ES is just a glorified Camry. What I was referring to is the size. Avalon is the closest but still a bit skinnier. Lucerne also seats 6 which few others do.
I would think that the Ford 500/Mercury Montego and the more reserved Chrysler 300s are competition as well. The Lucerne isn't class leading, but it is a much nicer car than a LaCrosse and I think that there is overlap in the markets and pricing.
The Lucerne, won't be a big winner until it goes RWD, and offers some serious horsepower upgrades IMHO. I do agree they are nicer than it's previous predecessor.
In size the comparison isn't right, but in market position (or desired market position, for Buick), the ES and Avalon are indeed competitors for the Lucerne. The Lacrosse certainly doesn't compete there.
I like what Cadillac has done. I saw a gal pull out of a rest are the other day in a red Solstice with the top down. They were sharp. ;-) The new Impala in nice, but bland. The new Vette is the first one I could buy since they bloated them up after I had my 59 and 63. (Same for the new Mustang) Pontiac finally got rid of that cladding, and the Lucerne seems to be on track.
Well, I did buy some GM stock @ $25. It has been up over $33. So far, so good. We'll see. Debating whether to take my profits and run, or hang in there and do a contrarian play. When everyone is negative on something, it may be the time to take a chance.
"Recall that most new car buyers sell their car by year 5. "
But some other pro-GM people in this forum argued that resale value didn't matter since people buy new cars to keep them 10 years. Now, you are taking a different stand to defend the 5 year powertrain warranty...
Looks likes resale value matters! And, that should be bad news for GM... (if my experience of trading in my Blazer is indicative of the situation on the ground).
since I'm the only one that has been arguing that resale value is a stupid parameter to use to buy a car, I am guessing you are talkign about me
and you are completely misunderstanding or misstating my position
I never said it doesn't matter. I never said GM cars were exempt from my argument.
I said if resale MATTERS to YOU, then YOU have no business buying a NEW car. If YOU can't afford the hit on depreciation, then you should be buying a used car, as the depreciation hit has already been (mostly) accounted for.
This does not apply to all of us.
People who think of their car purchase as an "economic" decision, and then buy new, are not making a smart "economic" decision. (9 times out of 10 they would have been smarter, from a purely economic stanpoint, to buy used.) Or they are not being truthful with themselves, as they claim they bought the car because it was a smart economic decision, but really they just wanted to buy that car (which is absolutely FINE to do, IMO).
But some other pro-GM people in this forum argued that resale value didn't matter since people buy new cars to keep them 10 years. Now, you are taking a different stand to defend the 5 year powertrain warranty...
I am not the one who said that people own their cars 10 years. In fact I was really surprized most keep their cars longer than 3 years which was proven to me here on one of these forums long ago. But that is because of where I live. Most get new cars here every 2-3 years like clockwork.
But I am data driven and 5 years seems plenty long to me and per the data to most people buying new cars. Could they have put in a longer warranty? Sure but it would not have mattered much except to increase GM's cost.
General Motors Corp. executives await the business pitch for a rear-wheel-drive Pontiac G8, based on the new VE Commodore built by Australia subsidiary GM Holden Ltd., Ward’s learns.
The GM Automotive Strategy Board, which has final say on all product programs, recently gave the thumbs up for managers to develop a case for a G8 based on the Holden-engineered GM Global RWD Architecture, dubbed Zeta. GM’s upcoming Chevrolet Camaro also will be built on this platform.
A G8 likely would replace the Grand Prix as the high-end performance vehicle in Pontiac’s portfolio, which already includes the G6 midsize sedan and coupe that replaced the Grand Am, and the compact G5 coupe added to the U.S. lineup in July. Chevrolet will build the RWD ’09 Camaro at GM’s Oshawa, Ont., Canada, plant, with initial volume estimated at 100,000 units. GM is investing C$740 million ($662 million) in Oshawa to build the halo car and potentially other RWD vehicles given the size of the investment.
The same platform is expected to underpin the next-generation Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo in 2009, better distinguishing them from the front-wheel-drive and slightly smaller Chevy Malibu.
Other potential RWD candidates for Pontiac include a new GTO or Firebird, while Buick is expected to get a replacement for the Park Avenue.
The Canadian Auto Workers union recently submitted a proposal for redesigned facilities in Oshawa with two flexible vehicle lines, each capable of building both RWD and FWD vehicles – with combined capacity of 500,000 vehicles annually.
The two existing car lines currently produce FWD cars. The No.1 line builds the Impala and Monte Carlo, while No.2 builds the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and Allure.
On of the reasons that GM has not put as many DOHC 3.6L engines into their cars is lack of manufacturing capacity. With the added capacity and increased production costs will drop and they will be able to put it into more vehicles. 3.8L is almost gone.
The all-aluminum, DOHC engine with variable valve timing will power the new family of ’07 CUVs, production for which is set to begin in November at GM’s Lansing (MI) Delta Township plant, a new greenfield facility. GM invested $300 million to upgrade the facility, which also will provide engines for the ’07 Cadillac CTS, SRX and STS and the Buick LaCrosse.
Opened in 2000, the Flint Engine South plant comprised 760,000 sq.-ft. (70,604 sq.-m) before renovations began in late 2004. The expansion brought another 442,000 sq.-ft. (41,062 sq.-m).
The plant employs about 600 hourly workers represented by United Auto Workers Local 659.
