patrick.net

I don't understand why anyone doesn't just pay cash for a used car.
After a few years they lose most of their value but they still are good.
I guess it's a dumb question; nobody has any cash.

clambo says

I don't understand why anyone doesn't just pay cash for a used car.

Sub-prime borrowers are about as good with their money as the proverbial drunken sailor or politician. They can't save up for a car, or anything else.

I've always paid cash for my cars. And it's not a few years. As soon as you leave the lot, your car loses thousands in value. It's a depreciating "asset" for getting you around. Whatever runs and requires low maintenance, go for that.

I used to pay cash for brand new Toyota's and Honda's, then keep them for decades passing them to family members (kids newly getting licenses, so reliable cars that can take dents make sense); however, in recent years (before the FED tightening) when loan interest rates were heavily subsidized (like 1.5%) or lease residues were heavily subsidized (e.g. 70% residue at the end of 4yr lease), on some more fashionable brands, while dealers refused to budge on sale prices (likely due to accounting reasons, a little like some home builder would rather throw in a new car instead of discounting on home sale price because discounting would instantly put his inventory into negative equity and could trigger the bank into recalling commercial loans on the inventory), financing and/or lease became better deals. Of course, the folks taking out subprime loans were likely not coming to that conclusion after crunching the numbers.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

Speaking of which, why the hell do the idiots driving those big trucks insist on driving way too fast for conditions. Morons don’t realize that heavy large trucks take longer to stop than smaller cars? The new compensation? No longer a sports car, now compensation is a large truck?

I think the truck trend has a few helpers:
• Federal (and California) regulations are tougher on cars than "light" trucks (pollution, fuel economy, required "safety" features, etc are all tougher for cars)
• Marketing
• Versatility of trucks
• Dumbed down and numbed driving experience narrows the additional pleasure of driving a sports car
• Perceived and actual safety benefits of being higher and heavier than everyone else

The safety thing is a bit tricky. Physics will tell you that if 2 vehicles collide head-to-head, the taller and heavier vehicle will generally come out on top (literally and figuratively "on top"). So, buy something bigger than most other vehicles! It's an arms race that started when farming and handyman work pickup trucks were refitted with larger cabins and rear seats to become the 1990s SUV craze. Now that everyone has a large variety of SUVs to choose from, the SUVs and pickups have been progressively getting bigger to continue to trend.

But this safety logic is not fully correct. More than 1/2 of driving fatalities occur in single-vehicle accidents and many of multi-vehicle fatalities occur in the at-fault vehicle. Tall trucks substantially increase rollover risks and rarely have sufficient roof strength to protect occupants from being crushed, so the multi-vehicle-crash benefits are mitigated by single-vehicle-crash increases. One disconnect is that many drivers believe that the biggest danger comes from other vehicles, so multi-vehicle crash scenarios are given more weight than they deserve.

As a society, the benefits of tall-and-heavy are only relative to other vehicles: If everyone upsized then there's really no benefit overall. Also, the advantages of upsizing are only to the disadvantage of everyone else.

Unfortunately, government crash requirements exacerbate the trend to upsizing. Vehicles of all sizes are required to protect occupants in side-impacts of ever-increasing height and force. That puts small vehicles at a significant disadvantage, as truck bumpers are now aimed squarely at the heads of people in cars. Instead, the crash safety should at least partially come from requiring that the tall and heavy vehicles take extra measures to limit the damage they do. For example: Truck bumper heights should be required to meet car standards when the trucks are driven on-road and the bumpers could be required to spread and dampen force – it's much easier to limit aggression than it is to require substantially more defense.

NuttBoxer says

Whatever runs and requires low maintenance, go for that.

Which automobiles would fit these two criteria?

Hurry up and crash I have to buy a car in a few weeks after mine was totaled by old people that rear ended me.

SunnyvaleCA says

If everyone upsized then there's really no benefit overall.

We both loved my wife's low, sporty Honda. However, it was too small and low and nearly invisible to SUVs and monster trucks. After being run into in the shopping center parking lot by a monster Toyota that couldn't even see her, I told her it had to go and we got her a Honda HRV, which is nice, but has a much higher visibility and seating. She groused a bit, but yielded, and then went and put dark tint on the fucking back windows so without the camera, you can't even back up with the goddamned thing. I think I am giving up trying to force safety on her.

gabbar says

NuttBoxer says

Whatever runs and requires low maintenance, go for that.

