Some of the numbers, while true, create the false impression that you are required to play the F-150 truck game. In fact, I recently paid under 30K for a brand new Mazda CX-5 with some extras. There was some insurance premium increase, but relatively small considering that my previous car was already 10 years old. I could have bought a new Subaru Crosstrek, quoted to me for 26K, which is far from a barebones car - a new KIA Rio S can be had for under 20K.
What's happening is that people are seeing more value out of bigger and more expensive cars, so there is a preferences shift happening.
Also, think of inflation. 22 years ago I bought a new Honda Civic EX with manual transmission for 18K, which would be around 30K today. This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine. If you have the Crosstrek example in mind, cars are actually getting cheaper, at least in terms of cost-benefit (like computers got cheaper as technology improved).
>This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine.
All I really want are bare-bones vehicles. I had to practically fight with the Nissan dealership to get their base-model trim. I wish manufacturers would still offer basic vehicles.
Such a vehicle is impossible to offer even if they wanted to (they don't) because things like backup cameras and other safety-related equipment are legally required. Once you require a camera, you require a screen. Once you have a screen say goodbye to your barebones radio. Et cetera.
But automakers would rather you sell you a high-margin truck or SUV than a barebones economy car, anyway. And hardly anyone would buy them even if they did offer them, as we've observed in the decline of sales of regular sedans and hatchbacks in the US over the past couple decades.
If you want a bare bones car, you would probably have good luck getting a 2 year old vehicle from a rental fleet. Those tend to be pretty bare bones vehicles.
It was funny, I rented a truck from Home Depot. It was brand new, less than 100 miles on the clock. And, yea, it was lucky to have paint. Automatic transmission, radio, and air conditioner were the top drawer items. Imagine taking 2 knobs, perhaps 1" in diameter, and AM/FM button, and a LED matrix display big enough to display 105.5 and a "stereo" and AM/FM light. That's how big the radio was on this otherwise large dashboard. Vinyl floors, vinyl bench seat, crank windows.
And there's something to it. There's a simplicity having a hot <-> cold slider and a fan speed knob versus arguing with a "climate control" system.
It's quite difficult to find stripped models on the dealer lot. They'd much rather upsell you the sunroof you don't want because "well, that's all we have".
I've never had a real problem ordering a car, just have to be willing to wait for it, but they've all been domestic. 3 of my last 4 cars were ordered to my spec.
I agree that buyers should have the option to purchase simpler cars. But I think backup cameras are too valuable of a safety improvement to leave out. About a year ago I saw a toddler very likely saved by the backup camera and proximity sensor. This is of course just anecdotal, but it sold me.
I think the base models are there mostly to be able to advertise a more attractive starting price. I got the base trim of my car but anecdotally the dealership was getting very few of them and on the road I also see very few.
But the other part of it is that manufacturers actually have gotten better at pricing, if better is defined as getting people to pay a little bit more than they expected. Locking pretty important stuff behind higher trim packages, or even just making it an overpriced add-on, for example.
It's upselling, sure, which they've always done (cf. all the 80s jokes about rustproofing and undercarriage protection). But they've really turned it into an art form in the last 4-5 years. I forget which make and model it was, but I was pricing out some car on a website, and you could get a blue car for, let's say $40k, but if you wanted a red car you had to also get heated leather seats, the deluxe navigation package, the deluxe safety package, different tires and hubcaps, and pay something like $46.5k. I'm fairly certain you just mix red dye into the paint rather than blue dye...
Given that the article starts off with a story about someone at the lower end of the economic spectrum being unable to afford a car, it seems borderline misleading to then discuss car affordability in terms of the average new or used car price. As you suggested, the fact that the average new car sale is $49k in no way prevents you personally from buying something like a Civic, Corolla, or Impreza and getting a perfectly good new car for half the price. It's not even like housing, where there are supply issues making things unaffordable. Car makers offer cheaper models and would presumably make more of them if more people demanded them.
Also while there is nothing wrong with spending $49k or more on a car, it's wild to me that this is the average new car sale price in the US considering the median household income is something like $75k. Spending an equivalent to 2/3 of your yearly income on a depreciating asset when there are perfectly reasonable cheaper alternatives does not seem reasonable as the rule rather than the exception. If you make a lot of money or like nice cars, sure, but as the case for the average buyer...wow.
