Ever stopped at a dealer to confim how great your current car is?
 

I was passing by a local Honda dealership today and got curious if there was any 2010 model that was significantly better than my 11 year old rolling couch. In a word, nope. The cars I looked at had fancy, whiz-bang drivetrains and cabin gadgets. They got the same or worse fuel economy for the same size car, and had less interior and trunk space. Yeah, these were gleaming and new. Then I got into my dented, scraped, well-used car and realized there's nothing like a well-padded bench seat with a flip-up armrest that's had many thousands of miles to conform to my backside. :D

I know I'll have to get a different car someday. With any luck that day will not be for a very long while. This current car of mine is great in many ways, so it's staying around. And the ways it's not great in are highly subject to driver control! :thumbup:

i have talked to a lot of dealers for many years.
i've only liked one guy. he was square. his name is Andy.

VanDervere Auto Outlet
3155 S. Arlington Rd.
Akron, OH 44312
800-218-7109, ask for Andy.

really, 99% of dealers suck. maybe 99.99%

99LeCouch, I know how you feel. There are many reasons I would never buy a new Sentra SE-R over my old 93 B13, from inferior engine (SR>QR), to inferior suspension design (beam axles???), to heavier weight, to the fact the newest Sentras look like taller, narrower Altimas.

And most of all, the price! $1900 for my old SE-R with 188,xxx miles and still running strong!


I love being a car guy and talking to salesmen who don't really know anything.

I once had a dealer try to tell me the intercooler on a Subaru STI was actually the radiator, that "they put the radiators on top the engine on these cars for better cooling!"

Ignoring that obviously silly reasoning, I simply pointed to the actual radiator and asked, "then what's that?"

He stuttered a bit then walked off
:D

The only point I'll disagree with you on, LeCouch, is the fuel economy. The 2010 Accord has a higher EPA FE rating than the 2000 Accord or the 1999 LeSabre. That is despite it being more full of gadgets and airbags, and larger overall than the 2000 Accord.

I recently helped my mom shop for a car, and we spent a lot of time at the Honda dealership. I sat in all the cars, and none of them wowed me. I prefer my own cars' familiar, broken-in interior over anything new.

Dumb salesmen make me LOL.

You need to go by posted EPA mileage of each vehicles not what mileage you are getting in your car. If you are 30% over EPA it's a good change the new car will be 30% over too if you are applying the same mods and techniques.

So if the posted EPA value of the new car is higher then the posted EPA of the LeSabre then apples to apples the higher one wins. Also new cars are usually a lot better on emissions even if the mileage in not that much higher.

Having driven beaters my whole life when I rent a car I always come away with a strong feeling of " I could get used to that" :)

yeah. i love new cars.
but i'm cheap, i have one new car payment, but my road warrior car is my lovely 1986 accord. -- i put over 36,000 miles on in a year.
new car goes to wife for peace of mind when i'm gone.

No joke, my Grandma bought a new 1988 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Classic from VanDevere on S. Arlington.

My Dad still has it, with 88K original miles, mint interior, and ... blown motor. Last year, a relative borrowed it for a while, the oil light came on, checked that the level was fine and kept driving. Apparently the transmission fluid was full. Oil? Dry. Yup, threw a rod.

It's for sale, and for the right price, it can be yours! Less than 28,000 were built of the last RWD Cutlass. Conveniently located in the Barberton Metro Area. Get it before it's gone! (or a new crate motor is dropped in to make it ridiculously inefficient). Serious collectors with serious money will be considered. :p

Back on topic, I've realized the same over the years after driving many new rental cars and having fun stopping by dealers when out of town (most of them didn't know much of anything about cars). Anyways, they don't make a car like the Integra anymore. We got the Insight out of necessity for a fuel efficient 4-door with some long-term reliability, but Teggy remains. Lots of life left in that car (and still fun to drive)...

RH77

ill never buy new from a dealer

sometimes even used cars feel "too new" for me





the only way ill drive a NEW car is if I win one

(and then id probably sell it, and use 1/4 of the money to buy a really nice used car)

If I owned an older car, I'd keep it. But no one has mentioned the main advantage of newer cars. They're far safer. Red Lion's B13 SE-R lacks the side air bags and crumple zones that my B15 SE-R has. In the early 90s, passenger air bags and antilock brakes were options on high end cars. Now they and vehicle stability and traction control come on most cars. In a head-on collision, my engine is going to drop down out of the way while high tensile steel crumples to protect me. In the B13, that non-compressible engine is coming straight back into the driver and passenger. Going back to '80s cars, many of them still had non-collapsible steering columns that went right through your chest in an accident.

