C&D: Auto loans

[kevm14]

So that's old stock plus I didn't realize the wide body thing was new for the Chargers in 2020. Sort of unique conditions leading to that deal but it's still a deal nonetheless.

[kevm14]

I don't think this article is doing anyone any favors other than "hey readers of our magazine, keep buying new cars and don't feel bad about it! Don't forget to subscribe!"

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a ... 670&src=nl

Oof

It’s easy to write off a lot of this as nutso cuckoo-cloud financial irresponsibility. But according to the Federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the average new-car loan in the United States stretches out over 69 months. That’s three months shy of six years. A kid at that age might be through pre-school and kindergarten and entering the first grade. Most medical schools only take 48 months. World War II raged in Europe for almost exactly that amount of time. It’s a long damn time.

So powerful is that need for an emblem of success that people will take out a seven-year loan to have it. It doesn’t matter that they can’t predict where they’ll be or what they’ll be doing in 2026; what matters is having a taste of the good life right now. It may be rational to buy used, but it’s nowhere near as emotionally satisfying.

That's dumb - pick a price point for a new car and I'll find a better, more interesting (probably higher performance) used car. We can even discuss warranties (don't forget about CPO) and a budget for out of warranty repairs to keep things even. I know I'm different but picking a good used car is much more emotionally satisfying than sitting with the F&I guy at the dealer knowing that all societal reassurances that you're doing the right thing are actually WRONG.

Also, the rationale for why people buy new cars (and it wasn't news to me) is sort of exactly what is wrong with society. OK, so it's somehow shameful to not be driving a new or late model car but it is NOT shameful to take on such irresponsible and unnecessary debt? Let's talk about THAT.

There is something incredibly ironic about the claim that a new car purchase signals success while in the exact same breath pointing out that auto loans are reaching record term lengths...yeah, you bought a new car, awesome, I can do that, too but I choose not to. Statistically, this also means that a new car signals "I make poor financial decisions" more than it says "I have disposable income." Think about that. Maybe Bob can tell us what the richest person he knows drives.

I think new cars, from a reliability standpoint, probably made decent sense through the 1980s. After that, cars started getting pretty decent and lasted a while even through multiple owners (insert Northstar joke here). Kidding aside, I would claim that the general availability of decent used 90s and later cars was way higher than any time previously (insert Cash for Clunkers joke here).

I think all the infotainment BS is just a new way to make people think they need new cars, when cars have been trending in the direction of being kept longer than before. I don't mind some of that stuff, but even Bob will gravitate toward something newer if it means Apple Carplay integration...of course, once they have it, they have it.

By the way I don't think new cars should go away. But that doesn't mean that I support individual people making bad financial decisions (even if, en masse, those bad decisions can directly benefit me; that's a bit of a moral hazard, no?).

[kevm14]

Scotty Kilmer weighs in and his opinion is not surprising
https://youtu.be/Yig2etl02k0

Maybe somewhat surprisingly I agree with a lot of this.

[bill25]

Wait... why wouldn't a 4Runner be a good family car?

[kevm14]

Well considering it's an SUV version of a Tacoma...or at least it was. It is old as hell with the current version dating back to 2009. It probably rides like shit, handles like shit, gets terrible fuel economy, interior packaging will be compromised for the size and weight...I mean it's a 90s Ford Explorer. Safety is a little questionable, too, because it's basically still a truck. It may be decent off road, would theoretically accept a plow and may be a little better for towing than something FWD based. That is really about it. None of that sounds like family hauling. It would be like buying a Hummer because you like the styling....I think we all made fun of that at the time.

2015 Toyota 4Runner on IIHS:
Category Rating
Moderate overlap frontal offset Good
Small overlap frontal offset (2014–present) Marginal1
Side impact Good
Roof strength Good
1 vehicle structure rated "Poor"

A Highlander would be a vastly superior choice as a family vehicle if you want a Toyota. Or something else car-based. Frankly a Tahoe (or Expedition) is also far more up to date overall, even though it is also a body on frame SUV. GM (or Ford) has put a lot more resources into those than Toyota has for the 4Runner.

A late model Durango R/T would also theoretically fit the bill if you trusted FCA products.

[bill25]

So I was thinking:

Good in snow, big enough to fit everyone comfortably, wouldn't be a throw away vehicle after it was done with family duty like the RAV4, drivetrain has stood the test of time and should last forever, capable to deal with snow down the road.

Highlander, basically a minivan I would never want to drive, especially after it wasn't a primary vehicle, meaning I lose on a trade-in or have to deal with selling after a few to 5 years.

It is old as hell with the current version dating back to 2009

This is a weird place to say driving something designed before 2009 is a bad idea. LOL

[kevm14]

But it's sold as a 2019 for new car money. Not that something designed in 2009 is inherently bad.

[kevm14]

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/

That front end is...hard to look at.

More critical to the 4Runner’s mission, however, is the TRD Off-Road’s part-time four-wheel-drive system, which is activated via a muscular transfer-case lever and requires the transmission be placed in neutral to switch between two-wheel drive and four-wheel-drive high or low range.

Oh boy. You know that thing you used to say about trucks not being good because they are RWD most of the time unless you engage 4WD? That applies to this. Not sure if the non-TRD works the same way.

Nevertheless, the old-school 4Runner suffers many of the same shortcomings as the Jeep. Its traditional ladder frame forces the floor up high and reduces cabin space relative to unibody crossovers. The meaty tires hum on the highway and serve up notably poor grip; we were even able to chirp them during not particularly hard braking in traffic. And the solid rear axle mixes awkwardly with the independent front suspension, the setups delivering roly-poly handling and significant body dive under braking. At least ride quality is generally comfortable.