The increase in larger vehicles on the road is making it increasingly unpleasant and unsafe to drive/ride smaller vehicles or use no vehicle at all. It's technically not required to join in, but it essentially is. The only way to avoid the unpleasantness is to join in and get one yourself.
You're right. But one thing to keep in mind, is that with full comprehensive insurance, you're also paying to cover other people's vehicles, so if the average price of a vehicle increases your premiums can too.
My premiums have increases, while my vehicle has remained the same (and no tickets/claims/incidents).
i bought a 2005 Ram 2500 for $25,000, today it would cost minimally $75,000. I actually need a truck to haul hay every week. i dread when the thing rots apart. I will have no answer.
Even if we assume your truck is now worthless, that's only $1,300 per year. More realistically, assuming you have kept it in reasonable condition, it is probably worth around $8k now, or $900 per year. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. In your case, that's only $17 per load of hay. Approximately one small bale per load pays for it. That still leaves a lot of meat for the truck to haul – especially a 2500. It is not surprising that the price of new trucks has skyrocketed.
I too bought a truck for my farm in the same era for around the same price and I'm glad I did, because in hindsight it was an absolute steal. The ROI it has provided has been off the charts. Again, it is not surprising that new trucks have gone up in price to close the gap. Fantastic investment opportunities never last.
I think that's a special case, because large pickup trucks have moved from being work focused to being luxury vehicles. Trucks people bought in 2005 don't really exist any more new, even if the same model is still technically around.
That said though, I'm pretty sure they do still make basic work focused trucks, although they might be hard to buy outside of fleet type sales.
Not sure how much hay we are talking, but why not buy a smaller used car with a tow hitch and a trailer? Trailers cost a fraction of what you pay in markup on a pickup over a small car and most cars are more than capable of towing a small to mid-sized trailer. Bonus: you can unhitch the trailer and have a way easier time fitting into parking spaces ;-)
One of the worst side-effects of COVID is it gave all of these companies an excuse/opportunity to charge much more, and then when COVID was over they were like...let's not roll anything back and see if anyone notices.
I recently bought a new SUV. I shopped entirely by email, never set foot into a dealership (except for the test drive) until signing the final papers.
I emailed every dealer within 220 miles of my location. Half never even replied and the rest tried every trick in the book to get me to the dealership before they'd give me a price.
My favorite story was an exchange with a salesman who quoted me $1,000 over MSRP. He said a year ago we were selling these at $10,000 over list price, I am saving you $9,000! I told him COVID is over and if he wanted the sale he'd have to get more competitive.
My goal had been to buy 10% under list and though I failed to achieve that I did all right. Don't think I'd buy another vehicle any other way although it took a very frustrating seven weeks.
> I emailed every dealer within 220 miles of my location. [...]
This is the way when it comes to car shopping.
When I was buying a Subaru BRZ back in 2016, I did the same thing, though I only chose the 3 closest dealers. One didn't respond, one quoted a price at MSRP, the other quoted at $2K below MSRP and included about $1K of addons for free.
Not sure why that third guy seemed desperate to sell the car, but I went there that weekend, took it for a test drive (Pretty sure I was only the second person to ever test drive it, since it had only 4 miles), signed the paperwork, and drove it home.
Though tbh, I really wish the whole dealership model would just fuck off. I personally can't stand the whole haggling song and dance. The price should be the price and that should be it.
Exactly. This is what I hate about the COVID behavioral changes in companies.
The norms have shifted towards getting less for the same (or similar inflation-adjusted) money.
Earlier, you expected daily housekeeping if you stayed at a hotel or motel. Now, so many of them have moved to a "Hang a tag outside if you want the room cleaned" model. And this isn't just cheap motels. I once stayed at a 250 a night hotel that was following this model.
I wonder how many cars Nissan has to sell with a $16k MSRP to not run into some sort of truth in advertising laws. For example looking at Nissan's website there's one such car in stock (in transit) within 500 miles of me.
