6 ms·

Unless, of course, people want newer engines that are more efficient, want newest technology (carplay / android auto), and want newest safety equipment. At thi

Unless, of course, people want newer engines that are more efficient, want newest technology (carplay / android auto), and want newest safety equipment. At this point it's maybe not so much that they need one, but that they want one. I for sure don't want to keep cars forever. Maybe I misread your comment, but keeping a car for 10 years may not be for everyone.

coldtea 10y ago
>Unless, of course, people want newer engines that are more efficient, want newest technology (carplay / android auto), and want newest safety equipment. Those changes, generation to generation (2-3 years) will be marginal if even present anyway, except on rare cases. And even them are more like "want" than need, as you say. >Maybe I misread your comment, but keeping a car for 10 years may not be for everyone. Might not be to the mindset of everyone, but that's what the parent addresses.
- chrisper 10y ago
  Yes, it won't make a difference between 2-3 years, but it would make a difference if you kept a car for 10 years.
nickff 10y ago
I instinctively agree with you, but the difference between need and want is a tough one to draw these days. I err on the side of believing that 'need' is a narrow category, comprising of only the things which are necessary for the short-term survival of healthy humans, but others have a broader understanding of the term.
- chrisper 10y ago
  Yes. People who work 3 jobs should not worry about getting a new car for the reasons I mentioned above. Maybe my arguments work better for (upper?) middle-class.
thatcat 10y ago
>newer more efficient engines Losing a bunch of money as depreciation for a marginally more efficient car doesn't really make accounting sense. >android auto /carplay These are accessories that car manufactures generally do a worse job of producing than 3rd parties.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > car manufactures generally do a worse job of producing than 3rd parties. It could at least make environmental sense, but I doubt that most buyers compare the emissions savings from the new more efficient car with the emissions that were produced during its manufacturing.
- nunez 10y ago
  Some cars are very difficult to retrofit. My 2012 Accord simply cannot get a CarPlay-compatible head unit without redoing the entire dashboard. That's a multi-thousand dollar job that also compromises safety (airbag placement). Not worth it for a minor feature (though I do really like CarPlay). Same deal for my 14 Ram 1500. Fortunately, UConnect is pretty decent as it is.
cobookman 10y ago
+1 especially with the tax credit incentives. I know of a few people leasing a nissan leaf for 15$/month total all in.
- Inconel 10y ago
  >15$/month total all in As a very frugal owner of a 17 year old Honda who doesn't know much about leasing, can you expand on that? How is this possible?
  - jk563 10y ago
    My assumption is that there is a 0 missing off of the end of that number.
    - Inconel 10y ago
      That would definitely make more sense. Just today I found out a coworker leased a VW Golf EV last week, which may be more than the Leaf, and they are paying around $150/month.
- djrogers 10y ago
  That's ridiculous and completely impossible, unless you are using voodoo accounting or making crap up. The depreciation on a Leaf alone is enormous, buying one a few years old is clearly the way to go.
outericky 10y ago
Slight clarification - my point wasn't to keep a car 10 years. I bought it when it was 4 years old. Kept it 5. Looking to trade it in (it's actually still worth right around what I paid because of the low mileage), but my next car will also be 3-4 years old with low mileage. Ultimate point being, I drive cars that would have been $35k new, for less than $100/month over the life of my ownership, versus the $500 referenced in the article.

coldtea 10y ago

>Unless, of course, people want newer engines that are more efficient, want newest technology (carplay / android auto), and want newest safety equipment. Those changes, generation to generation (2-3 years) will be marginal if even present anyway, except on rare cases. And even them are more like "want" than need, as you say. >Maybe I misread your comment, but keeping a car for 10 years may not be for everyone. Might not be to the mindset of everyone, but that's what the parent addresses.

chrisper 10y ago
Yes, it won't make a difference between 2-3 years, but it would make a difference if you kept a car for 10 years.

nickff 10y ago

I instinctively agree with you, but the difference between need and want is a tough one to draw these days. I err on the side of believing that 'need' is a narrow category, comprising of only the things which are necessary for the short-term survival of healthy humans, but others have a broader understanding of the term.

chrisper 10y ago
Yes. People who work 3 jobs should not worry about getting a new car for the reasons I mentioned above. Maybe my arguments work better for (upper?) middle-class.

thatcat 10y ago

>newer more efficient engines Losing a bunch of money as depreciation for a marginally more efficient car doesn't really make accounting sense. >android auto /carplay These are accessories that car manufactures generally do a worse job of producing than 3rd parties.

majewsky 10y ago
> car manufactures generally do a worse job of producing than 3rd parties. It could at least make environmental sense, but I doubt that most buyers compare the emissions savings from the new more efficient car with the emissions that were produced during its manufacturing.
nunez 10y ago
Some cars are very difficult to retrofit. My 2012 Accord simply cannot get a CarPlay-compatible head unit without redoing the entire dashboard. That's a multi-thousand dollar job that also compromises safety (airbag placement). Not worth it for a minor feature (though I do really like CarPlay). Same deal for my 14 Ram 1500. Fortunately, UConnect is pretty decent as it is.

cobookman 10y ago

+1 especially with the tax credit incentives. I know of a few people leasing a nissan leaf for 15$/month total all in.

Inconel 10y ago
>15$/month total all in As a very frugal owner of a 17 year old Honda who doesn't know much about leasing, can you expand on that? How is this possible?
- jk563 10y ago
  My assumption is that there is a 0 missing off of the end of that number.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    That would definitely make more sense. Just today I found out a coworker leased a VW Golf EV last week, which may be more than the Leaf, and they are paying around $150/month.
djrogers 10y ago
That's ridiculous and completely impossible, unless you are using voodoo accounting or making crap up. The depreciation on a Leaf alone is enormous, buying one a few years old is clearly the way to go.

outericky 10y ago

Slight clarification - my point wasn't to keep a car 10 years. I bought it when it was 4 years old. Kept it 5. Looking to trade it in (it's actually still worth right around what I paid because of the low mileage), but my next car will also be 3-4 years old with low mileage. Ultimate point being, I drive cars that would have been $35k new, for less than $100/month over the life of my ownership, versus the $500 referenced in the article.