The steering has vague on-center action, so you’ll spend plenty of effort on long trips nudging the wheel to and fro. Stopping requires pressing one’s foot through a squishy dead zone that spans most of the brake pedal’s long stroke to the floorboard. Predictably, the TRD Off-Road’s 183-foot braking distance and 0.76-g grip figures are unimpressive, and driving it hard results in disconcerting body lean and howl from the tires. This is how SUVs used to drive.

You’ll find more cobwebs under the hood, where an ancient 270-hp 4.0-liter V-6—no turbos or direct fuel injection here!—works with a five-speed automatic transmission to move the 4Runner. This unremarkable combo labors against the TRD Off-Road’s considerable mass when pressed, but otherwise it fades into the background in normal driving. That ye olde V-6 pushes the Toyota to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds is frankly quite impressive, as is the 17-mpg average we recorded during our test, which matches the EPA’s city estimate.

So, much like the usual subjects of carbon-dating tests, the Toyota 4Runner is a relic, albeit one with a niche use for the right buyer. This TRD Off-Road iteration marks a nice middle ground in the 4Runner lineup, and one can ratchet up the burliness by opting for the TRD Pro or down with the more basic 4Runner SR5 or luxe Limited. Either way, every 4Runner is a throwback to when SUVs existed under the pretext of off-road capability, not as the family-hauling minivan alternatives that they have become. With Nissan’s discontinuation of the Xterra after 2015, the choices for an affordable, four-door four-by-four have dwindled to, well, the Wrangler Unlimited and the 4Runner. If you have tunnel vision for an SUV of this ilk, the Toyota is the friendlier everyday companion.

I think I had it right originally. It's a relic. Basically what a 90s Explorer was. Is that what you really want? I can't see paying $40k for one of these. I just cannot.

15.9 sec @ 89 mph
4767 lbs
Braking, 70-0 mph: 183 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g
FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA combined/city/highway: 18/17/20 mpg
C/D observed: 17 mpg

I can pull the numbers but I bet it is no bigger inside than your RAV4.

Here is a 2017 Highlander test: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/

15.6 sec @ 93 mph
4560 lbs
Braking, 70-0 mph: 181 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g
FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA combined/city/highway: 22/20/26 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg

Handling does not sound that good (it's a Toyota) but I think it is very likely still superior. Fuel economy was also almost 25% better. But this is more impressive because it is probably one size class larger while still being better across all areas. Other crossovers are way better than either of these. Pilot. The new Explorer. Actually I'd look very closely at the new Blazer if you want something that doesn't totally suck to drive. $40k for a 4Runner seems like something people used to make fun of old people for doing with like buying a new Cadillac every 3 years or whatever. Like, old people, ever heard of cross shopping?

And back to the thread topic, I still don't understand why you'd need to buy a new one when these are available for half the price:
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... ord=0&lnx=

If they are as bulletproof as they are supposed to be, why would you be worried about starting with 90k on it? This list is: Under 100k miles, under $20k, 2012 or newer, 4WD.

Two of them are local.

This one is only $15,500!
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... Type=alpha

And this is $19,900
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... pe=listing

Still not sure why buying new makes sense, even on one of these, which I still very much do not understand. The RWD until shifted part alone is why this is a dumb family vehicle, never mind the other stuff.

[kevm14]

Almost forgot. Kia Telluride appears to be excellent by all accounts.

[bill25]

Oh boy. You know that thing you used to say about trucks not being good because they are RWD most of the time unless you engage 4WD? That applies to this. Not sure if the non-TRD works the same way.

That is the TRD. The regular has a dial that you turn to 4 High while driving, on the fly, and you can supposedly go 65 in 4 High, which is way faster than you should need to go in adverse weather.

I like this because it is actually an SUV instead of a minivan, or a minivan made to look like a crossover. When it is done with primary family duty, it will be used to haul a trailer, go to the dump, drive in bad snow, get out of the driveway if I can't clear it, etc.

$40k for a 4Runner seems like something people used to make fun of old people for doing with like buying a new Cadillac every 3 years or whatever.

https://www.koonstoyotatysonscorner.com ... 74d8a6.htm

A brand new one is 37K, 2 - 4 years old with 25 - 40K miles is 32K. Starting with 90K+ (which average about 18-20K from your link) miles means I need a new family car in 4-5 years instead of maybe 10. 4-5 years on 90K @15K/year is 165K miles. A new one takes 11 years to get to 165K. Why would I take a gamble on how someone else maintained 90K worth if for 5 years I spend 19, then have to get another one and spend 19, when I could buy new for 1K less and keep for 10? Then use as an extra vehicle after.

Also, I have no plan to buy new for 3 years and sell so that is totally not applicable. I am not saying I am definitely going to do this, but based on the 90K prices, it actually doesn't seem that bad. 37K over 10 years is 3700 a year. The RAV was 15500 + gap insurance and warranty because it was a high mile vehicle came to 19K. So, 19 with 70 K miles over 5 years and is worth say 4, so 15K loss, so, 3000 per year loss. Not a huge difference here to end up with a much more capable vehicle that I won't want to get rid of when regular family duty is over... plus, the 4Runner isn't worth 0 at 10 years old and 165K, it is worth over 10K according to this:
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... ord=0&lnx=

37K - 10K resale = 27000/10 years is 2700 a year, so less than the RAV4 cost
even if you take the cost without insurance and warranty:
15500 - 3500 resale = 12K/5 years = 2400, it is a difference of 300 a year!