I owned a B14 SE-R, so I know how delightful the older SE-Rs were. But the newer cars are much safer.

Ah yes, the sschmafety aspect.

'90s cars with non-collapsable steering columns? In the U.S.A.... or India?

Came across an article on keeping cars longer yesterday, I think it was on AOL; it said a drawback of the "older" car was that it didn't have the latest safety gear.

Seriously?

Really? :confused:

That + GPS, Dual Climate Control, and everything else
thats new is part of the reason why our MPG has lessoned


But yes, it generally is safer.

I stopped at a Honda dealer in the '91 Civic Wagon to check out the Fit a few years ago. The salesmen were gathering around the old Honda, asking questions about it. :D

I don't like new cars. Give me a harsh-riding, noisy old ****box and I'm happy. :)

^Amen to that! :thumbup:

Except I like my noisy old ****boxes to be quiet and smooth. :)

I did buy a new vehicle once, to see what the big fuss was all about. And, as one who must have at least a couple genes in common with the rest of humanity (I think?) I felt the allure of having a new car (and still do from time to time, although it is quite weak). The payments/costs outlasted the thrill by a long shot.

Too bad the alien moniker is taken here; there are times when I feel like an alien looking in on this strange foreign species called humanity, from the lack of having anything in common or any understanding of them. When did people get so hung up on "safety" that the idea of being in a vehicle more than 10 years old was somehow "risky" or unacceptable? Seriously? :confused:

Look, I'm not advocating for solid steering columns and sharp spikes on all interior control knobs, but COME ON. People... society... gummint agencies... law enforcement... it wasn't like this before... before when? I dunno exactly... certainly not before the late eighties, and not later than 2000... I think before 9/11 so it isn't that... WTF happened? Was there a mass conspiracy to turn the nation into chicken ****? Did they do it by putting something in the water? What???

http://autos.aol.com/article/small-car-owners-unhappy

nah frank, they became stupid. Thus big corps stepped in with "ideas" to save them.

darwinism was adverted.... sad. :(

The main issue I have with new cars is the price. Very few people can afford to pay cash for a new car. Most of the population becomes in a state of servitude from the time they are 20 with a $200-300+ note that they keep renewing every 3-5 years all in the interest of supposed reliability. Just think were you could be with an extra $300 in your pocket. Transportation costs should not be 1/4 of more of the cost of your house if you have one.

I hear you Lazarus,

The cost of new cars........yikees!:eek:

I'd **** a brick every time I hit a pothole. Not to mention all the road chemicals down on the roads this time of year.

I'm glad someone started making patch panels for my Honda's now. I love trying to keep an old car nice. Anyone car keep a new car nice, I have the most respect for someone that is trying to keep an old car sweet looking & running longer. My newest vehicle is a 98.

Having no car payments lets the wife & I have more toys, ATV's, Jet ski's, tools,
man cave, you get the idea!:)

Dave

My dad sissified me back in the '60s by insisting on having seat belts installed in our car. The mfrs fought mandatory seat belts for years, insisting they'd cost too much. And meanwhile, there were plenty of people buying into the myths that real men didn't wear seat belts, and seat belts would keep you from escaping from your burning/drowning car in an emergency. Ten thousand fewer deaths/year, despite increases in traffic volume, says the sissies were right.

Old cars have a mystique about them. We'd all love to own a classic '57 Chevy, '65 Mustang, etc. But when the rubber hits the road, reality isn't so pretty. They had long-throw, slow, three-on-the-tree transmissions, didn't handle worth a d*mn, rode like boats in a molasses ocean, and they're pretty coffins before they crush you.

What do we get with '93 Geo Metros, '92 Saturn SL1s and '87 CRX HFs? Twenty year old technology. Nice to save a few bucks with, but you're giving up major compromises in safety in return. Safety isn't that big a deal, and a fancy new car doesn't make you immune from stupidity. But the new stuff does have some advantages to offset the weight and price.

I don't think anybody was saying go get a 57 chevy.

Not trying to be a wise guy but what added safety features are in a 2010 model that are not in a 2000 model or the early 90's? Safety features that really add to safety?

Count me in as another enthusiastic advocate of keeping old cars on the road. Keeping old equipment in service is the best form of recycling, and what jobs it may not support in the new car industry it does support in the aftermarket industry, I still buy bits and pieces for all my old cars to keep them maintained and safely serviceable.

