|
Deteriorata posted:And the odds of that happening are quite small. Beyond that, your actual loss will only be a few grand, at most. It would suck but it isn't catastrophic. If your finances are so tight that that is an unacceptable risk, you're buying more car than you can afford in the first place. If you need to finance for 60 months you are buying more car than you can afford and your finances are too tight. Which makes coming up with a surprise "few grand, at most" pretty catastrophic. And once you came up with the "few grand, at most" to pay off the note, where's your next downpayment coming from? And your few grand safety margin for that note? Or maybe you could just roll the rest of the old note into your new 0-down note. Yeah, that's the ticket. (and what so often happens)
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Motronic posted:If you need to finance for 60 months you are buying more car than you can afford and your finances are too tight. Yes if you literally don't have the extra $170 a month anywhere in your budget which is the difference between 15 grand at 36 vs 60 months, you probably shouldn't be getting a 60 month loan. But in that case you probably shouldn't be getting a loan at all, and in reality you may not even be capable of getting a loan. Railing against 60 months loans and insisting on 30% down is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
If I have 3 grand down and want to keep it at or below 300 a month, that limits me to about a 9,000 dollar car with the 30%/36 month requirement. If I don't put that limitation on it It means a 19,000 dollar car. That 19,000 dollar car may very well have a lower total cost of ownership over five years than the 9,000 dollar car due to being newer and therefore more reliable, requiring less maintenance, getting better gas mileage, getting a better interest rate, etc. On top of that it's likely to be safer, more comfortable, more fun to drive, etc. Being cheap doesn't always result in saving money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
scrubs season six posted:If I have 3 grand down and want to keep it at or below 300 a month, that limits me to about a 9,000 dollar car with the 30%/36 month requirement. $9000 cars are pretty loving close to new and will do 5 years without a hitch. Seriously, a $9000 car is a 6 year old prius.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
You're not strictly wrong, but $10,000 covers A LOT of car maintenance and repairs on something 5-8 years old. 99% chance you won't even pay that over the course of 5+ years unless you're buying a used S-Class or something stupid like that. IMO if you couldn't theoretically buy a new car in cash or nearly all cash you should be buying a much more used car. Not to say that you should be paying cash, but that you could. Using cheap financing as a tool to manage cash flow and take advantage of the time value of money can absolutely be a smart move, but not as a crutch to over extend yourself in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Guinness posted:And fortunately adding Bluetooth to most cars is trivial and cheap. Backup cameras own on any car. Even with small cars the back window is typically high and the left/right side mirrors might not show a car or other object immediately to the rear, so it's pretty hard to judge by turning your head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Backup sonar is kind of useful but the cameras are for paralyzed old people and idiots. The fact that Michael Scott likes them basically disproves their utility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Are any of the newer tech features from the past few years must-have? I would love to have a backup camera in my CR-V but it has a tire sticking off the back of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Are any of the newer tech features from the past few years must-have? I would love to have a backup camera in my CR-V but it has a tire sticking off the back of it. Cross-traffic sensors in the rear bumper are useful, as is blind-spot monitoring. I've got both on my car and they're very helpful. Not necessary, but good to have. I've also got adaptive headlights that turn with me and light the road ahead on curves, rather than the ditch I don't want to drive into. That's also nice. LED headlights, as well. Something useful I don't have is adaptive cruise control, which will maintain a safe distance to the car in front of you on the highway, slowing you down if you get too close. I wouldn't call any of them "must haves" but YMMV. They're worth getting if they're available and you can afford them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Backup sonar is kind of useful but the cameras are for paralyzed old people and idiots. The fact that Michael Scott likes them basically disproves their utility. Backup cameras are amazing things which are (soon) mandatory for a reason. That reason is some politicians relative got run over, but ignore that. It helps reduce accidental run-overs in all vehicles. Amusingly just this weekend I would have run over a cat had it not been for my backup camera. The cat wasn't there when I got in to the car, he ran behind the car as I was backing down my driveway. Slammed on the brakes and didn't run over the neighbors cat. Had I just been looking over my shoulder he wouldn't have been visible. Now add in the utility of being able to do to-the-inch parallel parking, ease of backing into parking spots, etc. They are a great convenience item that modern technological advances have made