And the #1 Reason to Buy a Car Is… Mileage

27 Responses to “ And the #1 Reason to Buy a Car Is… Mileage ”

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All Reverse Order

• NICKNICK :
  March 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
  
  

  I (briefly) had a focus and got to watch the alternator eat itself at 31K miles.

  On the bright side, without electricity, it was unable to set my garage on fire.

• menno :
  March 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
  
  

  I just wheeled past the new Hyundai cars on the way in to work this morning, just for fun (though we’re not replacing our 2007 Sonata off lease until mid-year year).

  Amazed to see that the Accent is only about 2 miles per gallon better than the Elantra, and taking city and highway MPG into account, the Elantra is only about 1.5 mile per gallon better than the Sonata four cylinder automatic (2009).

• The Ninjalectual :
  March 24th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
  
  

  I believe a previous editorial on this very site reported that the number one largest hit to a car owner’s pocket is depreciation, even at $4/gal. Buying a new car that’s going to depreciate in order to “save money?” Ha, right. This is not such a rational decision after all, but just another emotional reaction to rising energy prices.

  Edmunds.com has a neat “total ownership cost” prediction tool that makes certain assumptions (12,000 miles/year, maintenance costs, gas prices, future market conditions). If I remember right, they predict buying and driving a new Ford Focus will cost exactly as much over the next 5 years as buying and driving a 5 year old Toyota Tundra.

• rollingwreck :
  March 24th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
  
  

  Edmunds.com has a neat “total ownership cost” prediction tool

  It is an awesome toy. After playing with it, the conclusion that i’ve come to is that if consumers were rational, everyone would be driving around in a 3-year old japanese sedan.

  Lots of people must really purchase on emotion before all else, the knee-jerk reaction to gas prices is no big surprise.

• threeer :
  March 24th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
  
  

  Ninja,

  That’s because we Americans MUST have a new car! Can’t live without it. Just look at how many people suffer the payments each month. Many now justify the payment by mentioning the decreased fuel bills since they bought a Civic/Corolla or whatever that got better gas mileage than the paid-for Silverado they had. Umm..sure. While the fuel costs did go down, as mentioned, the overall costs of vehicle ownership most likely wind up going way, way up (payments, increased insurance, factor in depreciation). Most of us do not look at the total factors involved in car ownership and then wonder why we don’t see a huge savings at the end of the month. Again, the lower mileage is just a way to make them feel better about the purchase…

• NickR :
  March 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
  
  

  Was the placement of this news item next to the Durango review coincidence or are the editors having fun with us?

• Sherman Lin :
  March 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
  
  

  There is absolutely nothing wrong or illogical about buying a higher mileage new car to save money, provided that you were going to buy a new car anyway. There is no payoff equation so to speak of comparing fuel savings versus depreciation expense as the depreciation expense would have existed no matter what so long as one was going to purchase a new car anyway.

• David Holzman :
  March 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
  
  

  Nobelist Tom Schelling (econ, 2005) bought a Pinto after the second oil embargoes of the ’70s, seeking to save $. My father suggested to him that the gas savings might not compensate for the cost of buying a new car, and after doing the math, Schelling conceded the point. Gas isn’t all that much higher now than it was then.

• dwford :
  March 24th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
  
  

  I was surprised to notice on the Honda lot that the stick Civic actually gets better highway mileage than the stick Fit - 1mpg. Which would you rather drive?

  Why buy a tiny car that gets no better mileage than the next size up. I’d love a new Fiesta, but the highway mileage better begin with a 4.

• zenith :
  March 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
  
  

  In the ’70s, it made much more sense to ditch that big sedan for a small car.

  The typical owner of a just-paid-off 3-year-old ’70s car had an exhaust system, battery,and shocks on borrowed time. Chances are, he’d already replaced the bias-ply OEM tires with another set that now had less than a year to go.
  And rust was already showing up in the wheelwells and was quietly chewing through the underbody.

  Today’s 3-year-old gas guzzler is still a new car.
  If my 10.5 year-old Ranger is typical, the owner has 7.5 years and counting on the exhaust, 5.5 years on the shocks/struts, a couple more on the battery.Little or no rust is evident in both the places you see and those you don’t see.

  I’m only on my 3rd set of tires in 122,000 miles,so if the SUV owner (or should I say mortgagee) is typical he’s got another year to go on the OEMs.

  Getting rid of a “new” 3-year-old vehicle that you owe 3 more years’ payments on makes little sense.

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All Reverse Order

Leave a Reply Back to Top

You must be logged in to post a comment.