Repair-It

Thought I'd list out some things to see how this compares to what other folks are paying.
This is a 6 month premium. You can see the coverages, deductibles and costs for each car, and the total.

One other thing that may be of interest is what happens when you "take a car off the road," like I do with my CTS-V in the winter.

The answer is the only charge is the comprehensive premium (I don't know what happens if you do not have comprehensive coverage though I don't know why you wouldn't). Comprehensive by the way is fire, theft, vandalism, acts of god. Progressive totaled my Fleetwood on a comprehensive claim and I do not believe my rates changed. I like a $250 deductible on that since the cost is over 4x lower than collision and that's with half the deductible and comprehensive coverage is up to the value of the car just like collision.

So the monthly savings each month I do not have the CTS-V fully insured is $48.50. If I do mid-Dec to mid-March, that's almost $150.

Other fun facts...

Monthly cost of Caprice: $19.50 (no collision)
Monthly cost of SRX: $49.83 ($500 collision deductible)
Monthly cost of Ranger: $16.50 (no collision)
Monthly cost of CTS-V: $54.33 ($500 collision deductible)

I believe the costs for these vehicles are lower than they'd be if I had fewer vehicles on the policy but I don't know by how much.

Oh I just noticed something. There is another $116/6 month charge for uninsured/underinsured bodily injury coverage at $250k/person and $500k/accident. So I guess if you average that, it adds another $4.83/month to each car above.

In that case, adjusted total monthly averages:
Caprice: $24.33
SRX: $54.66
Ranger: $21.33
CTS-V: $59.16

Bi-annual safety and emissions inspection (per car): $55.

Going further, CTS-V bi-annual registration cost: $111.50 (at least it was in 2015-2017)

I don't have the itemized bill in front of me but my overall annual car tax to the town is $556.05 for all 4 cars. If I use the monthly ratio of insurance costs to reflect the tax for each car, then monthly car tax looks something like:
Caprice: $6.45
SRX: $16.47
Ranger: $5.45
CTS-V: $17.96

Total monthly cost to own the CTS-V without driving at all:
Fully insured: $84.06
With minimum insurance: $35.56

If I could track down the car tax bill I could get a better number in there for tax.

Another interesting vehicle is the Ranger, as an occasional use truck is sometimes the target of "just get a trailer" or "just rent a truck" or "just borrow a truck." So let's look.

Ranger monthly insurance: $21.33
Ranger bi-annual inspection monthly average: $2.29
Ranger bi-annual reg monthly average: $4.71
Ranger tax monthly average estimate: $5.45

Have to go out in the snow to get the registration cost...so far we are up to $33.78.

Not everyone does the same things with their truck but I use it weekly to bring trash and recycling to the transfer station. I put both trash bins in the truck, upright, and same with the recycling bin. No straps, no throwing individual bags in the car, no covers needed. Of course this actually applies to most loads except the heavy ones that also roll or tip, which need strapping to keep from moving around. But the point is, there is no more convenient way for me to do what I do with the truck weekly. The only thing more convenient is paying for curbside pick up which would cost about $34/mo. So I could get rid of the truck, have curbside trash and recycling, and I could do that in a break-even fashion. Except I would not have a truck for misc usage, which does come up (hauling the occasional snow blower, TV, refrigerator, yard supplies, furniture or other things). If I was a normal person and did not do those things, I think that is what I would do.

You could also conceivably rent a Home Depot truck 12 times a year, though it would be local trips only. I can go anywhere, for any amount of time I want. Except the second I get the curbside trash pickup, I have no budget to do anything at all. The alternative is throw trash bags into the trunk of my Caprice and put the recycling in the back seat which may be possible. There are multiple ways to do things obviously.

This does, however, suggest that if one was going to have an extra truck, you probably shouldn't spend a lot of money on it for occasional use. And having a cheap truck vs a very expensive truck that is also a daily driver does not make sense as you lose all the benefits and utility of having an extra vehicle. Especially if you are not a truck enthusiast - then you don't even get the features of cars that you may like (performance/handling, fuel economy).

As far as the truck goes, You also have to add repair parts and maintenance, which I am sure is crazy low. An out of the box question is, with the cap permanently fused to the truck, aside from garbage duty, does it really have more hauling capacity than the SRX?

Also, a trailer would be a one time cost that would essentially go away. If the truck is more like 50 bucks a month, a trailer would be paid off in les than a year.

I definitely agree that a car is not ideal for the dump.

I guess I am saying you could do trash pick up, and use the SRX for whatever else you did with the Ranger. The trailer would just be extra.

I think about these same things with the Corolla. I use it for the dump, which is nice because I don't have to get a trailer or use the 3 or RAV for that. For me, I keep the Corolla so I have a fall back if there is something wrong with the 3 or RAV4 more than to go to the dump. For most cases the RAV4 works for most things. I think I could have used a truck once this year. Granted, it is way easier to get stuff that requires a truck, if you already have one, than if you have to figure out renting just to go look at something you might not buy.

billgiacheri wrote: If the truck is more like 50 bucks a month, a trailer would be paid off in les than a year.

I checked and edited. Under $34/mo to own without driving. Gas comes out because everything needs gas, even a rental truck or towing a trailer. I don't know how much maintenance overhead there really is. I'd describe overhead as time-based things that happen regardless of how little I drove. Annual oil change is the only thing I can think of. Everything else is really a function of miles driven which means those items would transfer their incremental cost to whatever other vehicle I use in place of the truck.