affordable to the masses. Not everyone is a ultra high precision driver, and this helps them not run me and my kid over. I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Are any of the newer tech features from the past few years must-have? I would love to have a backup camera in my CR-V but it has a tire sticking off the back of it. My cars have all the new tech and I can't imagine having a car without the features now. It's relative I guess. I somehow managed to drive for years without backup cameras, blindspot/cross traffic, etc, but they sure are nice to have now. I wouldn't buy a new car today that didn't have collision monitoring, blind spot, backup camera, and cross traffic alerts, but that's just me. There are plenty of retrofit kits out there that will add a backup camera to the car, usually bolts to the license plate frame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
scrubs season six posted:If I have 3 grand down and want to keep it at or below 300 a month, that limits me to about a 9,000 dollar car with the 30%/36 month requirement. A 9 grand car is not going to require much maintenance. I mean if you're not dumb and buying a 9 grand mercedes or something. I mean, there's reasons to buy the 19 grand car, but it's pretty hard to make a purely financial argument for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
scrubs season six posted:If I have 3 grand down and want to keep it at or below 300 a month, that limits me to about a 9,000 dollar car with the 30%/36 month requirement. You're trying to use the "cheap boots versus expensive boots" argument, except you're actually arguing between one set of expensive boots and one set of more expensive boots. Anecdote is not data, but I'll use my 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee as an example. Granted, yes, I do all of the labor myself, but the WJ is generally considered "unreliable as gently caress" by virtue of being a Jeep, a Daimler-Chrysler product, and now 14 years old. It also requires a lot of scheduled maintenance, with relatively short service life for various fluids. I paid $6000 for it and have owned it for just under two and a half years / just under 30k miles. My total non-fuel expense in that time period is $4200, and that includes things like $1000 worth of new tires (and $100 for a set of wheels) and a shitload of oil changes. If you manage to find a $9k used car that costs more per year in parts and maintenance than a 14 year old Jeep, you have chosen poorly. I've spent $4500 on gas in that same timeframe, but if you care about fuel mileage, don't buy a thirsty rear end SUV, and don't floor it whenever you get a chance because by my deeds I honor him V8. You're also seemingly discounting that even a $19k car will need things. If you own a car for longer than three years or so, it will almost certainly need at least one set of tires in that time, and I'd be shocked if you got away for much less than $600 for any tires on any vehicle these days. And if you're so bent on TCO, you will eat more in depreciation losses on the $19k car versus the $9k car. The only way the $19k car costs less is if you cherry pick the gently caress out of things. Namely, you pick a new base-trim Civic Sedan LX (which could probably be had for about $19k out the door with some good negotiation) which will probably never need anything but consumables for the next five years, versus a VW Phaeton which is full of insanely unique and expensive parts that will all break in new and horrifying ways. Thermopyle already hit it: Thermopyle posted:I mean, there's reasons to buy the 19 grand car, but it's pretty hard to make a purely financial argument for it. There are reasons to spend more money on a car. None of them equate to "it costs less".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Backup sonar is kind of useful but the cameras are for paralyzed old people and idiots. The fact that Michael Scott likes them basically disproves their utility. A well designed one makes parallel parking so much easier. My dad's 06 infiniti has a really well thought out system (which even shows just a touch of bumper, so you know where it is going as well as lines that show exactly where you will go based on steering angle), which gets a big car with kinda bad rear sightlines into small spots like a drat smart. It also has a really nice wide angle. My mom's prius has a crappy system that just shows what is behind you. I mean, it prevents striking toddlers, but won't help you park. Neither of my cars have cameras and I do fine, though going from parking the mazda 2 to my wagon has a touch of learning curve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I love the backup camera on my wife's Mazda3 and don't know why you wouldn't want one. I guess if you don't parallel park often it might not seem that useful. Never had backup sonar so I'm not sure why you'd want it over a good camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
I bought a car without a backup camera that you also can't see poo poo out the back of. I even bought an aftermarket rear view camera but was too lazy to install it. Then I backed into my neighbors truck in my parkade because I can't see poo poo out the back of the car. I make a lot of bad decisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