The Flint plant also is responsible for 4.2L V-6s in the Buick Rainer, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender and Saab 9-7X.
This is a promising engine. Still, Toyota/ Honda have introduced similar engines before GM, and GM is now trying to catch up. GM still doesn't have ABS standard on most midsize cars. Think of curtain airbags - finally, GM has decided to follow Honda/ Toyota and make it standard on G6/ Malibu. Next year GM will again follow Honda/ Toyota to perhaps make ABS standard. GM introduces hybrid finally, but that too years after Honda/ Toyota. It's amazing how GM continues to show lack of leadership.
Alp I think that you misunderstand others opinions on resale that is once you've decided to buy new for a myriad of reasonable factors such as warranty and latest technology and safety advances, resale is a factor in deciding between models.
It's not that I "can't afford" the hit, but if I'm down to a Malibu or a Camry, why not factor in the massive difference in resale if I think that they're similar cars for a similar price.
While I intended to keep my Altima for 10 years when I bought it, everyone is telling me that it will have to go since my first baby is on the way. If that comes to pass, it will be good to know that I actually have some equity in the car rather than an upside down loan situation,
>I guess GM makes lots of money selling parts to owners of low quality GM vehicles. **** Transmissions: Camry/Avalon/etc 5 speed automatic - $3500 Buick LaCrosse/Lucerne/etc automatic - $1600
I somehow doubt that the Avalon's transmission lasts twice what the GM models do. In fact, it appears as if it lasts about half as long as the GM models.
*** As for the 3.6VVT engine - it puts out maximum torque at under 2000rpm and has no dead spots. It's not any faster than the 3800, but it feels almost like the world's biggest CVT as there's always power right when you need it.
The 3800 and its gearing create a rpm lag by comparison. Quick blips of the pedal do nothing but rev then engine for a second of so and hardly move you any faster - it takes a meaningful push to get it to respond. The 3.6 - this annoying behavior is gone.
A stop limit order is always an option for one to take. Yeah, sadly it could back in, then take off again. At this time I have no vested interest in any car manufacturer. While people have made money in betting on GM over the months, I am just not that much of a gambler. I could off hand think of a couple which seem like good investments over time, though I am not so sure I would want them at this point in time. It is always a possibility that investing in GM makes you good money. Just like those that invested in dot com companies and had serious gains for a few years. Actually, it was gambling, and not investing since those dot coms were not making money, and only had a lot of debt. Sound familiar?
Anyway, back to style. I hope the Monte Carlo moves to RWD and a sleek design. Since the Charger is RWD it kinda makes sense. And after all, it is a NASCAR........ OK, those days are really long gone. The name is used in NASCAR. Bring back a cool looking RWD Monte!!! Actually, any exciting car from Chevy would be a revolution. Yeah, I know the Corvette, is a Chevy. On a different level, but a Chevy. -Loren
Not really. The Japan makes, and some cars like the BMW3 have very good resale value, and thus may be good new car buy. They are losing money, depreciation wise, so much lower than other brands, it does make better sense to buy them new than it would say a GM. There are big differences in depreciation. My new Corolla cost less over 7 years than buying one a year or two old. I got a grand off when I bought it, which was pretty close to the used retail of a year old one. -Loren
Well put it this way - no real change for GM due to restrictions, such as dealership relationships as you say, then just how would you say they can ever change? Keep Buick car line for a couple car models? Whoopee.
The newly restyled GM SUV's really sold like mad when first introduced this year even with $3 gas. Since then it leveled off. With gas at $2.15 (filled up my tank yesterday because it was empty, could not wait any longer) will SUV's take off again?
Alp I think that you misunderstand others opinions on resale that is once you've decided to buy new for a myriad of reasonable factors
I'm with you gsemike. Some people can afford the exact car they want and don't worry about resale value. Others want a new car, but if they are trading it in 3 or 4 years why take an unecessary hit on depreciation. Also, the faster depreciating car is going to be less popular and harder to get rid of.
I saw in the paper an ad for a used 2005 Taurus fully loaded and they wanted the same amount as for a 2001 Accord with basic options, and with a lot more miles on it. These are not fancy luxurious cars. From an economic standpoint, IMO the Accord would be a smarter buy for anyone.
The GM Automotive Strategy Board, which has final say on all product programs,
Ah, so that's who should be drawn, quartered, and have their heads mounted on a pike in front of the Renaissance Center. How pitiful is it that the managers have to obtain permission to suggest that Holden build a US-spec Chevrolet Lumina SS, then pry off the bowtie and glue on a Pontiac badge or three?
Not really. The Japan makes, and some cars like the BMW3 have very good resale value, and thus may be good new car buy. They are losing money, depreciation wise, so much lower than other brands, it does make better sense to buy them new than it would say a GM.
The math doesn't support this reasonaing. You've been duped by marketing like at least 95% of Americans. Now, it's not really your fault - they don't want you to look at the math carefully and we're brought up since birth to suspect anything used as being already broken.
New Accord: Let's say it's 20,000. 5% auto loan via your credit union. Taxes and registration Depreciation Auto insurance
Used GM: Let's say, 12,000 LeSabre - four years old. 5% auto loan via your credit union. Taxes and registration Depreciation Extended warranty ($600) Auto insurance
If you carefully run the math, you'll end up with a clear win for the GM. It depreciates quickly, but then hits its long-term plateau where it looses maybe 1-2K a year in depreciation. This is when you buy one. 8-12K, factory certified, extended warranty and all. I can get a three year old Crown Vic for $12K as well. What you want is a car that depreciates like a rock and you buy in while it's still possible to get the factory warranty extended.