EDIT: I guess rust items would qualify. Those repairs have been quite cheap. Brake lines, trans shift modulator line.

billgiacheri wrote:An out of the box question is, with the cap permanently fused to the truck, aside from garbage duty, does it really have more hauling capacity than the SRX?

The cap can come off...
Also I should measure. I believe the Ranger has significantly more cargo space than the SRX with the seats folded down. I could take some measurements and get volume. We can compare to specs on other vehicles. That doesn't take into account the advantage of having an isolated space that can get dirty. I can hose it out.

Also, a trailer would be a one time cost that would essentially go away. If the truck is more like 50 bucks a month, a trailer would be paid off in les than a year.

Trailer does have registration. No idea what that costs.

I guess I am saying you could do trash pick up, and use the SRX for whatever else you did with the Ranger. The trailer would just be extra.

The SRX is not a good replacement for the Ranger. It is Jamie's only car, too. From a trash standpoint I could certainly use it once a weekend but I was thinking of the other things I've used the Ranger for.

For most cases the RAV4 works for most things. I think I could have used a truck once this year. Granted, it is way easier to get stuff that requires a truck, if you already have one, than if you have to figure out renting just to go look at something you might not buy.

I wouldn't even strap a Christmas tree to the roof of the SRX. It wouldn't have hauled the refrigerator. I doubt it would fit the garbage cans upright.

I guess what I am saying is for a very small cost I get a lot of utility and convenience with the Ranger.

I don't disagree that it is a lot of utility for the cost.

guess I am saying you could do trash pick up, and use the SRX for whatever else you did with the Ranger. The trailer would just be extra.

The SRX is not a good replacement for the Ranger. It is Jamie's only car, too. From a trash standpoint I could certainly use it once a weekend but I was thinking of the other things I've used the Ranger for.

I was saying if you got you trash picked up. without the weekly use, how many times would you need Jamie's vehicle? A few times a year? I am not trying to talk you out of the truck. Just listing pros and cons. I probably wouldn't pay for trash pickup.

kevm14 wrote:Also I should measure. I believe the Ranger has significantly more cargo space than the SRX with the seats folded down. I could take some measurements and get volume. We can compare to specs on other vehicles. That doesn't take into account the advantage of having an isolated space that can get dirty. I can hose it out.

The Ranger has a pretty easy to measure cube of space though there are some irregularities. It is far more consistent than the SRX. Anyway, here are my measurements:
Nominal width: 54.5"
Depth: 84"
Nominal height: 35"
Total volume: 92.75 cubic feet

SRX specification of rear cargo, seats up: 32.4 cubic feet. Here are my nominal measurements:
Width: 44"
Depth: 37"
Height: 31"
Total calculated with these nominal dimensions: 29.2 cubic feet. This sounds right as there are some pockets in the side rear window areas that you could theoretically stuff with junk but almost nothing I haul with the Ranger is like that so my measurement is more accurate.

The delta extra space after folding the rear seats down has the following nominal measurements:
Width: 57"
Depth: 36"
Height: 31"
Which adds a calculated 33.84 cubic feet for a total calculated volume of 63 cubic feet. Spec says 69.5 cubic feet and my same disclaimer applies here as it did above; there is some extra space between the rear door windows where you could shove stuff but that is not realistic.

So comparing measured volumes, the Ranger has 29.75 cubic feet more cargo storage than the SRX, which is also 47%. If I had to guess before measuring, I would have said 40%. A 1/2 ton short bed with a cap should have more than the Ranger, in width and probably cap height.

For reference, the spec on a 2011 RAV4 is 36.4 cubic feet with the rear seats up which is a little more than the SRX (lower floor and probably a little wider inside would likely account for it). With the seats folded down, the RAV4 is 73 cubic feet, which again is a little more than the SRX, though fairly close. Which just means the SRX is not optimized for cargo space on its platform, which is not surprising given the RWD Sigma architecture.

For kicks, a B-body wagon has a total of 92.4 cubic feet (low roof height but long and wide). This is the same as the Ranger but the dimensions of the Ranger are much more favorable (height).

Other fun: 2007 Suburban (GMT-900 body style)
Depth to third row: 35.6". This is almost the same as the SRX depth to the SECOND row. That is a large vehicle. Rear cargo area with all seats up is 45.8 cubic feet, which is quite a bit more than, say, the RAV4 or the SRX.
69.6" depth to SECOND row, which is only 3-4 inches short of the SRX depth to the front seats.
With third row folded, 90 cubic feet. Again, similar ballpark as the B-body or Ranger except you still get a whole second row of passenger seating.
Depth with all seats folded is 101.8" which is 8.5 feet, longer than a long bed pickup truck.
Total cargo with all seats folded is a ridiculous 137.4 cubic feet.

In conclusion, we all need Suburbans. Probably the GMC because I think you get a little more powerful engine options. It is still about 3" shorter than a 93-96 Fleetwood.

Well then... Suburbans all around!

kevm14 wrote:The Ranger has a pretty easy to measure cube of space though there are some irregularities. It is far more consistent than the SRX. Anyway, here are my measurements:
Nominal width: 54.5"
Depth: 84"
Nominal height: 35"
Total volume: 92.75 cubic feet

Updating with Ram bed measurements.
Nominal width: 64"
Depth: 77"

So as far as area, the Ranger has 31.8 sq ft and the Ram has 34.2 sq ft. If the Ram was the long bed, it would have 42.7 sq ft.

I guess truck reg is annual. So double that on the Ranger. Which means add $4.71.

Of course with the new insurance everything here goes down so...