powderific posted:I love the backup camera on my wife's Mazda3 and don't know why you wouldn't want one. I guess if you don't parallel park often it might not seem that useful. Never had backup sonar so I'm not sure why you'd want it over a good camera. It's not so much that they are useless, but they aren't worth buying $10,000 more car than you can actually afford just to get a few trinkets. If you want one that bad they can be added in aftermarket for a couple hundred bucks tops. It's been said a lot in this thread before, but if you just want a nice new car with fancy modern features and you can afford it then by all means, go ahead. New cars are cool and nice but they are also hugely expensive and depreciate rapidly, but hey that's what disposable income is for! But if you try to justify buying a new car on flimsy grounds when your financial position to do so is not good, the thread is going to call you out on your poor justifications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I bought a car without a backup camera that you also can't see poo poo out the back of. I even bought an aftermarket rear view camera but was too lazy to install it. Then I backed into my neighbors truck in my parkade because I can't see poo poo out the back of the car. Having gotten used to parking sensors on last-but-2 car, I am now completely unable to judge the amount of space I have behind my car when parking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
spog posted:Having gotten used to parking sensors on last-but-2 car, I am now completely unable to judge the amount of space I have behind my car when parking. It's actually really annoyingly hard. And I'm usually good at coordination/judging distance in other contexts. The consequence of getting it wrong is lovely because even the lightest tap of a bumper tends to cause paint scuffs. That's why I do it conservatively, then get out and check, and reverse more, which sucks in cold or rainy weather.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Guinness posted:It's not so much that they are useless, but they aren't worth buying $10,000 more car than you can actually afford just to get a few trinkets. If you want one that bad they can be added in aftermarket for a couple hundred bucks tops. Totally, but backup cameras have been around long enough now that you can find them on reasonable used cars, it might just take a little more looking. There are $10k Priuses around me that have backup cameras.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
powderific posted:Totally, but backup cameras have been around long enough now that you can find them on reasonable used cars, it might just take a little more looking. There are $10k Priuses around me that have backup cameras. They were standard on 2013 Civic LX's. It's great stuff. Way better than the 2016 PriusV's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Real backup camera chat - for someone who tows pretty often backup cameras make lining up with a hitch a piece of cake. No more getting out of the vehicle to see how close you are and making adjustments. If for nothing else, all vehicles capable of towing should have a camera for that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:They were standard on 2013 Civic LX's. It's great stuff. Way better than the 2016 PriusV's. Honda's three-angle backup camera on my '13 CR-V LX is awesome. It is the single feature that pushed us from the CX-5 to the CR-V - the LX cost a lot less than a mid-trim CX-5, and the camera was better. It's got three angles, though I rarely ever use the "standard" one. One is a wide-angle fisheye that pretty much lets you see around corners, the other is a top-down view which is perfect for lining it up exactly on the end of my driveway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I mean, there's reasons to buy the 19 grand car, but it's pretty hard to make a purely financial argument for it. Which is why I didn't. The point is that there's a lot more that goes into total cost of ownership than just the purchase price of the car. It's not just the 10 grand difference in the purchase price of the car. And almost all the other things that go into TCO are going to be cheaper on the newer car. Yes, a 1 year old 19k dollar car probably isn't going to have a TCO that's cheaper than a 7 year old 9k dollar car, but they're going to be a lot closer than the ~100% difference in purchase price. bird with big dick fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Are any of the newer tech features from the past few years must-have? I would love to have a backup camera in my CR-V but it has a tire sticking off the back of it. I'd never want to go back to not having a backup camera. One thing that the "lol just turn your head idiot" people don't seem to understand is that the camera is mounted 10' behind you and has a huge field of view. When you're in a parking lot with cars on either side of you, it can frequently see things that are literally impossible to see from the drivers seat. Its not a huge deal but I also really like Smart Key/Push button start/whatever the gently caress they call it. I know it's minor but I get slightly annoyed whenever I drive my moms car because I put my hand on the door handle and don't understand why it hasn't unlocked. Putting an actual key? Into an actual steering column? Ain't nobody got time for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I bought a car without a backup camera that you also can't see poo poo out the back of. I even bought an aftermarket rear view camera but was too lazy to install it. Then I backed into my neighbors truck in my parkade because I can't see poo poo out the back of the car. See, here's one of those TCO costs that don't show up when you're just comparing purchase price to purchase price.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Push-button start weirds me out. Something about turning the key just feels right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Push-button start weirds me out. Something about turning the key just feels right. I've concluded it's pretty awesome. The keys never leave my pocket. Push a button on the handle, the doors unlock. Push a button on the dash, the car starts. Open the fuel filler, trunk, whatever. Then it all locks itself again when I walk away. Something else that's not at all necessary, but definitely cool if you can get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
