|
Maybe this is why cars aren't designed for economy
Around here we often wonder why vehicle manufactures don't do X,Y, or Z to improve the economy of their vehicles (fuel economy and/or total economy).
I had an interesting revelation recently. I've always been a believer in buying used vehicles rather than new ones (for financial reasons). According to cars.com, the average new car loses 40% of it's resale value in the first 3 years. Therefore, you can buy a vehicle 3 years old for almost half off--that still has most of it's life ahead of it. So, not to judge anyone, but from pure economy perspective it doesn't make sense to buy a new car. And yet, obviously, all vehicles are sold from the manufacturer as new. So, therefore, the manufacturers' entire market is to people who aren't buying based on economy. So why design for economy if that's not what your customers are looking for? Just an interesting thought. |
Makes sense to me. Also, an economy minded person that does purchase a new car is a lot more likely to maintain it and keep it "until the wheels fall off", so won't be much of a repeat customer. Whereas the person that buys the newest whatsit is a lot more likely to buy another whatsit 3 years from now when the manufacturer makes a huge change, you know, like offering it with bigger wheels and different coloured lights in the dash. :snail:
|
This is part of the harm that planned obsolescence has -- we value new things more than we value *good* things. Cars should be a durable good, and model revisions should be only done when there is an actual functional improvement. Because the car companies can sell us a new car more frequently, they will.
|
Quote:
|
That's a good analysis. I also believe that manufacturers always have to deal with the competition from the used car market when making small cars in general. Imagine a young buyer who can afford either a low-option Chevy Spark or a 2-3 year old nicely loaded 4-cyl Chevy Malibu. The Malibu is safer, more comfortable, more convenient, better looking (alloy wheels, spoiler, etc. compared to the base Spark's plastic wheel covers), and still gets very good gas mileage. It's hard to see the argument for the Spark in that case. The only things in the Spark's favor are extreme fuel economy, more warranty, and new car smell.
|
Quote:
|
And, just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong for people to buy vehicles based on reasons other than economy...after all, I do drive a 3+ ton truck back and forth to my office job.
|
Also a lot of buyers are more concerned about power, handling, etc. Even looks. Getting the maximum economy out of any car requires sacrifices vs. "the driving experience" and most people won't make that trade-off. So why bother serving that population (us)?
I pissed off everyone between Boston and Morristown, NJ. 55MPH unless downhill. But I also got 35.5MPG out of a V6 SUV that weighs two and a quarter tons. |
Interesting theory, Dave!
It also used to be (more than 12-15 years ago) that the cheapest (entry-level economy) cars were the models that returned the best fuel economy in any manufacturer's lineup. Mostly this was a byproduct of being small and light, with relatively small (low-power) engines. Therefore, being very economical on the purchase side also meant getting good mileage. But more or less since the advent of hybrids, fuel economy has become a "feature". With few exceptions, if you want the best MPG in a lineup these days, you have to pay extra for it. |
Quote:
|
FE = 170 cid slant-6 with 3-speed manual and 2.73:1 axle ratio in an A-body Plythmouth Valiant or Dodge Dart, no A/C and no P/S.
|
I like to buy new rather than used, as I don't like buying someone else's problems.
As it is, it can be bad enough when buying new :mad: It's sad to see folks joining car forums because the car they just bought, starts acting up shortly after the purchase. More than a few of them sell on their cars due to the problems. It won't happen to Hägar though. He's going to the scrapper when I'm done with him ;) |
Quote:
|
I've never bought a new car and even if i had all the money in the world i don't think i ever will, mainly becasue of the reasons outlined in the first post.