I tried to buy one last spring and gave up. I put down a deposit in March, was told I might get one around June. June came around and they couldn't do more than say "Maybe by Sept." Ended up buying a used car.
There is one near me, but add $245 for splash guards, $170 for floor mats, and $1115 for "destination fee", so the real price is $17,660. At least they are not adding a dealer markup.
There's nothing wrong with rear drum brakes. They last longer than disc brakes, are cheaper, and easier to service. You don't need rear disc brakes unless you're in a performance vehicle. If people really cared about braking, they'd be making cars lighter.
Rear drum brakes are actually very effective. Definitely just as safe as alternatives, they are less prone to brake fade so I'd choose them in the mountains.
From the Google:
"Drum brakes can provide more braking force than an equal diameter disc brake. Drum brakes last longer because drum brakes have increased friction contact area than a disc. Drum brakes are cheaper to manufacture than disc brakes. Rear drum brakes generate lower heat."
Looking at the source for that, it's actually a front disc, rear drums combo which isn't entirely unknown. Ford (at least in Europe) seem like it, with stuff like the Fiesta and Focus using the same combo. As I understand it the logic is discs all round is overkill for smaller cars, and the rears need a drum anyway for the handbrake, so they just go for a split setup.
As the others point out, this is a legitimate design choice. The Mazda 2 / Toyota Yaris also had drum brakes, and these were offered for sale in the USA.
Those are the expected, if not intended, consequences of environmental legislation looking to decrease CO2 emissions. I can live with that. The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US.
> The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US.
Is there evidence that a large number of people actually want more public transportation? If we're talking about commuters, most people who live in suburbs and commute already have the option to drive a short distance, park and ride a bus to their jobs.
That is not the valid question. We know from other cities around the world that when transit is good many people will choose to use it.
However your question is phased in such a way as to kill hope: most people don't have the imagination to think of what great transit even is, much less how it would change their life or if they want it.
Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs: your car payment, insurance, and taxes are the same on the car if you buy it and leave it sitting in your driveway all year, or if you drive it 70,000 miles in a year. Thus once you have the car you may as well drive all the way into work and not have to deal with the local transit system. (Unless traffic is really bad or parking is expensive this is the smart thing vs a park and ride). Work is another problem with your statement - if you still need the car to do your normal shopping, get to Church on Sunday, your volleyball club games at night, or whatever else you do with your life outside of work - then the incremental cost of driving to work is trivial so you may as well (again unless traffic or parking is an issue).
The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Cars costs thousands of lives in accidents every year. Cars need a lot of space: more and more expensive lanes on are roads, and many parking lots. A great transit system would save most people a lot of money, and a lot of lives.
Saying that prices rise because of corporate greed is the same as saying that fires burn because of oxygen. Sure, it's true, but it's not helpful because you cannot stop people from being greedy. What is useful is to look at why corporations are able to greedily increase their prices unchecked. That's usually because of some imbalance in supply and demand: in this case, why does the demand outstrip the supply? There are multiple reasons, but one of them is that governments have outlawed the sale of new ICE vehicles for 2035, increasing demand on the small supply of electric vehicles available. This has also caused manufacturers to reduce their investment in ICE vehicles, thereby further reducing supply of these vehicles, thereby increasing prices. Furthermore, electric vehicles are (at least at this moment) more expensive to manufacture.
I have a 2018 Wrangler that has gone from 120 to 190/mo over the last 2-3 years. It has 12k miles, and is driven once every 1-3 months when I go offroading/camping, beyond that it sits in my private garage. I'm 39 but do have a minor wreck in 2020 i think.
I usually have a multi-car discount that would take, say my $190 down to 160-170 or so for both cars, or maybe just add a bit to the total, it's usually a huge benefit. I just bought a 2018 Miata RF last week ($22k w/30k miles since its on topic) and it added $150 to my insurance.
I can't believe it. Yes I quoted before hand and still did it, and shopped with an insurance aggregator (thezebra). Switching from Geico to Progressive saved me a little bit but not much.
Also, anyone who loves sports cars and hasn't driven a 4th gen (I haven't driven earlier) miata.. do it. It's so fun and it's not 500hp like my last sports car that was so fast I was way over the speed limit in 2nd-3rd. I'm redlining the RF constantly and still getting 28mpg. I get to hit 1-4 to hit 60 I think. It's a really fun active drive and I can't get any body roll at all (mine has Tein coilovers).