I like push button start but there is something really satisfying about turning a key.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I like push button start but there is something really satisfying about turning a key. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Something else that's not at all necessary, but definitely cool if you can get it. Is the side mirrors folding down automatically a rich jerks car thing now? I've been seeing inexplicably folded mirrors on expensive cars more and more. Seems like something just waiting to break to me, but eh. IRQ fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Is the side mirrors folding down automatically a rich jerks car thing now? I've been seeing inexplicably folded mirrors on expensive cars more and more. Not just an expensive car thing anymore. It's trickling down to more mainstream vehicles as well. My 2017 Explorer folds the mirrors when you lock the car. I could take or leave the feature to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
My wife's Kia does it
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Possibly silly question: what's the deal with Toyota's 0% APR financing on all the RAV4 models right now? Are they just trying to move inventory for some reason or is there something I'm missing here? I'm assuming this is a manufacturer incentive since it's listed on Toyota.com and is done through Southeast Toyota Finance which handles all their leases as well. Still kind of scratching my head since unless they have random additional fees then they by definition aren't making any money on the loan so it seems really weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Sheep posted:Possibly silly question: what's the deal with Toyota's 0% APR financing on all the RAV4 models right now? Are they just trying to move inventory for some reason or is there something I'm missing here? I'm assuming this is a manufacturer incentive since it's listed on Toyota.com and is done through Southeast Toyota Finance which handles all their leases as well. Yes, fundamentally, they're trying to move inventory by offering you a deal. Toyota is wiling to eat a small loss on the loan because they'll end up ahead after the profit from selling you a car. Also, keep in mind that 0% offers are only available to top-tier credit scores, and they almost always take the place of any manufacturer cash-on-the-hood offers (because that money is going to the loan subsidy, instead).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Hey y'all. I've been driving a 2005 Saabaru (WRX) for the last 2 years. I love it, and it's treated me very well but the rust is starting to get bad and I'd like to sell it before the rust destroys the value. I'd like to get something newer and a little bit more luxurious, as I moved last year and now have a 60 mile round trip 4 days a week. I love the performance of my 92x Aero, and definitely want a car that will be fun to drive, so good handling and acceleration are important. Reliability is important. I need the car for school and work, and it goes without saying that paying for repairs sucks. As I'm spending so much time in the car now, I'd like something a little bit nicer than the Saabaru. It doesn't need to be packed with the latest and greatest gadgets, but the 92x is pretty austere and not particularly comfortable. Other requirements: AWD- I live in Vermont Manual Transmission Under 100k miles Wagon preferred, or a car. Not considering SUV's at this time. Not super rust prone like my car Budget: $10-12,000 I'd really like to get a ~2009 BMW 330xi. It check most of my boxes, but I worry about the reliability and cost of ownership. Everyone I've spoken to has steered me away from out of warranty BMW's. What else should I be looking at?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
BMWs are worse than FIATs on reliability. They also cost a fortune to fix. Actually none of the cars available with the characteristics you want are very high on the reliability scale. It's all relative. They'll be better than your 2005, anyway. You might also consider: MINI Cooper Countryman AWD Saab 9-3 Subaru Forester/Impreza Volvo V50/70 Audi quattro That's about it for AWD wagons. Edit: Found a couple more possibilities. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Slate a BMW for reliability and recommend a used Mini. Great advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
big crush on Chad OMG posted:Slate a BMW for reliability and recommend a used Mini. Great advice. They're all terrible. If he's already considering a BMW, a MINI is no worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
I think you can get the 500X with both AWD and a manual too, but with the 1.4l engine it's not going to be very fast. You can probably find a B7 S4 with the timing chain guides already done for close to $12k?B8s are probablhyy out of the price range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:51
|
|