I get disgusted at certain people (not all, and nobody specific on this forum) who obsess over the "safety" that a new car's rating promises, but then do little or nothing to participate in that safety - driving aggressively or distracted, insisting on a 5-star-rated car to drive to work but then riding a quad at 80mph with no helmet on the weekends, having poor diet/exercise habits that put them at serious risk of cardiac failure, sleeping around with anyone who'll participate, sans condom... BUT THEIR CAR HAS TO BE SUPER SAFE!!!11!!!

We somehow managed to survive all the "unsafe" cars we all grew up in... I have nothing against safety equipment, and eagerly use what is available... but let's face it there's more dangerous stuff we all do than hop in a 20 year old car. I can do a lot of living with the $10,000/yr I save vs. buying a new car, at only a tiny % greater chance of dying because of my vehicle choice.

Now if I was in charge of a company like AutoZone or Napa, I'd start hosting low-cost classes for the public on evenings and weekends for how to perform basic repairs to your own car, to keep them safe and on the road. Gear the class to be friendly to both genders, and focus on the types of repairs that can be done with simple tools in a driveway or carport - and offer a discounted model of code reader for OBD2 cars to attendees. That'd pay itself off pretty quickly I'd guess, with those same freshly empowered individuals feeling confident enough to lift the hood and at least check their own oil and tire pressure once in a while. The challenge of course would be in reaching non-gearheads to get them in the door in the first place. Ah, well, I'm just rambling anyway ;) :thumbup:

Side air bags?

I really don't know what new safety stuff has been put out in the last 10 years that was actually safe. If anything, cars are more "dangerous" now that they are "safe".

Yes Risk Compensation.

Took the words right out of my keyboard, you did. And of course talking on cell phones/texting while driving (not to mention walking: Driven to Distraction - Pedestrians, Too, Are Distracted by Cellphones - Series - NYTimes.com :-)), or putting video players & internet connections in the front seat.

I admit I've been casually looking around for a "new" car, but it'll be a Honda Del Sol, or maybe an 90-something Miata - unless I can find a really good deal on a used Lotus, of course :-)

My newest vehicle is a 92. I like my old cars, they are easy to work on, and parts are cheap and easy to get. Insurance and plates are cheaper too. I also like the looks of the older cars. They actually look more like a sculpture, whereas the newer cars all seem to look like a jellybean.

One thing I always notice when sitting in a newer car is it seems like on all of them, the seats are hard as a rock. Whatever happened to nice soft cloth seats?

I also don't like riding in newer cars. It makes me feel carsick. Maybe it's something with the uncanny quietness and smoothness and the fact that I'm actually moving down the road screws with my head. I like cars where you can feel the brakes, the shifts, the engine, and the road. Makes for a lot safer winter driving too.

I know when I went from driving my 93 suburban to driving my 96 contour my insurance went UP! My contour has driver and passenger airbags and a 4 cyld, my Suburban only has antilock brakes, no airbags, big 350 engine, 4 wheel drive, high cventer of gravity. So I asked why? He siad "Because the suburban is a safer vehicle" :eek: WHAT? I pointed out the above differences, how is it safer? He fankly said "More metal around the occupants, no one gets hurt as bad in a wreck."

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety determins the safety of a vehicle. If the new cars are "more safe", then why is an old plain jane suburban determined safer?

I dont buy new cars are safer.

The SUV is "safer" due to Bumper heights. Bumper heights are not regulate on these type vehicle.

Hmmm collapsible columns were required in 1968.

Crumple zones came on in the 70s.

In fact when they dropped the requirement for 5 MPH bumpers the low speed collision repair costs skyrocketed.

No saying new cars are not better, they are just not that much better, at least in collisions.

Emissions have certainly improved, and air bags have helped reduce traffic fatalities by close to 25% over the decades.

As far as economy I'll take my 94 VX over any new car, and it should be running for at least 5 more years easily, maybe 10.

Comparing my Insight to the VX over the last 20k miles (each has just over 52k miles today).

No problems whatsoever with the VX.
The Insight check engine light has come on 3 times.
Once was the O2 sensor---$400
Once was the fuel vapor system---$750 (replaced the fuel cap and fixed it)
Once was today when the IMA light (bad battery) came on then the check engine light came on 1 mile later when the idle speed dropped and the engine almost stalled. $2500+

So far it has needed
oxygen sensor
fuel tank filler neck upgrade
catalytic converter---$2200
IMA battery

remember the VX is 8 years older than the Insight and has been hit in the rear end hard enough to total the car in 1996.

The prior owner of the Insight told me he spent $750 getting one of the power windows fixed.