My friend works for an insurance company and it's all the car thefts going on he said.
That actually sounds horrible and even worse than Florida not having car inspections so half the cars on the road look like they're about to fall apart.
I thought no inspections was awesome when I moved there (I build race cars) until I drove around and realized what that really meant. Nobody taking care of their cars.
I saw a ton of little trucks with window unit air conditioners built on top. Mad max there.
People like to complain about how expensive car ownership is in the USA but ignore the fact that poor people and teenagers still manage to own cars.
You can still buy a 30-40 year old Volvo for $1-2k on Craigslist that will be reliable and safe for decades of hard use with basic maintenance anyone can learn to DIY for a few hundred $ per year.
What people are actually complaining about is that the status symbol of owning a newer or expensive looking vehicle is expensive.
The fact that older vehicles massively depreciate in value even when still serviceable is a massive benefit to those on a budget. I toy with the idea of going car free to save money, but at the end of the day, owning older cars I maintain myself costs me next to nothing.
I'd like to see a source for someone who actually bought a "30-40 year old Volvo for $1-2k" and put it through another few decades of "hard use" while doing only "basic maintenance" for "a few hundred $ per year".
I'm all with you that no one in their right mind should ever pay for a new car only to have it depreciate by $10.000+ the moment they drive it off the lot. But the real winner of a strategy is buying a proven reliably car that has been well treated about 10 years after it was new, drive gently for 5-10 more years and sell it once the hefty maintenance stuff starts coming in. Also it should be the smallest, most fuel efficient car you can get away with 95% of the time. You rent or borrow a bigger car for the 5% that you can't cover with your small car.
I have done exactly that many times, but if you look at car forums with older high quality cars like 80s Mercedes and Volvos, it's not rare at all, what I am talking about is the norm.
Think about what you said- when the hefty maintenance stuff starts coming in, if someone doesn't scrap or sell the thing and just pays for all of that, you usually have about as many miles again before it starts to happen again, yet the value is through the floor. I've bought a few cheap 200k mile vehicles that had really extensive service records, usually bought new by wealthy people and maintained with no expense spared, that I put another 100-200k miles on before they needed any major work again.
If you're really thrifty, a small 80s European diesel sedan with a stickshift, like the Mercedes 190D or VW Rabbit, has fuel efficiency close to a modern hybrid, at really low cost. Not so great emissions though.
No, buying and sellling cars on CL is a hobby of mine, I'm into old European cars and do it a lot.
I recently bought an always garaged since new, like new looking 100k mile Porsche Boxster with great maintenance records for $8k, in the SF Bay area on Craigslist. It wasn't a bad deal, but not really a steal either- that's about what they go for. It's a reliable car, and my daily commuter now. The other elementary school kids getting dropped off at school in new $100k Teslas think we're crazy rich dropping off my kid in a Porsche. I often buy "nice" cars in the 8-10k range, not the cars with cosmetic issues for super cheap.
Since Volvo was the example I gave, I just did an SF Bay area search for "volvo" under $3k, and it came up with 61 results. A few look terrible, but about a third, including some of the cheaper ones look to be well maintained daily drivers with some cosmetic issues like dents or peeling paint. Personally, I'd recommend the 740 and 940 models, they are crazy cheap, but extremely good cars.
For a deal, look for cars that are well maintained with good maintenance records, but have high mileage and/or cosmetic issues. Also look at car enthusiast forums instead of Craigslist. They often have cars where hobbyists dump a ton of money into them to keep older cars in really top shape.
I agree that people buy way more car than they need. However, should poor people and teenagers have to own cars, considering they wouldn't be expected to anywhere else in the world? It's a big expense and part of the underlying problem.
Um... most poor people and teenagers still have jobs they need to get to. Usually the kind that are much less forgiving of missing work than higher paying jobs.
The next car I buy will almost certainly be from the 1980s if I can manage it.
Specifically, a first-gen Nissan 300ZX.
