Post by: Nitrogen on June 20, 2008, 11:09:36 AM
upgrading from a 16mpg vehicle to 20 mpg?
going from a 35-mpg to a hybrid that gets 50 mpg?
I'll give you a hint: Figure out all 4 choices in the gallons per mile that they get.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 20, 2008, 11:17:49 AM
Rule #1 of efficiency improvement: Improve the low efficiency items first. There is more to be gained by bringing a low-efficiency item up slightly than there is in bringing a high-efficiency item up significantly.
Post by: Nitrogen on June 20, 2008, 11:23:43 AM
Here, I'll illustrate:
a 16mpg car takes 6.25 gallons to go 100 miles
A 20mpg car takes 5 gallons to go 100 miles, a savings of 1.25 gallons.
A 35mpg car takes aprox 2.9 gallons to go 100 miles
a 50 mpg car takes 2 gallons to go 100 miles, only saving you 0.9 gallons.
Gallons per 100miles = 100/MPG
I used this on my wife to explain why getting rid of my 25mpg infiniti for a 30mpg car, when i'm upside down on the infiniti is a bad idea.
Post by: Tallpine on June 20, 2008, 02:30:31 PM
Just the license and insurance alone on our newer car negates all or most of the gas savings - unless we start driving an awful lot more
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 20, 2008, 05:32:45 PM
Post by: Desertdog on June 20, 2008, 05:43:22 PM
Post by: Firethorn on June 21, 2008, 07:07:50 AM
Rule #1 of efficiency improvement: Improve the low efficiency items first. There is more to be gained by bringing a low-efficiency item up slightly than there is in bringing a high-efficiency item up significantly.
This is why I piss off the greenies quite often when I talk about making trucks and SUVs hybrids first makes sense. Noooo... They want them to give UP functionality first.
Talked with a UPS guy yesterday, as a matter of fact. I mentioned that I had read about them buying hybrid trucks - he said that they're going in everywhere, but that our area (ND), would be getting them last. To the point that they're sending the old non-hybrids to us.
My conclusions:
1. Hybrids make sense for UPS
2. Hybrids make more sense in more southern areas, especially where gas prices are higher
3. It doesn't make sense, yet, to replace trucks faster than attrition.
Other candidates that I'll let buy hybrids first: Taxis, inner city drivers, etc...
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 21, 2008, 08:15:23 AM
Which saves you more money?
Keeping a reliable, paid-for vehicle that gets 15 mpg or spending $30,000 on one that get's 50 mpg?
@15000 miles per year and $4 gal fuel:
15 mpg = $334/mo in fuel
Estimate $208/mo in maintenance and repairs ($2500/yr)
Total monthly expense = $542
50 mpg = $100/mo in fuel
Payment (6 yr @ 5.9%) = $495.77/mo
Total monthly expense = $596
Brad
Post by: Firethorn on June 21, 2008, 08:22:05 AM
And the question from the other side of the coin....
That doesn't mean that the car companies shouldn't offer the 50 mpg vehicle, just that people will buy them as their older vehicles either become unmaintainable, shock their owner with a $3k rebuild, no longer meeting needs, or just get totaled in an accident, whether it be the driver's fault or not.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 21, 2008, 08:27:03 AM
And the question from the other side of the coin....
That doesn't mean that the car companies shouldn't offer the 50 mpg vehicle, just that people will buy them as their older vehicles either become unmaintainable, shock their owner with a $3k rebuild, no longer meeting needs, or just get totaled in an accident, whether it be the driver's fault or not.
Yeah, I know.
This was a little jab at the folks buy another car solely because of fuel economy. They brag about how much their fuel savings but never give a second thought to that shiny new payment attached to it.
Brad
Post by: Tallpine on June 21, 2008, 08:41:31 AM
Post by: Desertdog on June 21, 2008, 09:27:02 AM
Quote
Estimate $208/mo in maintenance and repairs ($2500/yr)
If your paying that much for maintenance it's time to buy a later, not necessarily new, model car.I will agree that is still cheaper than the payments on a new car.
Post by: Firethorn on June 21, 2008, 10:12:27 AM
I will agree that is still cheaper than the payments on a new car.
In my case, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, new cars are actually cheaper for me than 'newer used'.
The reason is the lower interest rate I get with the new vehicle. They don't chop enough off the price of a used one to cover the extra interest.
Things would be different if I'd managed to keep my car long enough to build up enough for a cash payment.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 21, 2008, 10:19:00 AM
Maintenance and repairs on our old Suburban aren't anywhere near $208 month
Right now there are huge incentives on trucks and SUVs, and used prices are going down.. down.. down. I'm seeing clean 2001-2003 model 4wd 3/4- and 1-ton trucks (base trim) selling at auction for under 10k. 10k financed for 3yrs @ 9% would mean payments of $318.
Brad
Post by: zahc on June 21, 2008, 10:53:44 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 21, 2008, 11:19:47 AM
my friend said he heard an ad on the radio for Toyota Tundras (new I guess) for $200/mo for like either 2 or 3 years. I'd like o track it down because at prices like that I'd buy one.
Probably a lease that includes a very large down payment. With very few exceptions leases are the single worst way to own a vehicle. Plus, that low "payment" usually doesn't cover the property tax bill you get to pay at the end of the lease period.
Brad
Post by: seeker_two on June 21, 2008, 01:45:53 PM
You can do better buying used (3y.o. cars or less) if you can check them thoroughly first. Esp. if you buy previously-leased vehicles....
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 22, 2008, 02:09:24 PM
Leasing is good if you're the "trade in every 2-3 years" type
I wouldn't even do it then. All you are really doing is continually paying the first year's depreciation. Again, single most costly way to own a vehicle.
If you're going to trade every couple of years, go for a 2 yr old trade-in. Let someone else take that 25-30% up-front hickey.
Brad
Post by: Firethorn on June 22, 2008, 04:49:35 PM
If you're going to trade every couple of years, go for a 2 yr old trade-in. Let someone else take that 25-30% up-front hickey.
The only problem with this is that without people buying the new cars, you'd never get your 2 year old trade in. If more people take your advice, the value of a 2 yr old car will rise to the point that the new vehicle is actually a better deal.
Happened to my parents not too long ago. Happened to me. Matter of fact, my grandfather recently bought a new truck for less than he bought a used truck for four years ago.
Sometimes the used vehicle market just gets overvalued.
Post by: Vodka7 on June 22, 2008, 07:41:49 PM
Leasing is good if you're the "trade in every 2-3 years" type
I wouldn't even do it then. All you are really doing is continually paying the first year's depreciation. Again, single most costly way to own a vehicle.
I forget who it was, but someone once said that cars are the only things that rich people rent, and poor people buy. Leasing a car is almost never economically smart.