Total is $6500 on an 8 year old car with 52,000 miles. Thankfully most of it was warranty, all but the O2 sensor, and the $20 gas cap.

VX has crank windows.

Bottom line from my personal experience and 60k hours working on cars.

New cars are better made than many older cars, with a lot of exceptions.

If you are going to drive a lot of miles, find an older car that has a good reputation for reliability and economy and avoid getting crucified on the depreciation on a new car.

If you are mechanically inclined and don't mind working on your own car and also don't mind occasionally getting stranded on the side of the road, the cheapest transportation is about 12-15 years old and you can scavenge parts from the pick and pay yards for dirt cheap.

regards
Mech

insurance companies have amazing complex algorithms to determine risk more than safety.
the ratio of suburbans on the road vs accidents vs injuries could be lower when compared to a contour.
in addition, the car may shift the driver's confidence. a suburban kinda keeps you humble and from taking opportunistic risks, compared to a more nimble car.

Lots of rationalizing, but the bottom line is I'm safer in one of my newer cars than someone in his 20 yr. old Civic or Metro, assuming we take the same driving risks. All the straw men being tossed out about risky lifestyles are there to divert attention away from the unsafe old tin cans they built in the 80s and 90s, and earlier.

For risk-taking, your biggest risk in life is cardiac failure, accounting for ~650,000 deaths/year in the USA. So how many of you have done 1/2 hour of cardiovascular exercise 3 days this week? I have, so I get to move on to talk about vehicle safety. If you haven't, then you're one of those people going 80 mph on the quad without a helmet, and the 20 yr old car's lack of safety features shouldn't bother you, because you're ignoring your biggest risk - your weak heart.

As for safety features in the past 10 years, the data are skewed because the Bush Administration didn't push for consumer safety, choosing instead to side with industry in crippling most consumer protection efforts.

Nonetheless, newer cars are safer. A 2010 car v. a 2000 car will favor the 2010 with stronger child restraints, including stronger bench seat strength and the LATCH system. Stronger roof crush strength. Safer window glass. Better rollover protection (seat belts, airbags, glass). Traction control. VSC. Better rear crash strength.

insurance companies uses a huge amount of data, related to cars as they are today, no matter what an administrations does.
if all cars were the same year, make, and model, there would still be huge amounts of data to determine risks on other details.

The big loophole was the light truck exemption, that allowed my '87 Chevy Astro to be manufactured with a non-collapsible column 20 years after the fact. In a 35 mph crash, the steering column impaled the driver, and the car (van) failed the tests. Yet GM continued to make and sell the Astro alongside the safer Venture minivan, to save a few pennies using the old killer steering column.

Assuming we take the same driving risks is a very flawed assumption.

regards
Mech

Cutesy game playing. You or I driving in a 2010 auto is/am/are much safer than you or I is/am/are driving in a 1990 Geo Metro or a late 80's Civic.

Back on topic here.

I got a $5 gift offer from the local Chevy dealer. Stopped by an asked them if they had any cars for sale that got the 78 MPG my Insight had averaged on the trip to the dealer.

The salesperson babbled something about the upcoming Volt, gave me my 5 bucks and I left.

165 miles worth of free gas ;).

regards
Mech

I don't disagree, I also don't care because my chance of dying in either vehicle is extremely low. In 14 years driving I've been involved in (as a driver OR passenger) 4 collisions, 3 of which were in cars that today would be >20 yrs old, and none of those collisions took my life. Meanwhile because I am thrifty about my possessions, I have been able to afford the luxury of an adventurous lifestyle, putting more life in my years (a sure thing) rather than trying to put more years on my life (a gamble at best, even the healthiest and most careful individual can fall prey to chance) .

I'm not suggesting anyone else needs to follow my example, if you need a car with the latest safety gizmos to feel good, go for it! If you need a car with blue paint to feel good, go for it!

I just feel that we need to keep things in perspective, for the time being about 2.5 million people die in the US each year and about 42000 of those deaths are in motor vehicles. That means based on raw averages we have a 1.68% chance of dying in a car accident as opposed to other causes. Because I don't have any specific figures, let's pretend that 20% of those deaths are drivers, or passengers of drivers who take risks I simply *do not* take, like driving intoxicated, driving with no seat belt, driving while distracted, driving a vehicle that is poorly maintained, driving with an unreported impairment, etc.

So now I have a 1.35% chance of ultimately dying in a collision, regardless of what age my car is. Now let's say that occupants of a 2010 car are 10% less likely to be killed in a collision than occupants of a 1990 car (frankly I doubt the difference - while real - is quite that big, but let's go with it for discussion) - so that means my likelyhood of dying in a collision while driving a 2010 car is 0.135% less than my likelyhood of dying in a collision while driving a 1990 car, as compared against all the other things in the world that can kill me.