Partly, this is driven by personal interest in that particular car. However, I also see that there is still a healthy network of support for cars from before 2010. There are disadvantages besides the price to buying a newer car.
I have slowly rebuilt my wife's old 2000 VW Passat (B5 platform). 232K miles so far.. next year it's officially an antique, can get different plates for it.
Some nice things about this car:
Yes it has a computer, but from just before they serialized everything, so you can easily drop in a replacement (which I've done).
It was used as a taxi in some countries, so spare parts are plentiful.
Bold, knowing current tech in a car is an issue, moving to an 80's hi-tech car is mind blowing. They are known for being loaded with all kinds of 1 off proprietary tech.
My small experience owning old "reliable" cars is that they still have more issues than something new-ish. Maybe they were designed and built tougher back then, but parts still have lifespans. Fuel economy might be worse too. 20 years is already old enough that it'd be more for fun than practicality to me.
1980s turbocharged sports car, that'd be awesome but probably not cheap to drive. A clean 300ZX is also pretty valuable today.
Readit News
What's happening is that people are seeing more value out of bigger and more expensive cars, so there is a preferences shift happening.
Also, think of inflation. 22 years ago I bought a new Honda Civic EX with manual transmission for 18K, which would be around 30K today. This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine. If you have the Crosstrek example in mind, cars are actually getting cheaper, at least in terms of cost-benefit (like computers got cheaper as technology improved).
All I really want are bare-bones vehicles. I had to practically fight with the Nissan dealership to get their base-model trim. I wish manufacturers would still offer basic vehicles.
But automakers would rather you sell you a high-margin truck or SUV than a barebones economy car, anyway. And hardly anyone would buy them even if they did offer them, as we've observed in the decline of sales of regular sedans and hatchbacks in the US over the past couple decades.
It was funny, I rented a truck from Home Depot. It was brand new, less than 100 miles on the clock. And, yea, it was lucky to have paint. Automatic transmission, radio, and air conditioner were the top drawer items. Imagine taking 2 knobs, perhaps 1" in diameter, and AM/FM button, and a LED matrix display big enough to display 105.5 and a "stereo" and AM/FM light. That's how big the radio was on this otherwise large dashboard. Vinyl floors, vinyl bench seat, crank windows.
And there's something to it. There's a simplicity having a hot <-> cold slider and a fan speed knob versus arguing with a "climate control" system.
It's quite difficult to find stripped models on the dealer lot. They'd much rather upsell you the sunroof you don't want because "well, that's all we have".
I've never had a real problem ordering a car, just have to be willing to wait for it, but they've all been domestic. 3 of my last 4 cars were ordered to my spec.
This is exactly it.
The average may have gone up, but there are STILL plenty of relatively low-cost sedans out there. And they're GOOD cars!
A brand new Toyota Corolla is only a hair over $22K. Even the hybrid is just over $24.5K. And it'll get 50 mpg! Honda Civic starts at $24K.
But the other part of it is that manufacturers actually have gotten better at pricing, if better is defined as getting people to pay a little bit more than they expected. Locking pretty important stuff behind higher trim packages, or even just making it an overpriced add-on, for example.
It's upselling, sure, which they've always done (cf. all the 80s jokes about rustproofing and undercarriage protection). But they've really turned it into an art form in the last 4-5 years. I forget which make and model it was, but I was pricing out some car on a website, and you could get a blue car for, let's say $40k, but if you wanted a red car you had to also get heated leather seats, the deluxe navigation package, the deluxe safety package, different tires and hubcaps, and pay something like $46.5k. I'm fairly certain you just mix red dye into the paint rather than blue dye...
Also while there is nothing wrong with spending $49k or more on a car, it's wild to me that this is the average new car sale price in the US considering the median household income is something like $75k. Spending an equivalent to 2/3 of your yearly income on a depreciating asset when there are perfectly reasonable cheaper alternatives does not seem reasonable as the rule rather than the exception. If you make a lot of money or like nice cars, sure, but as the case for the average buyer...wow.
Dead Comment
My premiums have increases, while my vehicle has remained the same (and no tickets/claims/incidents).
