backfires for me, because while they raise the seat up the pedals are still too close so I feel scrunched up. I guess it's better than a low seat with the pedals too close though! But I just prefer a position that's not too high, but where I can really stretch out.
The G6 doesn't seem too bad inside to me. The 110.5" wb car I was referring to was the Impala! I think the G6'es backseat might actually be a bit more comfy than the Impala's. But then, isn't the G6 on an even longer wheelbase, like 112.2"?
The ZipCar service location nearest my house has a regular and hybrid Civic.
I don't really like the look of the sedan, but think the coupe is alright. The seats are firm and comfortable, and I find it easy to reach the wheel, pedals and console controls.
I don't like visibility. There are too many doodads fighting for your line of sight. I also do not like the steering feel.
I drove the regular Civic shortly after returning from a trip where I drove a Chevy Cobalt. I have to disagree with those who say the Honda four is much quieter than the Ecotec. I heard and felt both pretty much the same. I found the Cobalt launches from stops better than the Civic. I've not had the opportunity to drive the Civic on a freeway, and cannot compare the two. The Cobalt did alright at speed.
Speaking of GM styling, I understand the October C&D has a comparo between the Solstice GXP and the Porsche Boxter. Appears the Solstice prevails on the track but loses the Comparo because the editors had quibble about the Solstice look and trunk space. Funny, in the past, Porsche used to win on the track and the competitors were run down for just getting the look right, not the mechanics.
How times change :P
But if the design works as a package to hold tall people like you in the front AND back seats, you really can't fault Honda for making the most of the available space. And the fuel economy is exemplary, with highway mileage better than the new batch of mini cars.
Any business that feels its partners are breaching their contract will challenge if not sue its partner. Pontiac dealers are not charitable organizations. They do not want to be starved out of business.
That said, if GM were to somehow provide Pontiac with rare, high demand cars, that Pontiac could sell at high profit without marketing devices used by its competitors, then GM could offer different consumer loan programs.
As it is, Pontiac and Chevrolet sell to roughly the same market. All cars sold in that market tend to have some type of consumer incentive programs behind them. GM cannot pull a program for the one and leave it with the other.
If GM wants to shut down the GMC/Pontiac/Buick dealerships, it will either have to buy them out or give them low cost loans necessary to turn Chevy/Saturn or some competitor.
You can't just play most favorite nation with one and your a bad boy with the other. That would be just begging for a lawsuit with punitive damages.
2005: 355,180
2004: 406,623
2003: 472,427
2002: 492,434
This August should run 400,000 is my prediction. That would be in line with June and July.
For sure. You can't put the dealers out of business by trying to get around the agreement. Put yourself in a Buick dealers place, you have bought a franchise, invested and built it up, and now GM is going to try to dump you. No, they have to be paid as a buy out or maybe just let business get so bad they have to close down - hey, maybe that's the plan with the LaCrosse, at 4 cars a month maybe that is the plan!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
GM really needs to find out ways to change things. Chevy and Caddy needs to be top priority if GM still has any desire to survive. Any decent Chevy model sales well, e.g. Equinox or HHR. GM would have made big bucks if it made Chevy Solstice, Chevy Aura, Chevy Enclave.
Enclave is not on the market yet, so it is hard to tell how it will do. Pontiac dealers sell every Solstice GM makes.
The Aura is well received. Having Saturn as an outlet for Opel cars shouldn't have to distract from Chevrolet. On the other hand, selling Opels in Chevrolet dealers could turn off many among the very sizeable number of buyers in the US who simply do not care for European styling.
But as much as I like the BMW 2002 and Porsche 365, I would be just as happy with a 58 or Stingray Covette or an early '60s Impala. You cannot go wrong with a first or second generation Mustang, either.
I never liked the hemi Chryslers, I am sorry to say. Now Dodge Darts were cool!
I knew there was a reason I liked you, Logic
You have to remember, in the old days, 50's to 90's having Chev and Olds together, and Pontiac, Buick Cadilac was genius marketing. The idea was that a Chev buyer would graduate to an Olds or cross over and go up a bit to a Pontiac. An Olds buyer could graduate up to a Buick. When they arrived they could all graduate to a Caddie. Ford tried it but not as well with Ford and Mercury, and Chryco with Plymouth and Dodge.
But, as with most great plans, the new guys come in (Toyota, Honda) and ruin that plan. They did keep the plan but really distinguish their luxury lines better, and by limiting the number of lines. Now it is better to limit your dealers and car lines, but the giant dinosaur is finding it hard to undo what has been established.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
When my wife had a 1989 loaner Mercedes it seemed so nice to have the windshield pillar almost straight up and down, just a slight slope. It felt like the vision was so much better, and the sight lines of where the hood and fenders was much better too.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
This statement is true. I took a walk today from work and there is a big yard where Chrysler leaves their 2007 cars.
It is filled with 300's and Chargers. I used to like the 300's but never liked Chargers. Now, I don't like any of them. Made me think, you can see a 10 or 20 year old Mercedes, BMW, Audi and they still look great. Known as "Classic" styling that doesn't go out of date. But, most American designs get worse as time goes on. A few hold up over time, but not too many!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Exterior styling of RX350 is mediocre in my eyes. The vehicle kind of looks too tall and tipsy. SUVs of Chevy Equinox and 07 Chevy Tahoe have far better styling and are better balanced. I know, some people will say that styling is subjective and that therefore any style, including Aztek, is outstanding and beautiful in the eyes of the beholder.
I like them too! An example of great styling...square simple styling. Huge glass area and a nice big square hood. Looks like what it is, a car. Not a rocket ship, not a slippery bubble so it can cut through air, not a wedge shape. Lines and design you just don't get tired of.
My mother had a yellow 2 door with a black vinyl roof. They were nice to drive too. Slant 6 was a great little engine.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Didn't do well for a few reasons. Edsel was introduced in 1958, but the name hurt it a lot. Ford family wanted to name it after one of their sons, too bad his name wasn't Camry. Also, the front grill which was a big vertical shaped oval was compared to someone sucking a lemon. Or, some called it a horse collar. On top of that it was a poor year any way for car sales, the Edsel was too expensive (might as well get a Mercury) and Ford gave up quickly and dropped advertising money. The '59 was changed but still had the distinctive grill, and the '60 which only lasted for part of a year looked more like a Ford and was pretty nice, but it was too late.
I liked the push button automatic idea although I liked it more in Chrysler cars. The Edsel push buttons were in the centre of the steering wheel. I had a Plymouth with push buttons and I thought it was great. Very good in snow, just press the button from Drive to Reverse, probably burn the tranny, but it was easier than shifting.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
This is GM like thinking. Well, don't you want to sell an HHR to the spouse of the person driving a Solstice? GM currently does some of this by rebadging (e.g. rebadging Equinox as Torrent) - but rebadging does more bad than good.
I like the Lexus RX, but I agree it isn't much different (in looks) from an Aztek. I saw two parked side by side, and the similarities were striking, especially since we all hate the Aztek and are at least luke warm or better on the Lexus. Seat height, vehicle volume, etc. etc. were very similar. They were more alike than I expected, that's for sure.
Thank GOD beauty is in the eye of the beholder....otherwise the human race would have gone extinct long ago
;-)
well, beer has helped
:P
Rocky
If anything, niche cars like the Solstice do better at niche dealers. You lose mystique buying a sports car when there is a mini-van parked near by.