Most new models these days are only slight upgrades from the previous (different bumpers or wheels or different colour dash lights as someone said) so i dont see a point in spending up to nearly twice as much for the same thing. The second reason for me to buy an old car is that most of the features of new cars i either dont need/wouldnt use and the ones i actually do need/would use can be retrofitted to an older car quite easily, ie. If a new car comes out with fancy new revised suspension for better handling and comfort id much rather get an old car and put aftermarket suspension in to suit my needs/driving style, will most likely handle better than the new car and will still be cheaper after adding in the price of the new suspension. The final reason i wouldnt buy a new car is they look terrible IMO, go back to the 90s with cars like RX7's, Supra's, Honda NSX, EG civic, Miata/MX5, dodge viper... all look much better IMO than the current equivalents, and due to a lack of silly amounts of computers and airbags and emissions equipment they are much lighter, and more "fun" to drive |
Quote:
Market forces (rising fuel prices) and regulation (CAFE, in the U.S.) are bringing more and more efficient cars to market. For proof, look at the revival of the subcompact segment in the U.S. - 5 years ago there was precious little to choose from. Lots now! There are even 4 or 5 choices in the "mini" sub-subcompact segment! (Spark, Smart, Fiat, Mini, iQ, etc.) Whenever fuel prices spike, surveys show that "regular" consumers in the new vehicle market make MPG a priority, and the manufacturers are responding. Of course, normal consumers almost always immediately slip back to buying pickups and crossover/SUV's when fuel prices fall again, but that's another topic. The upside for those of us who have decided to only ever fish in pre-owned waters is more and more efficient choices are coming down the pipe. |
I totally respect the view of buying used, but there are ways around brand new. Show cars, that have been tested but owned, or year old models. I waited for the 2013s on the road, and with Ford family discount, called A plan, saved over 1000, which WOULD be 2200 if I went with auto, but only 1000 with a standard, but also I saved 1250 for going 2012. They wanted them off the lot. So 5 miles on her, a little patience, and I saved 1250.
I doubt anyone here wants a 600hp Corvette, but no previous owner, sitting on a lot one year drops the price 30%+, one previous owner one year old around 50%. depending on the car, time of the year, and location, changes the price. More people buy Subarus in December here than Front Rears lol. |
financing chgs the equation
Quote:
|
I still wouldn't take the loan... even at 0%, the bank still has a choke collar around your neck and can yank it any time they please... especially if you step out of line even one little bit... Nooo thank you!
|
someone with a heavier foot than mine...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hindsight; we should have sold the mini ourselves. We would have gotten several thousand dollars more, plus mini's sell themselves. We talked up the trade-in price on the mini by $1,500 and talked down the asking price a few hundred. So we lowered their profit a fair bit. |
Buying is emotional, not rational. We are a nation of consumers, not citizens mindful of their own best interests. Imagine a nation of 12-yr olds and you have Amurrica.
As DD points out, the financial loss in buying brand new makes little sense -- on average -- for nearly everyone. The exceptions might be those for whom vehicles are a deductible business expense. The rest make little attempt to really match vehicles to need. One can clear the air in asking how many vehicles another has owned in the past twenty years. More than two is the giveaway that emotions are in charge, as any decent vehicle, decently maintained, will last 15-years. Throw in some overlapping years for buying used, etc, and the figure of about 2 per 20 holds true. Economy is not just the ownership/operating cost per mile, but represents the loss of money that could have been in some way invested otherwise. The transportation cost per decade (public or private) is what is at stake and includes homes bought, etc., as all have "costs" built into them which are directly & indirectly related. . |
Quote:
Nowadays... Well, I obviously can't say much about NEW cars from my own experience, since my two are 12 and 24 years old, but there are a lot of similar age cars & pickups on the roads around here. |
Quote:
Things may have been different in Poland, since industries function differently in a socialist economy. Also, it shouldn't be a surprise that the expected lifetime of cars was getting shorter earlier in the US, since that is where planned obsolescence came from in the first place. Now, this may be a total coincidence, but I remember not too long ago that cars had a 10 to 12 year warranty for the chassis, now they boast about 7 years... |
I don't like buying someone else's problems ... and so I bought my problems new :rolleyes:
|
For the first 35 years of vehicle ownership my cars & vans where bought at auction. Never payed more than $2500 at the auction, and never invested more than $5000 total in any of these vehicles. In 2007 I bought my first new car, a Toyota Yaris, which I payed for "cash". The next new vehicle I bought is a Sprinter van which again is payed for "cash". I did look into used ones but could not find what I wanted close at hand; ext long wheel base with high roof. I usualy drive the vehicles until they are ready for the wrecker.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com