I too bought a truck for my farm in the same era for around the same price and I'm glad I did, because in hindsight it was an absolute steal. The ROI it has provided has been off the charts. Again, it is not surprising that new trucks have gone up in price to close the gap. Fantastic investment opportunities never last.
That said though, I'm pretty sure they do still make basic work focused trucks, although they might be hard to buy outside of fleet type sales.
(I exaggerate, but my brother recently bought a ~2011 Ram 1500 for $21k!)
I emailed every dealer within 220 miles of my location. Half never even replied and the rest tried every trick in the book to get me to the dealership before they'd give me a price.
My favorite story was an exchange with a salesman who quoted me $1,000 over MSRP. He said a year ago we were selling these at $10,000 over list price, I am saving you $9,000! I told him COVID is over and if he wanted the sale he'd have to get more competitive.
My goal had been to buy 10% under list and though I failed to achieve that I did all right. Don't think I'd buy another vehicle any other way although it took a very frustrating seven weeks.
This is the way when it comes to car shopping.
When I was buying a Subaru BRZ back in 2016, I did the same thing, though I only chose the 3 closest dealers. One didn't respond, one quoted a price at MSRP, the other quoted at $2K below MSRP and included about $1K of addons for free.
Not sure why that third guy seemed desperate to sell the car, but I went there that weekend, took it for a test drive (Pretty sure I was only the second person to ever test drive it, since it had only 4 miles), signed the paperwork, and drove it home.
Though tbh, I really wish the whole dealership model would just fuck off. I personally can't stand the whole haggling song and dance. The price should be the price and that should be it.
would you be able to list those tricks? I'm currently car shopping myself. how did you get them to give you a price without showing up?
The norms have shifted towards getting less for the same (or similar inflation-adjusted) money.
Earlier, you expected daily housekeeping if you stayed at a hotel or motel. Now, so many of them have moved to a "Hang a tag outside if you want the room cleaned" model. And this isn't just cheap motels. I once stayed at a 250 a night hotel that was following this model.
But outside the USA, we have the Renault Kwid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Kwid
~$13,000 in Brazil..
Difficulty: 0 stars safety rating..
Or there is the Fiat Mobi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Mobi
> Safety
> The Kwid is equipped with rear drum brakes.[23][24]
From the Google:
"Drum brakes can provide more braking force than an equal diameter disc brake. Drum brakes last longer because drum brakes have increased friction contact area than a disc. Drum brakes are cheaper to manufacture than disc brakes. Rear drum brakes generate lower heat."
But most cars have discs all round anyway.
Even better
Deleted Comment
Is there evidence that a large number of people actually want more public transportation? If we're talking about commuters, most people who live in suburbs and commute already have the option to drive a short distance, park and ride a bus to their jobs.
We need more public transit, yes. But more than that, we need _better_ public transit.
Personally, when I commuted, I turned my 30 minute driving commute in traffic into a 30 minute biking commute via trails.
However your question is phased in such a way as to kill hope: most people don't have the imagination to think of what great transit even is, much less how it would change their life or if they want it.
Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs: your car payment, insurance, and taxes are the same on the car if you buy it and leave it sitting in your driveway all year, or if you drive it 70,000 miles in a year. Thus once you have the car you may as well drive all the way into work and not have to deal with the local transit system. (Unless traffic is really bad or parking is expensive this is the smart thing vs a park and ride). Work is another problem with your statement - if you still need the car to do your normal shopping, get to Church on Sunday, your volleyball club games at night, or whatever else you do with your life outside of work - then the incremental cost of driving to work is trivial so you may as well (again unless traffic or parking is an issue).
The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Cars costs thousands of lives in accidents every year. Cars need a lot of space: more and more expensive lanes on are roads, and many parking lots. A great transit system would save most people a lot of money, and a lot of lives.
I usually have a multi-car discount that would take, say my $190 down to 160-170 or so for both cars, or maybe just add a bit to the total, it's usually a huge benefit. I just bought a 2018 Miata RF last week ($22k w/30k miles since its on topic) and it added $150 to my insurance.
I can't believe it. Yes I quoted before hand and still did it, and shopped with an insurance aggregator (thezebra). Switching from Geico to Progressive saved me a little bit but not much.
