XPost: alt.autos.toyota.camry, alt.autos.toyota, alt.autos.lexus
XPost: rec.autos.tech
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:39:53 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> wrote:
>
>>In article <4b60f302$0$22838$ce5e7886@news-radius.ptd.net>,
>> "Mike Hunter" wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing, if that is what one has to do, but my question was WHY buy used
>>> when one can afford to buy new?
>>>
>>> When one buys a used vehicle one can never know for sure how that vehicles
>>> was used or abused, or if it was properly maintained or not. When does
one
>>> generally have the most problems with ANY vehicle, during the first 50,000
>>> or the last?
>>>
>>> When one buys used THEY are loosing the beginning mileage, the mileage that
>>> is most likely covered by a warranty. What has one gained, IF one can
>>> afford to buy new rather than used?
>>
>>Because one chooses not to spend his money that way. If you choose
>>well, you don't have to worry about loosing the beginning/warranty
>>mileage.
>>
>>But since you're biased against GM, it's no wonder you think the way you
>>do. If you put a gun to my head and told me I had to drive a GM, I'd
>>avoid used like the plague, just like you.
>
>That goes against your argument about depreciation. Best to get the
>car that depreciates most, all else being equal. Unless you're biased
>of course. Then you get into a situation that happens with Toyota or
>Honda, where you sometimes see 1 or 2 year old used cars selling near
>new car prices.
>Then Mike is right about buying new.
>But his other arguments just show he doesn't know how to select a good
>used car. I can easily find a GM car for $2500-4000 that's good for
>100k miles. Here it'll rust out before I add that many miles to it
>anyway. Might put a few hundred bucks in it up front to fix some
>minor items, then maintenance expense is chump change.
>Done it more than once. 5-8 years old is the sweet spot.
>Had my '90 Corsica since '98 and my '97 Lumina since '02.
>Each cost me $2500 from private owners. Put about 50k miles on each.
>Doesn't take a mathematician to see how much money I could put in my
>bank account. Add a couple other $2500 Corsicas and a $3500 Grand Am
>I bought for my kids as their first cars.
>Pretty easy to see how a car was maintained, though you don't know
>everything. If you have good ear and feel for how a car should run,
>all it takes is drive a and a look-see in the engine compartment.
>I've stuck with 2.0/2.2 and 2.8/3.1 series engines since I dropped the
>350's, so I know them well. Never been hit by a big expense.
>Might be some luck there. Even new cars sometimes turn out bad.
>But some people only want a new car. I can understand that.
>I like that. I like that a lot. And I like even better the high
>depreciation of GM cars. That's how I could retire at 59 1/2.
>Different strokes, but 4-stroke is best. With pushrods.
>
>--Vic
A $2500 midsized GM or a $5000 Chrysler or Ford of the same age (aprox
5 years) shows the "value" of the vehicles. My Fords and Chryslers
outlast my GMs by enough that I don't bother with GMs any more.
At $10,000 for Honda, Toyota etc for the same age, I'll put up with
Chrysler and Ford - although I'd rather drive some of the Honda and
Toyota offerings.
Money talks, and I do most of my own servicing and repairs.
The less required the better,ut at least the little stuff doesn't kill
me financially.
On my GM there was no such thing as "little stuff" Didn't have a LOT
of trouble, but it was all the more major stuff.
My only NEW vehicle gave me more grief than any two used cars I've
owned, except the GM.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
