Car Cost Curve

Car/truck/automotive news and discussion
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by kevm14 »

Here's the really simple economics answer: if you want the same thing that a lot of other people want, you are going to have to pay more, relatively, than you would for something that fewer people want. This works for cars, houses, iPhones and anything else you can think of.

And applying the rule to myself:
- People don't want old Buick Roadmasters. But it is in great shape for the age/miles and will provide a great base for whatever I want to do with it.
- People don't want old Cadillac STSs. But it is still a luxury car, and I like the way it looks and drives.
- People don't want 91 Ford Rangers. Yet this was one of my best all time purchases in terms of purchase and ownership cost, especially compared to utility provided.
- People don't want 2005 CTS-Vs with nearly 100k in 2010. This speaks for itself. Great car.
- People don't want houses that need work inside, outside and in the yard. I am making progress here...and this allowed me to keep my first house.
- People don't want Windows Phones or tablets. They work for me though the phone has finally met the end of the road and my next phone will probably be Android-based, but I rode this WAY longer than the general public (which never really rode it at all)
- People don't want large plasma TVs. Yet you can't find better overall image quality for the size/price.
- People don't want 30 year old generators. So far it has been very good to me.
- People don't want 30 year old lawn tractors, with an unfamiliar name. Same as above. Quality machine.

I literally surround myself with stuff that is less popular which allows me more relative purchasing power as a consumer. And in every case, each item has one or more significant redeeming qualities that are why I still made the purchase, despite going against what "most people" would prefer to do with their money. If you don't find the same redeeming qualities I do in the aforementioned items, then that makes you statistically "normal."

I don't know if this qualifies as MMM-level advice (probably not) but it's a formula I will probably live by for the rest of my life.
Adam
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by Adam »

kevm14 wrote:People don't want 91 Ford Rangers.
Some people do.
Adam
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by Adam »

kevm14 wrote:...what is going to happen to the W-body that won't happen to the Civic?
It'll need engine/transmission mounts, 'cause GM. When we pulled Jenn's engine/transmission to do the swap the past time, we replaced one of four engine mounts because it had failed. They were all original.

Insert joke here about torque....
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by kevm14 »

My Caprice is on the original mounts. If they just kept building mounts out of that material...

I guess that's what the Japanese really figured out before we did. How to pair affordability with refinement and reliability.

Although I'm not sure you can look me in the eye and say it is superior because the mounts last longer, while you pull and replace the engine...
Adam
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by Adam »

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to rationalize whether a Japanese car deserves a lower depreciation cost compared to something else and trying to convince everyone to buy one. The "perception" that Japanese cars were better came about in the '80s/'90s when they were arguably put together better than the American cars of the time. Before you get all angry, look at how the interiors of these cars hold up over time with "normal" people driving them; case in point, my Riviera or the STS we looked at in NJ. Your Caprice doesn't count because you've owned it for the past 200k.

Yes, things have changed since then and people's opinions will too, albeit with some latency. The early '00s Civic/Accord were much less reliable than the '90s versions in general. Lots of premature transmission, electrical, and suspension issues. The same could be said for most of the German cars. Time will tell how new things hold up. People's opinion of how reliable things are is based on the last car they or someone else was driving. How do people feel about the mid-00's car they used to have? Did they drive it to 200k w/o any major repairs before finally trading it in for a new car? Did they trade it in for the modern version of the same car? I had a car a Japanese car from that time period for 6 weeks. It consumed a quart of oil every few hundred miles with only ~160k.
Adam
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by Adam »

kevm14 wrote: Although I'm not sure you can look me in the eye and say it is superior because the mounts last longer, while you pull and replace the engine...
No, but the engine had over 300k on it. It was worn out and consuming/leaking oil from all the places. Please tell me about how your Caprice's engine is not worn out nor does it consume/leak oil.
Adam
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by Adam »

kevm14 wrote:My Caprice is on the original mounts. If they just kept building mounts out of that material...
Rubber? Nope. Need more hydraulic mounts in everything. Ask Nissan.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by kevm14 »

Adam wrote:Before you get all angry, look at how the interiors of these cars hold up over time with "normal" people driving them; case in point, my Riviera or the STS we looked at in NJ. Your Caprice doesn't count because you've owned it for the past 200k.
I'm not sure there is a huge gap on interior wear quality. Chevy trucks are known for seats that crack and get destroyed. That Legend we saw had an absolutely destroyed passenger seat. The Maxima interior looked great at 240k but it had ownership that would disqualify it the same way you disqualified my Caprice.
Yes, things have changed since then and people's opinions will too, albeit with some latency.


Great point. It's not that their anecdote is necessarily wrong, just applied with enough latency to end up being less useful.
The early '00s Civic/Accord were much less reliable than the '90s versions in general. Lots of premature transmission, electrical, and suspension issues. The same could be said for most of the German cars. Time will tell how new things hold up. People's opinion of how reliable things are is based on the last car they or someone else was driving. How do people feel about the mid-00's car they used to have? Did they drive it to 200k w/o any major repairs before finally trading it in for a new car? Did they trade it in for the modern version of the same car? I had a car a Japanese car from that time period for 6 weeks. It consumed a quart of oil every few hundred miles with only ~160k.
There is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy situation with older cars.

Take an average 15 year old American car and an average 15 year old Japanese car.

I'll spare a lengthy story on what these cars are or who owns them but suffice it to say that the American car is NOT going to enjoy as much preventative maintenance or general care as the Japanese car, because it is worth less money. This becomes self-fulfilling. It is not generally hard or expensive to keep a "lower quality" American car on the road yet it will receive less maintenance and repair, and possibly worse operational treatment (and a downward spiral of follow-on owners, each worse than the one who preceded them), virtually guaranteeing it will end up in the junkyard before the Japanese car.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by kevm14 »

Adam wrote:
kevm14 wrote: Although I'm not sure you can look me in the eye and say it is superior because the mounts last longer, while you pull and replace the engine...
No, but the engine had over 300k on it. It was worn out and consuming/leaking oil from all the places. Please tell me about how your Caprice's engine is not worn out nor does it consume/leak oil.
Camshaft thing....but ok.

And yeah it leaks all over the place. But I would wager a small sum that no cylinder has less than 150 psi compression. Can be verified....

And it passed emissions last time they tested it which was....2 years ago I guess. So it can only be so worn out.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Car Cost Curve

Post by kevm14 »

kevm14 wrote:I'm not sure there is a huge gap on interior wear quality. Chevy trucks are known for seats that crack and get destroyed. That Legend we saw had an absolutely destroyed passenger seat. The Maxima interior looked great at 240k but it had ownership that would disqualify it the same way you disqualified my Caprice.
I meant to expand upon this. Each car has a different owner, usage and history. And if 200k of my ownership keeps something nice (can't say the same for the paint which was probably destined for failure being a thin respray), then all I have to do is NOT buy a crappy example of something, and it'll last me. I don't care if MOST GMT-800 Chevy trucks have a busted up driver's seat bolster. I'll try to buy the one that does not and it will probably stay that way since I am not dragging dirty work pants across that thing 10 times a day.
Post Reply