Here's a bit of quick math, just on the loan. 20k@5% x 5 years =$22620/$377 a month 12k@5% x 3 years =$12960/$360 a month $2620 in interest versus $960.
Insurance and registration is simmilar - it adds up to several thousand more on a new car versus used. And that's not considering the massive $10,000 difference in what you end up paying.
Now, let's say to recoup 60% on the Honda after 5 years. This is horribly optimistic, mind you - and let's also say you recouperate 40% on the Buick(pessimistic estimate). The Honda looks like it holds its value better, but the math says you're still better off with the used car.
20k@5% x 5 years =$22620 x 0.6 = $13572. $9048 for five years.
12k@5% x 3 years =$12960 x 0.4 = 5184. $7776 for five years, plus $600 for the extended waranty(to keep the math easy). $8376.
And that's assuming a worst-case scenario. All of those $500 here, $700 there differences every year add up to a loss of 4-5 thousand dollars over the life of the car.
Plus, you pay a tiny bit less per month and pay off the loan two years quicker, at which point it's easy to move on. Two years less on the loan is worth even more than the money saved, IMO, because it gives you BACK $360 a month into your household budget, which is for most families, a massive help towards their lifesyle. (or put $360 into retirement/investments every month)
Are you comparing a new Accord with a 4 year old LeSabre? I'm in my 30s and Buick isn't on my radar screen (probably it will be after 30 years). Who wants a Buick and that too a bloated one with rental car stigma? Desirability of a new LeSabre was so low that GM stopped making the car. What would be the desirability of a dead used model? And, I would be more than happy to pay something extra to get the standard curtain airbags, the new car smell and the fuel-efficiency of lightweight Accord.
I don't know anything about Holden/ Opel. Why GM needs them to make cars for GM? I believe there are enough good engineers in America. GM just needs to fire a few MBAs and hire a few engineers.
Well, I didn't write this. I don't work at Edmunds. So, don't blame me.
Comments like the following are scary:
"Poor handling" "Dangerously slow" "Squishy (brake) pedal" "Borderline rattletrap" "...if you can live with the build quality" "No StabiliTrak... Deadly in wrong hands"
And, observed mpg is 24.8 mpg - same as my 06 CR-V's (which is rated at 23 city/ 29 hwy). Why a hybrid then? Just to be at the receiving end of another quality nightmare?
General Motors Corp. executives await the business pitch for a rear-wheel-drive Pontiac G8, based on the new VE Commodore built by Australia subsidiary GM Holden Ltd., Ward’s learns.
Chevrolet will build the RWD ’09 Camaro at GM’s Oshawa, Ont., Canada, plant, with initial volume estimated at 100,000 units. GM is investing C$740 million ($662 million) in Oshawa to build the halo car and potentially other RWD vehicles given the size of the investment.
Australian connection (for styling) may not be good thing. Look at last bland GTO. Maybe GM name could be changed to ACCO Motors - Australian Canadian Company Motors. Could also be ACE Motors - Australian Canadian European Motors. When China starts building cars for them also, could be CACA Motors - Canadian Australian Chinese American Motors.
New Accord 20k5% x 5 years =$22620 x 0.6 = $13572. $9048 for five years.
Used Buick 12k5% x 3 years =$12960 x 0.4 = 5184. $7776 for five years, plus $600 for the extended waranty(to keep the math easy). $8376.
I'm not a mathematician but does this mean that over 5 years you have saved almost $700 by driving around an old Buick instead of driving a one owner new Accord? Not only that, but you are gambling that there won't be a major fault not covered by the warranty, like brakes needing turning that they say was your fault. Let's not forget too, you get this used Buick just as it needs new tires, major tune up, changing all the fluids, whereas you will have at least 3 completely troublefree and maintenance free years with the Accord.
Not only that but you are expecting this Buick to still be driveable after 9 years, when it already has 50,000K's on it! How many 9 year old Buicks are there with over 100,000K's...I know there is Imidaza, but that's about it.
The maximum time to buy used is after 2 years when the biggest depreciation hit happens and you might get some good years out of a used car. But, if you don't want to spend valuable time hanging around garages, getting under your car, gambling that you got a clunker, then pay a little extra per year and get a new troublefree car. Not only that, you will get the latest safety devices and probably better mileage etc.
>How many 9 year old Buicks are there with over 100,000K's...
There are lots of them. Don't Accords need tires, brakes (espcially certain years), major tuneup (what's that?), changing fluids (especially the transmission to keep it from being a routine service item for replacement)?
New car? If you want to spend the extra. I have each time in past, but I probably will buy used now.
But why is the Vue hybrid 'painfully slow'? It has more power than a CR-V. Could it be that GM altered the gearing and axle ratio to squeeze as many miles per gallon as possible? The Camry Hybrid has similiar power as the last generarion Camry V6 (192 hp), but it accelerates faster (7.7 sec), and is actually afforable with a MRSP of $25,000. You don't even need the better mileage to justify buying a Camry hybrid. the extra power over the slightly cheaper 4-cylinder is worth the extra cost.
