4 ms·

>All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my

>All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. Ah, I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none of them are. Whatever "beater" Bezos drove, probably has a modern analog, and that modern analog is probably the same price or cheaper, adjusted for inflation; safer; and more reliable. Simple does not mean reliable, and reliability does not require simplicity. First-gen Lexus LS400s are still rolling around after 30 years, despite being a flagship vehicle that was loaded with enough technology to compete with top end Mercedes. Meanwhile, a Trabant is as simple as cars get, but keeping one going is quite the challenge, even though pretty much every part on one can be built by a local specialist, or adapted from another vehicle. You'll get 250k miles and 20 years out of a new Corolla. And if the car has a fundamental defect that prevents that from happening, they'll make it right with an out of warranty repair. See: Taco drivers who received new chassis or cars with the 2AZ-FE who received complete engine rebuilds under warranty, even on vehicles with well over 100k miles. After that, because Toyota sold millions of them each generation (and shared parts with millions of other cars), you can easily find a lifetime supply of replacement parts. And that's what you like about your Mustang, right? > Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests). Two of my siblings bought the basic transportation people are espousing here: one an older Civic, the other a Mazda2. Neither owned those cars for more than 18 months because, like many 20-somethings, "oopsies" happened and they find out things like, car seats don't fit if the person in the front seat is over 5'6, or strollers are gigantic. Both ended up trading their cars in for a minivan and a crossover. Both took a bath on the trades too. This was irrational behavior. They were buying the car they could live with now with the expectation of keeping it for 15 years. A rational person would consider what life looks like in 15 years if they were planning on keeping a car that long.

cxr 4y ago
The aforementioned used Mustang is/was good for 250k more miles after purchase and 20 more years, too, but it didn't cost as much as a new Corolla does, even adjusted for inflation. I've driven both. I'll take the Mustang on that alone, even though gas mileage is better in the Corolla. Naturally, I've done maintenance and repairs on a Mustang from the mid-90s. I'm guessing you haven't. I've only done minimal repairs on a new Corolla. The Corolla loses there, too. Strike 3 really is the price. Given all this, you'd think the one with these downsides would be cheaper or something. Otherwise, you're putting one car up against a less desirable one, except it also costs more money? Would you pay extra for the privilege of having a bird shit on you while you walk down the street—where not paying means trudging through your day shitless? The choice is simple. With lots of things in life, you expect there to be some sort of tradeoff involved. With food, for example, maybe something tastes great but it's bad for you, or vice versa. It doesn't always work like that, though. New cars are like chicken-fried steak in a competition with salad: no pros, all cons. I hate chicken fried steak, and if you hate chicken-fried steak, too, but your view of the world is one where tradeoffs are axiomatic and inescapable, then the natural outcome is to find yourself probably on the cusp of thinking that you should, like, eat more chicken-fried steak, even though you don't like it—or more precisely: because you don't like it. But that's crazy, and you shouldn't! Something can both taste bad and be bad for you while other things (like a salad) can be better for you and be delicious. It turns out there's actually lots of stuff like this, and the car market in 2022 is one of them. Barring any changes (like Bezos taking a personal interest in fixing this problem and making the hypothetical Costco car a real thing), fuck the whole industry. > I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none Right.

cxr 4y ago

The aforementioned used Mustang is/was good for 250k more miles after purchase and 20 more years, too, but it didn't cost as much as a new Corolla does, even adjusted for inflation. I've driven both. I'll take the Mustang on that alone, even though gas mileage is better in the Corolla. Naturally, I've done maintenance and repairs on a Mustang from the mid-90s. I'm guessing you haven't. I've only done minimal repairs on a new Corolla. The Corolla loses there, too. Strike 3 really is the price. Given all this, you'd think the one with these downsides would be cheaper or something. Otherwise, you're putting one car up against a less desirable one, except it also costs more money? Would you pay extra for the privilege of having a bird shit on you while you walk down the street—where not paying means trudging through your day shitless? The choice is simple. With lots of things in life, you expect there to be some sort of tradeoff involved. With food, for example, maybe something tastes great but it's bad for you, or vice versa. It doesn't always work like that, though. New cars are like chicken-fried steak in a competition with salad: no pros, all cons. I hate chicken fried steak, and if you hate chicken-fried steak, too, but your view of the world is one where tradeoffs are axiomatic and inescapable, then the natural outcome is to find yourself probably on the cusp of thinking that you should, like, eat more chicken-fried steak, even though you don't like it—or more precisely: because you don't like it. But that's crazy, and you shouldn't! Something can both taste bad and be bad for you while other things (like a salad) can be better for you and be delicious. It turns out there's actually lots of stuff like this, and the car market in 2022 is one of them. Barring any changes (like Bezos taking a personal interest in fixing this problem and making the hypothetical Costco car a real thing), fuck the whole industry. > I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none Right.