XPost: alt.autos.toyota.camry, alt.autos.toyota, alt.autos.lexus
XPost: rec.autos.tech
From: Mikehunt2@lycos,com
Perhaps you should be looking for a better job?
wrote in message
news:rsm3m5p27bsh4k69mismv5dphbstlp5ohn@4ax.com...
> 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)
|