There are lots of them. Don't Accords need tires, brakes (espcially certain years), major tuneup (what's that?) spark plugs, filters, check brakes, changing fluids (especially the transmission to keep it from being a routine service item for replacement)? Let's not forget, brakes, ball joints, dash lights, gauges, batteries, headlights, etc, etc.
You won't need most of these items for at least 3 years on the Accord - like replacing tires.
New car? If you want to spend the extra. I have each time in past, but I probably will buy used now.
Based on the fact you have been buying new Buicks that depreciate so quickly, you finally realize it is better to by them used!
If it costs $700 over 5 years to drive a basically troublefree Accord compared to a 4 year old Buick that is going to be 9 years old at the end of 5 years then I can't see anyone choosing the Buick...we are talking about 38 cents a day!!!!!!!
Something else I don't get is how long is that $600 extended warranty going to last on a 4 year old Buick. Maybe 3 years but I doubt it for $600, what happens when the transmission goes in year 7?
After my transmission had a solenoid fail, GM sent me an invitation to extend my warranty and the price tag for 3 years/45000 miles was over $3000. I now have 51000+ on it and 1 month less than 4 years. However, I did not bother to check on what the cost might be to extend at the point just before crossing over the 50000 mile limit. I feel that the car will run to 100,000 on less than $3000 worth of repairs, perhaps less than half that.
. I feel that the car will run to 100,000 on less than $3000 worth of repairs, perhaps less than half that.
Good luck!
Chances are it will get to 100,000K without $3,000 worth of repairs, but there is also the chance it could be more, transmission, computer, engine, brakes etc. The warranty is just expensive insurance.......but $3,000 is a lot more than $600 to get a Buick safely to 9 years.
you guys think the typical Buick will be junkyard fodder before it hits the 100,000 mile mark. Sure, some of them will have problems, just like with any car, but chances are the vast majority of them will be reliable.
Heck, my 2000 Intrepid has made it to almost 123,000 miles, with only a few minor problems, and I'd consider your typical Buick to be more reliable than an Intrepid. Yes, I actually said that, and I'm a Mopar guy! :P
As for things that have broken on my car, as opposed to maintenance items...
- Power lock actuator in driver's door: replaced free under warranty at 35,000 miles.
- Thermostat housing, replaced by local mechanic for $210 around 51,000 miles.
- Power adjustment for passenger side mirror failed, never bothered to fix it as you can still take your finger and push the mirror to where you want it.
- Door seals started to shrink. I paid about $50 for the driver's door seal, and once I saw how they were made and how they went on, I just adjusted the other three myself, more or less fixing them
- Oil pressure light showing a false reading around 86,000 miles. There was a TSB on it and they fixed it for free.
Now there has been other stuff, like brakes, tires, new front rotors (about $30 apiece and I put them on myself), tranny services, new spark plugs, and other maintence type stuff, but if you add up the uncscheduled repairs, I'm seeing a cost of a whopping $260. $320 if you want to count the rotors as a repair and not maintenance. And even if I had to foot the bill for that TSB, the power lock actuator, and gotten my mirror fixed, and replaced the rest of the door seals, I still probably wouldn't be much over $1000-1200.
Now I think once a car gets up over 100,000 miles, it can be a toss of the dice. And I wouldn't buy any modern car with that type of mileage on it, unless I either knew its history (like if a family member owned it) or it at least had a very comprehensive service record, or I could get it dirt cheap.
If I saw a 2000 Intrepid with 123,000 miles on it out on a used car lot somewhere, I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. But the same goes for a 2000 Buick or Honda with that type of mileage. I figure I've pretty much gotten my money out of my car, so every month it goes on from here is a blessing. But I wouldn't pay good money for something with that kind of mileage.
Honestly, I think I'd trust something from 1980 or the 70's or 60's with 123,000 miles before I'd trust the typical modern car that's getting into that kind of mileage. Those old cars will find their own unique ways to annoy you, but for the most part, they don't have the ability to hurt you with $3000 transmissions, $5000 engines, $1500 catalytic converters, and computer systems that you need a techno-nerd to decipher.
Driver 100, you missed the math entirely. It's not that they are close to each other - the initial amount per month is, but there are four factors you're not counting.
1:Insurance and registration all add up every year to several thousand in the first three years.
2:I'm suggesting a factory certified car that you get the warranty extended on until it matches the Honda - another three or four years. This makes them both have the same warranty coverage, so there will be no bills for repairs in either case. Even WITH this added to the GM, it still squeeks out ahead in your monthly payment(see below)
3: GMs with the bigger V6 engines(3800 or simmilar) easily last 200K+ on the drivetrain. The rest of the car has a lifespan of a good ten years before the electrical and interior start having issues.
4:The used car is paid off two YEARS faster than the new one. The new car was for 60 months. The used one was for 36 months! This can't be ignored.
Now, it could be ANY domestic that you want. Ford, Chrysler, GM... Probably a hundred choices, some with very good handling. Just high depreciation in the first 3-4 years. Still want a Toyota? Get a 3-4 year old Vibe GT with 35-40K on it. Maybe $8,000. Loads less expensive than the new one - enough in fact to pay for the extended warranty almost ten times over. I just chose the LeSabre because the limited trim is quite nice, it handles well enough, has way more power than an Accord or $20K import, and of course, all of the safety goodies. But it coudl be a stripped-down Camry for $20K versus a used Towncar. Both aren't small cars.