Which automobiles would fit these two criteria?

Toyota and Lexus. I've been told countless times by mechanics that these 2 are the best vehicles to purchase. I drive a 2013 Camry and expect to get 300K out of it.

I concur with GNL; I owned 3 Toyota trucks which were great.

gabbar says

NuttBoxer says

Whatever runs and requires low maintenance, go for that.

Which automobiles would fit these two criteria?

Toyota, Honda, and Mazda.

Onvacation says

gabbar says

NuttBoxer says

Whatever runs and requires low maintenance, go for that.

Which automobiles would fit these two criteria?

Toyota, Honda, and Mazda.

Id scratch Honda of the list I was a pretty diehard Honda fan until lately. They have fallen a lot in reliability. Was going to replace my 2014 crv that had 210k that was totaled with a newer one. They have a lot of engine issues now with oil dilution.

A lot of the newer models across brands are less reliable because of the regulations to squeeze more mpg. Looser cylinder rings, turbo, plastic parts.

gabbar says

Which automobiles would fit these two criteria?

So not just the makers listed, but the year is important. The art of Six Sigma was perfected in Japan in the early 1990's. If you can still find a Honda or Toyota that are from that era, those cars were made to last. I know a guy who had a Civic 500k and was still going strong. Also, ask anyone about the old Toyota trucks, the 22RE is legendary.

You can search best and worst years of a make and model.

Onvacation says

Toyota, Honda, and Mazda.

I've got a 4 Runner (wife) with low miles and 2 Nissans with 200k+ miles. I'd throw Nissan into that group. Everyone I see with older model cars it's all Nissan and Toyota. I don't know Mazda. I just think of the small coupe with Mazda and I ain't fitting in that.

Occasionally I'll see an older Ford or Chevy on the road that's pre-2000's. Subaru seems to do okay, but they feel like station wagons with good AWD. They have shit clearance on all their models and it's a bitch car in the mountains. Think Denver, Bozeman, Tahoe, etc. My Nissan Armada has been the best car we've ever had by any standard. We thought we were crazy buying it at the time. No regrets besides the starter going 1 year ago or so and that was labor intensive. At 220k and hoping for 400k.

NuttBoxer says

So not just the makers listed, but the year is important. The art of Six Sigma was perfected in Japan in the early 1990's. If you can still find a Honda or Toyota that are from that era, those cars were made to last. I know a guy who had a Civic 500k and was still going strong. Also, ask anyone about the old Toyota trucks, the 22RE is legendary.

https://www.carcomplaints.com/ has interesting info on year of manufacture.

I got 220k out of a 2003 Camry before it started to leak oil (head gasket) and I got rid of it. Bout the same with a Sequoia, then a freeze plug (iron) rusted through and it sprung a leak, losing all my coolant in a few minutes. Got rid of that too. I miss that one. Maybe I should have pulled the engine but I don’t have an engine hoist. We donated the car.

Head gasket is a pretty routine repair, and a lot cheaper than a new car. I wait until it's high miles and transmission, or engine rebuild.

I'm keeping a couple cars from the time before "drive and steer by wire" (i.e. newer cars liable to being Michael-Hastings'ed)

clambo says

I don't understand why anyone doesn't just pay cash for a used car.
After a few years they lose most of their value but they still are good.
I guess it's a dumb question; nobody has any cash.

I could raise cash from my Retirement plan, but I have to pay taxes on withdrawals. If my marginal tax rate exceeds the loan rate, a loan makes sense, right?

I've had a good run with a 2011 Kia Rio that we bought brand new. I used it to commute to work, and now my 18 year old son drives it. It has manual shift, steering, and windows. Few of his male peers can drive a stick! Good MPG. We change the oil every 5 or 6 thousand miles. We've replaced tires, brakes, fuel injectors, spark plugs and an O2 sensor. No big issues.

In 2017 we bought a used 2012 Kia Sedona minivan so that we could haul kids and friends around. It's never had any issues. I've changed oil every 6,000 miles and replaced tires, brakes, and battery. Now that my kids are older, I use it to go to work and for surfing. The back seats can be removed. You can sleep very comfortably in it. If you don't need 4wd, minivans are the shit.

I had the transmission rebuilt in a 2004 Accord at 160,000. $2,500. I got another 80,000 out of it and gave it to my daughter. The engine was in great working order and all systems and electronics worked perfectly.