My cost of ownership on my 1992 Tempo including fuel for 1000 miles per month driving, the $4/month it adds to my car insurance premiums (I also have a 2001 blazer with comprehensive coverage on the same policy), the $8/yr it costs me to register it, etc... is about $1000 compared to the appx. $10,000/yr it would cost me to own and drive a 2010 Prius. Those "extra" $9000/yr I'm saving let me vacation in Maui, beautify my home, throw extravagant parties, and altogether put tons more life in my years, while only "costing" me a 0.135% greater chance at losing years from my life.

Sounds like a bargain to me, but if you don't see it that way that's fine too - I'm not out to change minds, just to keep things in perspective. :thumbup:

I always realize how good of a car my '88 Escort with 503K miles is when I look at those $20-$30K window stickers. Of course that's not the only car I have, but I figure why buy a new one when I have a '97 in the garage with less than 26K miles on it that I bought new and is rarely put on the road unless I'm taking trip of 500+ miles round trip and I also have other cars that are in between the two extremes including another '88 Escort I bought last summer with only 80K actual miles and it didn't cost anywhere near what they want for a new car. If I were going to buy a new car now it would probably be a new Mercury Grand Marquis to use for comfort on longer distance driving because of my back injury. My dad has a '99 Grand Marquis and is able to squeeze about 28-29 MPG out of it on the highway running 65-75 MPH. Since I usually get in the slow lane on the interstate and run about 55 MPH I figure I could achieve low to mid 30's which wouldn't be bad for a full size car with a V8.

Paid off my house driving recycled wrecked cars. Used the equity to build a much more expensive house. Sold it 3 years later for a $165,000 profit. Built another house with the profit, so that one was basically free as far as money spent.

The cumulative compounding effect of not having made a house payment or a car payment in the last 15 years.

Priceless

Never needed an air bag or a collapsible column, a crush zone, or a stronger roof since 1966.

Heck I drove an Austin Healey Sprite with a door sill so close to the ground you could almost drag your fingers on the pavement. It did save me from an accident when a gent in a Ford Galaxie was backing up into my car at a stop sign and I whacked his car on the trunk brfore he hit me LOL.

regards
Mech

Sounds like a great idea. Even though my everyday car is a car with over 500K miles I'd be willing to bet it's mechanically safer than 75% of the cars on the road, because I do most of my own repairs and do them in most cases long before there's any danger with the worn out parts. I just replaced the tie rod ends and ball joints on my '02 Escort the other day, but they were changed as soon as there was any signs of wear. I rarely drive that car, but my 18 year old son drives it almost daily and I want to know it's in top notch condition. Almost anyone can do a large majority of their own automotive repairs if they will buy a service/repair manual like Haynes or Chilton's and following the step by step instructions and best of all for dummies like me they have pictures. Yes, it takes some of your time, but it also saves hundreds of dollars on almost any repair. The parts for my '02 cost less than $110., but if I'd taken it to a garage to have the work done it would have probably cost $400-$600. I was able to do the repairs in an afternoon.

That, I think is a barrier to good maintenance for a lot of people - with all due respect to the mechanic I understand that having a well equipped shop, with good equipment, well trained employees, and business overhead cost money and needs to be paid for, but anyone with a 15 year old car that's in fair shape and just needs a few little worn out bits replaced - they're not going to go to a mechanic because they don't see any value in putting $1500 into a car they could only sell for $1000 on craigslist if they had to.

But if they felt empowered to put those new pieces on themselves for $150 because they can do the labor themselves, they might choose to do it and put off having a car payment for a while longer - AND all of society would benefit from that person's car being repaired and safer/cleaner, vs. them just driving it unmaintained until it really falls apart.

I'm not saying everyone would take advantage of it, but some would. Hell my sister is a frickin' pr0n model and does all her own vehicle repairs including engine rebuilds... so it's not like the stereotypical "gear head male" is necessary to turn wrenches and follow repair manual steps. :thumbup:

All the talk about safety is OK, I believe in being safe, but I owned a rag top '78 MG Midget back in the early eighties and turned it over one night. I was injured, but even with the car sliding on and coming to rest on it's top the convertable top frame only colapsed about 2-3". Most of my injury was on my left arm where the car slid on it's top and my arm was between the rag top and the ground. I also wasn't wearing a seat belt which probably contibuted to part of the injury to my arm.