Used is always better economics than new when it comes to cars. Now, leasing, that's a whole other story. Any lease that's in the realm of $159-$189 a month(like they have on a Civic and Jetta and a few others that aren't tin cans) is golden. Jump on it in a heartbeat. You'll save loads of money compared to buying.
Well since an awfull lot of cars reside in California, I would take note of $2.80 to $3.00+ gas prices for regular. Gas may continue to go down here in the winter time. Summer is less than a year away. If GM makes money on SUV and trucks --- go for it. May be the thing they can presently do best. Seem to be ahead of Japan and Korea in sales of SUVs, so keep it ramped up. In autos, the CTS and Corvette impress. The rest is all the rest - ho-hummm. -Loren
GMs with the bigger V6 engines(3800 or simmilar) easily last 200K+ on the drivetrain.
All of my GM's started to really go after 120,000 miles, and thay were bought new and were well maintained. My Corsica was falling apart at 80,000K and the Cavalier (V-6)was getting rough at about 75,000. Not always major things, but enough little things to drive me crazy. I mean, you can keep it going but there is a lot to be said for a car that will start when you need it to, that won't break down on a super highway (ever been on a narrow median when cars a speeding by at 80?), that stalls in the middle of an intersection.
I will definitely admit a used car is usually cheaper but not always, I have two friends who poured a lot of money into their used cars. They start with, well, I spent $300 last month so now I have to spend $400 this month, and the next month its another $800 because thay have now invested $700!!!! Don't forget with those lease rates there will be either a buy back or you have to hand the car in and start all over. The only time you should lease if not for business is because you absolutely need a new car (for a new job for example) and you can't afford to make the payments on owning. Otherwise owning will be less than leasing.
Maybe domestic cars are better bought used, as they depreciate so much. As for long lasting reliable cars, I am not so sure those GM or Ford autos are going to be half as reliable, on an average, as you say. I have yet to have anyone I know of have totally reliable Big Two cars, though it is possible. I did know someone that was in his 90's and drove a couple thousand miles a year -- his Crown Vic was reliable - never driven, but reliable. My Aunt has a real old Vic, and it has served her well. Interior and exterior looked shabby long before a Toyota would, but the car runs.... occasional fix or repair. The current line of Camry cars, and the generation before it, I would say I a bit less impressed with. My bet is still, overall with Japan makes. And for driving, I will consider German cars used. Ultimate Driving Machines from BMW and Mercedes. OK, Corvette is performance deal. -Loren
No-no, not duped on this at all. You are talking about domestic cars. I agree they are cheaper. Less desirable, and thus cheaper. I said, if you are buying Japan makes or a BMW3, they are better NEW car buys. And I do not buy on time. No reason to make some bank a little richer.
As for an old Buick, well yeah, duhhhh, it is less expensive. Well unless the intake manifold fails, or something. Most of the time it will be cheaper. I am going to be looking for a RWD car next time anyway. The FWD or AWD cars are not needed on the Coast of CA. Will be looking for a fun car next. -Loren
You were so lucky to get 80k or more before the car deteriorated. Never had that good of luck with my Oldsmobiles. I would have considered 80K as old age, and worthy of trade-in time. I take it that things have improved since 2002, give or take a year. The 70's, 80's and 90's were not stellar years for the General. Good to hear things are better. In doing some research on the Vette, it looks like 1998 was not too bad. Consumer Reports indicate some glimmers of hope since 2001. And the late 90' - 2001 had a few good cars. Really impressed with CTS reliability data, so far. Good effort there! -Loren
Comments
Rocky
They still are the benchmark! Or at least the best deal going in this country.
I guess I was referring to the new hires/temps that are currently getting the shaft.
Rocky
RL and TL are pretty small compared to Lucerne.
Rocky
Rocky
But some other pro-GM people in this forum argued that resale value didn't matter since people buy new cars to keep them 10 years. Now, you are taking a different stand to defend the 5 year powertrain warranty...
Looks likes resale value matters! And, that should be bad news for GM... (if my experience of trading in my Blazer is indicative of the situation on the ground).
and you are completely misunderstanding or misstating my position
I never said it doesn't matter. I never said GM cars were exempt from my argument.
I said if resale MATTERS to YOU, then YOU have no business buying a NEW car. If YOU can't afford the hit on depreciation, then you should be buying a used car, as the depreciation hit has already been (mostly) accounted for.
This does not apply to all of us.
People who think of their car purchase as an "economic" decision, and then buy new, are not making a smart "economic" decision. (9 times out of 10 they would have been smarter, from a purely economic stanpoint, to buy used.) Or they are not being truthful with themselves, as they claim they bought the car because it was a smart economic decision, but really they just wanted to buy that car (which is absolutely FINE to do, IMO).
I am not the one who said that people own their cars 10 years. In fact I was really surprized most keep their cars longer than 3 years which was proven to me here on one of these forums long ago. But that is because of where I live. Most get new cars here every 2-3 years like clockwork.
But I am data driven and 5 years seems plenty long to me and per the data to most people buying new cars. Could they have put in a longer warranty? Sure but it would not have mattered much except to increase GM's cost.
rear-wheel-drive Pontiac G8, based on the new VE Commodore built by
Australia subsidiary GM Holden Ltd., Ward’s learns.
