6 ms·

Buy an used 2008 -- I'm seeing loads of people dumping their new cars -- Honda or Toyota econobox and use the rest of that money for something else more importa

Buy an used 2008 -- I'm seeing loads of people dumping their new cars -- Honda or Toyota econobox and use the rest of that money for something else more important.

noodle 18y ago
buying used is usually a very good option. the car will lose the most value in its first year. buying used tends to mean someone else is taking that hit for you.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Have to be careful you're not getting a lemon though. If you don't know the seller personally, take it to a mechanic you trust and have them fully inspect the car. Probably a good idea even if you do know the seller. That's the reason I'm about to get a new car - I'm moving across the country, I don't know any of the possible sellers or any of the area mechanics or dealerships, and I really don't want to deal with all the car maintenance stuff on top of all the other stuff that comes with living in a new area. Otherwise I'd buy used. And I run cars into the ground - I expect to get 10-15 years usage out of this one.
  - etal 18y ago
    There are dealer-certified used cars, too, available from new-car dealerships. The best are the demo cars that they drive up to around 5,000, then sell. It's much cheaper than new, and you still can be confident it's not a lemon (possibly more so than with a new car).
- gleb 18y ago
  Buy used. $50k used car is a better deal and a better car than $50k new car. Car is an asset, and its total cost of ownership has less to do with its price than where it is in its depreciation curve. $50k new car means $10-15k depreciation in the first year. You can buy just about anything used for less TCO. Another thing to consider is having 2 cars. By buying a second car that depreciates less (it's cheaper, older, etc.) you actually save money. And with 2 cars you can go no-compromise on both ends of the spectrum. Recommendations: E39 M5, E60 M5, C5 Z06, 996 911 GT3 or TT, Ferrari F550. Second car: Honda Odyssey, Honda Accord
  - tptacek 18y ago
    The "first cars" you've listed are (from experience, in some cases) expensive to maintain; the M's will also suck anywhere it gets cold, as will (heh) the Ferrari.
    - gleb 18y ago
      Expensive to maintain -- agreed except on the Vette. And you'd want winter tires in a cold place. But for all of them, the difference is less than depreciation on a new $50k car. Ferrari is different of course, but $25k of depreciation (new car for 3 years) may cover even that. The point is not that GT3 is a frugal choice, but that buying a new car is an extravagance, and for the same cost you could be driving a vastly better car.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        You don't want a rear-wheel drive car in a place where the roads get icey.
        jam 18y ago
        Like Zak said, the drive wheels don't have much to do with actual driving dynamics. That's all tires and differentials. Four wheel drive is great for a lot of reasons, but in the winter it's only real benefit is acceleration - getting you unstuck or up hills. You're not less likely to crash while moving in an S4 as compared to an M3.
        tptacek 18y ago
        Well, I drive pretty regularly in an RWD M3, an AWD A6, and a FWD Volvo S40, and I'll tell you the M3 isn't my first choice on ice. Yes, tires are important. You still want AWD.
        jam 18y ago
        I'm in a similar boat, and as far as I can tell, ability > tires > drive wheels. It isn't that they aren't important, but people tend to place faaaaaaar too high a value on drive layout for winter driving. Now, on the track, it makes a BIG difference. In the snow, however, your goal is safety... not competitive times.
manvsmachine 18y ago
Another point: if your theoretical limit is ~$50K, don't spend that much on the car itself. Multiply it by maybe 2/3 or 3/4 and spend that amount; then buy yourself the best tires, brakes, and suspension parts (optional) that you can afford without going over what you wanted to spend.

Buy an used 2008 -- I'm seeing loads of people dumping their new cars -- Honda or Toyota econobox and use the rest of that money for something else more important.

noodle 18y ago

buying used is usually a very good option. the car will lose the most value in its first year. buying used tends to mean someone else is taking that hit for you.

nostrademons 18y ago
Have to be careful you're not getting a lemon though. If you don't know the seller personally, take it to a mechanic you trust and have them fully inspect the car. Probably a good idea even if you do know the seller. That's the reason I'm about to get a new car - I'm moving across the country, I don't know any of the possible sellers or any of the area mechanics or dealerships, and I really don't want to deal with all the car maintenance stuff on top of all the other stuff that comes with living in a new area. Otherwise I'd buy used. And I run cars into the ground - I expect to get 10-15 years usage out of this one.
- etal 18y ago
  There are dealer-certified used cars, too, available from new-car dealerships. The best are the demo cars that they drive up to around 5,000, then sell. It's much cheaper than new, and you still can be confident it's not a lemon (possibly more so than with a new car).
gleb 18y ago
Buy used. $50k used car is a better deal and a better car than $50k new car. Car is an asset, and its total cost of ownership has less to do with its price than where it is in its depreciation curve. $50k new car means $10-15k depreciation in the first year. You can buy just about anything used for less TCO. Another thing to consider is having 2 cars. By buying a second car that depreciates less (it's cheaper, older, etc.) you actually save money. And with 2 cars you can go no-compromise on both ends of the spectrum. Recommendations: E39 M5, E60 M5, C5 Z06, 996 911 GT3 or TT, Ferrari F550. Second car: Honda Odyssey, Honda Accord
- tptacek 18y ago
  The "first cars" you've listed are (from experience, in some cases) expensive to maintain; the M's will also suck anywhere it gets cold, as will (heh) the Ferrari.
  - gleb 18y ago
    Expensive to maintain -- agreed except on the Vette. And you'd want winter tires in a cold place. But for all of them, the difference is less than depreciation on a new $50k car. Ferrari is different of course, but $25k of depreciation (new car for 3 years) may cover even that. The point is not that GT3 is a frugal choice, but that buying a new car is an extravagance, and for the same cost you could be driving a vastly better car.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      You don't want a rear-wheel drive car in a place where the roads get icey.
      - jam 18y ago
        Like Zak said, the drive wheels don't have much to do with actual driving dynamics. That's all tires and differentials. Four wheel drive is great for a lot of reasons, but in the winter it's only real benefit is acceleration - getting you unstuck or up hills. You're not less likely to crash while moving in an S4 as compared to an M3.
        tptacek 18y ago
        Well, I drive pretty regularly in an RWD M3, an AWD A6, and a FWD Volvo S40, and I'll tell you the M3 isn't my first choice on ice. Yes, tires are important. You still want AWD.
        jam 18y ago
        I'm in a similar boat, and as far as I can tell, ability > tires > drive wheels. It isn't that they aren't important, but people tend to place faaaaaaar too high a value on drive layout for winter driving. Now, on the track, it makes a BIG difference. In the snow, however, your goal is safety... not competitive times.

manvsmachine 18y ago

Another point: if your theoretical limit is ~$50K, don't spend that much on the car itself. Multiply it by maybe 2/3 or 3/4 and spend that amount; then buy yourself the best tires, brakes, and suspension parts (optional) that you can afford without going over what you wanted to spend.