Also, anyone who loves sports cars and hasn't driven a 4th gen (I haven't driven earlier) miata.. do it. It's so fun and it's not 500hp like my last sports car that was so fast I was way over the speed limit in 2nd-3rd. I'm redlining the RF constantly and still getting 28mpg. I get to hit 1-4 to hit 60 I think. It's a really fun active drive and I can't get any body roll at all (mine has Tein coilovers).
My friend works for an insurance company and it's all the car thefts going on he said.
I thought no inspections was awesome when I moved there (I build race cars) until I drove around and realized what that really meant. Nobody taking care of their cars.
I saw a ton of little trucks with window unit air conditioners built on top. Mad max there.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/taxes-fees/uninsured
You can still buy a 30-40 year old Volvo for $1-2k on Craigslist that will be reliable and safe for decades of hard use with basic maintenance anyone can learn to DIY for a few hundred $ per year.
What people are actually complaining about is that the status symbol of owning a newer or expensive looking vehicle is expensive.
The fact that older vehicles massively depreciate in value even when still serviceable is a massive benefit to those on a budget. I toy with the idea of going car free to save money, but at the end of the day, owning older cars I maintain myself costs me next to nothing.
I'm all with you that no one in their right mind should ever pay for a new car only to have it depreciate by $10.000+ the moment they drive it off the lot. But the real winner of a strategy is buying a proven reliably car that has been well treated about 10 years after it was new, drive gently for 5-10 more years and sell it once the hefty maintenance stuff starts coming in. Also it should be the smallest, most fuel efficient car you can get away with 95% of the time. You rent or borrow a bigger car for the 5% that you can't cover with your small car.
Think about what you said- when the hefty maintenance stuff starts coming in, if someone doesn't scrap or sell the thing and just pays for all of that, you usually have about as many miles again before it starts to happen again, yet the value is through the floor. I've bought a few cheap 200k mile vehicles that had really extensive service records, usually bought new by wealthy people and maintained with no expense spared, that I put another 100-200k miles on before they needed any major work again.
If you're really thrifty, a small 80s European diesel sedan with a stickshift, like the Mercedes 190D or VW Rabbit, has fuel efficiency close to a modern hybrid, at really low cost. Not so great emissions though.
I recently bought an always garaged since new, like new looking 100k mile Porsche Boxster with great maintenance records for $8k, in the SF Bay area on Craigslist. It wasn't a bad deal, but not really a steal either- that's about what they go for. It's a reliable car, and my daily commuter now. The other elementary school kids getting dropped off at school in new $100k Teslas think we're crazy rich dropping off my kid in a Porsche. I often buy "nice" cars in the 8-10k range, not the cars with cosmetic issues for super cheap.
Since Volvo was the example I gave, I just did an SF Bay area search for "volvo" under $3k, and it came up with 61 results. A few look terrible, but about a third, including some of the cheaper ones look to be well maintained daily drivers with some cosmetic issues like dents or peeling paint. Personally, I'd recommend the 740 and 940 models, they are crazy cheap, but extremely good cars.
For a deal, look for cars that are well maintained with good maintenance records, but have high mileage and/or cosmetic issues. Also look at car enthusiast forums instead of Craigslist. They often have cars where hobbyists dump a ton of money into them to keep older cars in really top shape.
Specifically, a first-gen Nissan 300ZX.
Partly, this is driven by personal interest in that particular car. However, I also see that there is still a healthy network of support for cars from before 2010. There are disadvantages besides the price to buying a newer car.
Some nice things about this car:
Yes it has a computer, but from just before they serialized everything, so you can easily drop in a replacement (which I've done).
It was used as a taxi in some countries, so spare parts are plentiful.
The complete repair manual is available: https://www.ebay.com/itm/395132634978
I recently repainted it with Rustoleum from Home Depot using a roller (the clear coat had worn off, it looked horrible, but no rust otherwise).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7JdE1Gq8IY
<3 the car too though, and thought the same thing at one point
1980s turbocharged sports car, that'd be awesome but probably not cheap to drive. A clean 300ZX is also pretty valuable today.
Deleted Comment
However, some of that is mitigated by advancements in fabrication technology in the last twenty years.