The GM Automotive Strategy Board, which has final say on all product
programs, recently gave the thumbs up for managers to develop a case for a
G8 based on the Holden-engineered GM Global RWD Architecture, dubbed Zeta.
GM’s upcoming Chevrolet Camaro also will be built on this platform.
A G8 likely would replace the Grand Prix as the high-end performance
vehicle in Pontiac’s portfolio, which already includes the G6 midsize sedan
and coupe that replaced the Grand Am, and the compact G5 coupe added to the
U.S. lineup in July.
Chevrolet will build the RWD ’09 Camaro at GM’s Oshawa, Ont., Canada,
plant, with initial volume estimated at 100,000 units. GM is investing
C$740 million ($662 million) in Oshawa to build the halo car and
potentially other RWD vehicles given the size of the investment.
The same platform is expected to underpin the next-generation Chevrolet
Impala and Monte Carlo in 2009, better distinguishing them from the
front-wheel-drive and slightly smaller Chevy Malibu.
Other potential RWD candidates for Pontiac include a new GTO or Firebird,
while Buick is expected to get a replacement for the Park Avenue.
The Canadian Auto Workers union recently submitted a proposal for
redesigned facilities in Oshawa with two flexible vehicle lines, each
capable of building both RWD and FWD vehicles – with combined capacity of
500,000 vehicles annually.
The two existing car lines currently produce FWD cars. The No.1 line builds
the Impala and Monte Carlo, while No.2 builds the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick
LaCrosse and Allure.
The all-aluminum, DOHC engine with variable valve timing will power the new
family of ’07 CUVs, production for which is set to begin in November at
GM’s Lansing (MI) Delta Township plant, a new greenfield facility. GM invested $300 million to upgrade the facility, which also will provide
engines for the ’07 Cadillac CTS, SRX and STS and the Buick LaCrosse.
Opened in 2000, the Flint Engine South plant comprised 760,000 sq.-ft.
(70,604 sq.-m) before renovations began in late 2004. The expansion brought
another 442,000 sq.-ft. (41,062 sq.-m).
The plant employs about 600 hourly workers represented by United Auto
Workers Local 659.
The Flint plant also is responsible for 4.2L V-6s in the Buick Rainer,
Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender and Saab 9-7X.
That's all? How about a Pontiac and a Daewoo version of the SUV? Also, good to know what it means to be "Born from Jets"!
It's not that I "can't afford" the hit, but if I'm down to a Malibu or a Camry, why not factor in the massive difference in resale if I think that they're similar cars for a similar price.
While I intended to keep my Altima for 10 years when I bought it, everyone is telling me that it will have to go since my first baby is on the way. If that comes to pass, it will be good to know that I actually have some equity in the car rather than an upside down loan situation,
****
Transmissions:
Camry/Avalon/etc 5 speed automatic - $3500
Buick LaCrosse/Lucerne/etc automatic - $1600
I somehow doubt that the Avalon's transmission lasts twice what the GM models do. In fact, it appears as if it lasts about half as long as the GM models.
***
As for the 3.6VVT engine - it puts out maximum torque at under 2000rpm and has no dead spots. It's not any faster than the 3800, but it feels almost like the world's biggest CVT as there's always power right when you need it.
The 3800 and its gearing create a rpm lag by comparison. Quick blips of the pedal do nothing but rev then engine for a second of so and hardly move you any faster - it takes a meaningful push to get it to respond. The 3.6 - this annoying behavior is gone.
I could off hand think of a couple which seem like good investments over time, though I am not so sure I would want them at this point in time. It is always a possibility that investing in GM makes you good money. Just like those that invested in dot com companies and had serious gains for a few years. Actually, it was gambling, and not investing since those dot coms were not making money, and only had a lot of debt. Sound familiar?
Anyway, back to style. I hope the Monte Carlo moves to RWD and a sleek design. Since the Charger is RWD it kinda makes sense. And after all, it is a NASCAR........ OK, those days are really long gone. The name is used in NASCAR. Bring back a cool looking RWD Monte!!! Actually, any exciting car from Chevy would be a revolution.
Yeah, I know the Corvette, is a Chevy. On a different level, but a Chevy.
-Loren
-Loren
And what the heck is a Middle Earth reality?
I'm with you gsemike. Some people can afford the exact car they want and don't worry about resale value. Others want a new car, but if they are trading it in 3 or 4 years why take an unecessary hit on depreciation. Also, the faster depreciating car is going to be less popular and harder to get rid of.
I saw in the paper an ad for a used 2005 Taurus fully loaded and they wanted the same amount as for a 2001 Accord with basic options, and with a lot more miles on it. These are not fancy luxurious cars. From an economic standpoint, IMO the Accord would be a smarter buy for anyone.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Ah, so that's who should be drawn, quartered, and have their heads mounted on a pike in front of the Renaissance Center. How pitiful is it that the managers have to obtain permission to suggest that Holden build a US-spec Chevrolet Lumina SS, then pry off the bowtie and glue on a Pontiac badge or three?
The math doesn't support this reasonaing. You've been duped by marketing like at least 95% of Americans. Now, it's not really your fault - they don't want you to look at the math carefully and we're brought up since birth to suspect anything used as being already broken.
New Accord: Let's say it's 20,000.
5% auto loan via your credit union.
Taxes and registration
Depreciation
Auto insurance
Used GM: Let's say, 12,000 LeSabre - four years old.
5% auto loan via your credit union.
Taxes and registration
Depreciation
Extended warranty ($600)
Auto insurance
If you carefully run the math, you'll end up with a clear win for the GM. It depreciates quickly, but then hits its long-term plateau where it looses maybe 1-2K a year in depreciation. This is when you buy one. 8-12K, factory certified, extended warranty and all. I can get a three year old Crown Vic for $12K as well. What you want is a car that depreciates like a rock and you buy in while it's still possible to get the factory warranty extended.
Here's a bit of quick math, just on the loan.
20k@5% x 5 years =$22620/$377 a month
12k@5% x 3 years =$12960/$360 a month
$2620 in interest versus $960.
Insurance and registration is simmilar - it adds up to several thousand more on a new car versus used. And that's not considering the massive $10,000 difference in what you end up paying.
Now, let's say to recoup 60% on the Honda after 5 years. This is horribly optimistic, mind you - and let's also say you recouperate 40% on the Buick(pessimistic estimate). The Honda looks like it holds its value better, but the math says you're still better off with the used car.
20k@5% x 5 years =$22620 x 0.6 = $13572. $9048 for five years.
12k@5% x 3 years =$12960 x 0.4 = 5184. $7776 for five years, plus $600 for the extended waranty(to keep the math easy). $8376.
And that's assuming a worst-case scenario. All of those $500 here, $700 there differences every year add up to a loss of 4-5 thousand dollars over the life of the car.
Plus, you pay a tiny bit less per month and pay off the loan two years quicker, at which point it's easy to move on. Two years less on the loan is worth even more than the money saved, IMO, because it gives you BACK $360 a month into your household budget, which is for most families, a massive help towards their lifesyle. (or put $360 into retirement/investments every month)
I'm in my 30s and Buick isn't on my radar screen (probably it will be after 30 years). Who wants a Buick and that too a bloated one with rental car stigma? Desirability of a new LeSabre was so low that GM stopped making the car. What would be the desirability of a dead used model? And, I would be more than happy to pay something extra to get the standard curtain airbags, the new car smell and the fuel-efficiency of lightweight Accord.
Well, I didn't write this. I don't work at Edmunds. So, don't blame me.
Comments like the following are scary:
"Poor handling"
"Dangerously slow"
"Squishy (brake) pedal"
"Borderline rattletrap"
"...if you can live with the build quality"
"No StabiliTrak... Deadly in wrong hands"
And, observed mpg is 24.8 mpg - same as my 06 CR-V's (which is rated at 23 city/ 29 hwy). Why a hybrid then? Just to be at the receiving end of another quality nightmare?
And no passenger side impact airbags! Most people looking out to save the environment don't want to get killed in a minor car accident.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
rear-wheel-drive Pontiac G8, based on the new VE Commodore built by
Australia subsidiary GM Holden Ltd., Ward’s learns.
Chevrolet will build the RWD ’09 Camaro at GM’s Oshawa, Ont., Canada,
plant, with initial volume estimated at 100,000 units. GM is investing
C$740 million ($662 million) in Oshawa to build the halo car and
potentially other RWD vehicles given the size of the investment.
Australian connection (for styling) may not be good thing. Look at last bland GTO. Maybe GM name could be changed to ACCO Motors - Australian Canadian Company Motors. Could also be ACE Motors - Australian Canadian European Motors. When China starts building cars for them also, could be CACA Motors - Canadian Australian Chinese American Motors.
Used Buick 12k5% x 3 years =$12960 x 0.4 = 5184. $7776 for five years, plus $600 for the extended waranty(to keep the math easy). $8376.
I'm not a mathematician but does this mean that over 5 years you have saved almost $700 by driving around an old Buick instead of driving a one owner new Accord? Not only that, but you are gambling that there won't be a major fault not covered by the warranty, like brakes needing turning that they say was your fault. Let's not forget too, you get this used Buick just as it needs new tires, major tune up, changing all the fluids, whereas you will have at least 3 completely troublefree and maintenance free years with the Accord.
Not only that but you are expecting this Buick to still be driveable after 9 years, when it already has 50,000K's on it! How many 9 year old Buicks are there with over 100,000K's...I know there is Imidaza, but that's about it.
The maximum time to buy used is after 2 years when the biggest depreciation hit happens and you might get some good years out of a used car. But, if you don't want to spend valuable time hanging around garages, getting under your car, gambling that you got a clunker, then pay a little extra per year and get a new troublefree car. Not only that, you will get the latest safety devices and probably better mileage etc.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
There are lots of them. Don't Accords need tires, brakes (espcially certain years), major tuneup (what's that?), changing fluids (especially the transmission to keep it from being a routine service item for replacement)?
New car? If you want to spend the extra. I have each time in past, but I probably will buy used now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You won't need most of these items for at least 3 years on the Accord - like replacing tires.
New car? If you want to spend the extra. I have each time in past, but I probably will buy used now.
Based on the fact you have been buying new Buicks that depreciate so quickly, you finally realize it is better to by them used!
If it costs $700 over 5 years to drive a basically troublefree Accord compared to a 4 year old Buick that is going to be 9 years old at the end of 5 years then I can't see anyone choosing the Buick...we are talking about 38 cents a day!!!!!!!
Something else I don't get is how long is that $600 extended warranty going to last on a 4 year old Buick. Maybe 3 years but I doubt it for $600, what happens when the transmission goes in year 7?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Good luck!
Chances are it will get to 100,000K without $3,000 worth of repairs, but there is also the chance it could be more, transmission, computer, engine, brakes etc. The warranty is just expensive insurance.......but $3,000 is a lot more than $600 to get a Buick safely to 9 years.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Heck, my 2000 Intrepid has made it to almost 123,000 miles, with only a few minor problems, and I'd consider your typical Buick to be more reliable than an Intrepid. Yes, I actually said that, and I'm a Mopar guy! :P
As for things that have broken on my car, as opposed to maintenance items...
- Power lock actuator in driver's door: replaced free under warranty at 35,000 miles.
- Thermostat housing, replaced by local mechanic for $210 around 51,000 miles.
- Power adjustment for passenger side mirror failed, never bothered to fix it as you can still take your finger and push the mirror to where you want it.
- Door seals started to shrink. I paid about $50 for the driver's door seal, and once I saw how they were made and how they went on, I just adjusted the other three myself, more or less fixing them
- Oil pressure light showing a false reading around 86,000 miles. There was a TSB on it and they fixed it for free.
Now there has been other stuff, like brakes, tires, new front rotors (about $30 apiece and I put them on myself), tranny services, new spark plugs, and other maintence type stuff, but if you add up the uncscheduled repairs, I'm seeing a cost of a whopping $260. $320 if you want to count the rotors as a repair and not maintenance. And even if I had to foot the bill for that TSB, the power lock actuator, and gotten my mirror fixed, and replaced the rest of the door seals, I still probably wouldn't be much over $1000-1200.
Now I think once a car gets up over 100,000 miles, it can be a toss of the dice. And I wouldn't buy any modern car with that type of mileage on it, unless I either knew its history (like if a family member owned it) or it at least had a very comprehensive service record, or I could get it dirt cheap.
If I saw a 2000 Intrepid with 123,000 miles on it out on a used car lot somewhere, I probably wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. But the same goes for a 2000 Buick or Honda with that type of mileage. I figure I've pretty much gotten my money out of my car, so every month it goes on from here is a blessing. But I wouldn't pay good money for something with that kind of mileage.
Honestly, I think I'd trust something from 1980 or the 70's or 60's with 123,000 miles before I'd trust the typical modern car that's getting into that kind of mileage. Those old cars will find their own unique ways to annoy you, but for the most part, they don't have the ability to hurt you with $3000 transmissions, $5000 engines, $1500 catalytic converters, and computer systems that you need a techno-nerd to decipher.
1:Insurance and registration all add up every year to several thousand in the first three years.
2:I'm suggesting a factory certified car that you get the warranty extended on until it matches the Honda - another three or four years. This makes them both have the same warranty coverage, so there will be no bills for repairs in either case. Even WITH this added to the GM, it still squeeks out ahead in your monthly payment(see below)
3: GMs with the bigger V6 engines(3800 or simmilar) easily last 200K+ on the drivetrain. The rest of the car has a lifespan of a good ten years before the electrical and interior start having issues.
4:The used car is paid off two YEARS faster than the new one. The new car was for 60 months. The used one was for 36 months! This can't be ignored.
Now, it could be ANY domestic that you want. Ford, Chrysler, GM... Probably a hundred choices, some with very good handling. Just high depreciation in the first 3-4 years. Still want a Toyota? Get a 3-4 year old Vibe GT with 35-40K on it. Maybe $8,000. Loads less expensive than the new one - enough in fact to pay for the extended warranty almost ten times over. I just chose the LeSabre because the limited trim is quite nice, it handles well enough, has way more power than an Accord or $20K import, and of course, all of the safety goodies. But it coudl be a stripped-down Camry for $20K versus a used Towncar. Both aren't small cars.
Used is always better economics than new when it comes to cars. Now, leasing, that's a whole other story. Any lease that's in the realm of $159-$189 a month(like they have on a Civic and Jetta and a few others that aren't tin cans) is golden. Jump on it in a heartbeat. You'll save loads of money compared to buying.
-Loren
All of my GM's started to really go after 120,000 miles, and thay were bought new and were well maintained. My Corsica was falling apart at 80,000K and the Cavalier (V-6)was getting rough at about 75,000. Not always major things, but enough little things to drive me crazy. I mean, you can keep it going but there is a lot to be said for a car that will start when you need it to, that won't break down on a super highway (ever been on a narrow median when cars a speeding by at 80?), that stalls in the middle of an intersection.
I will definitely admit a used car is usually cheaper but not always, I have two friends who poured a lot of money into their used cars. They start with, well, I spent $300 last month so now I have to spend $400 this month, and the next month its another $800 because thay have now invested $700!!!!
Don't forget with those lease rates there will be either a buy back or you have to hand the car in and start all over. The only time you should lease if not for business is because you absolutely need a new car (for a new job for example) and you can't afford to make the payments on owning. Otherwise owning will be less than leasing.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
-Loren
As for an old Buick, well yeah, duhhhh, it is less expensive. Well unless the intake manifold fails, or something. Most of the time it will be cheaper. I am going to be looking for a RWD car next time anyway. The FWD or AWD cars are not needed on the Coast of CA.
Will be looking for a fun car next.
-Loren
-Loren