On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:07:04 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:

>That is why I said people that can AFFORD a new car, buys a new
>car. If one must make a choice between a new car and the other
>things in life, than he can't afford a new car.

I'll make a rash statement then: 99.999999% of usenet posters are
not independently wealthy and would be better off putting the
$6-10K in their retirement plan - if they could separate the
purpose of the car from their ego.

I'm not advocating buying the least expensive car you can get. Buy
what you like. But, buy smart.

>Contrary to what
>you may believe, you can never know for sure what type of use or
>abuse a sued car was subjected to or what service it did or did
>not receive, no matter how 'good' it appears the day you buy it.

True. But you're paying thousands and thousands of dollars for
that "warranty" you get with a new car.

>When one chooses that two year old car they are choosing one with
>30K miles on the clock readily for its first big service, set of
>tires and nearly out of warranty.

Could be, depends on the car. Some two year old cars only have 20K
on the clock. The price is almost as low as the 30K cars since time
is more a factor in book depreciation than miles. You can also
but cars that come with 4/50 warranties. Or, if you don't like to
gamble, buy an extended warranty - most cars cost less than $1K
for a few years.

For me, the excuse of buying tires is great. I get to purchase a
real set of tires instead of the factory nonsense. Give me an
excuse to buy shocks/struts too, I love it.

>On the other hand the previous
>owner only needed to do a half dozen oil changes.

And he paid $10K for the privilege.

>Any problems
>would have been covered by a warranty. Ever notice when somebody
>comes "into money" from a lottery or inheritance the first thing
>they buy is a new car. LOL

I have noticed that. I've also seen a lot of people who can barely
afford to pay the mortgage, or can't afford a vacation, or good
furniture, go out and buy a new car with long paybacks and/or
disadvantageous leases. They'd be better off with a used car
for thousands less, even if they need to sink a couple of bucks
into it.

Auto manufacturers are great at marketing
and selling, auto salesmen are great at selling the monthly payment,
and peoples egos keep the whole thing going.

Bob

 

Testdrive should answer your question.

"Grant" <grantf@untouchable.net> wrote in message
news:beqds8$7cs2j$1@ID-135848.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm looking forward to purchasing a new car. I've narrowed my options to
> buying one of the following:
>
> - Honda Accord Coupe or Sedan
> - Nissan Altima
>
> I'd like hear which one you guys would suggest.
>
> Thank you.
>
>

 

"BD" <notanemailaddress@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:%uDQa.10849$b03.80@lakeread03...
>
> "Buddy" <buddytrojan@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:beuma0$5g7$1@usc.edu...
> > Go with automatic, easy to use and Hondas are better than Nissan
> > My Accord 91 has passed through 4 owners and I am the 5th ,.. still the
> > car's history has no major repair...but everybody has maintained it so
> well
> > that I still have the maintainance records of the first owner.
>
>
> Most vehicles if maintained properly will last for a long time.

True every car needs a maintainance and will run longer if maintained
properly.
But Honda engines have proven to last longer than Nissan.
Honda has a life of 250K miles or longer if maintained properly, which I
don't think is the case with Nissan.

> I am the
> 3rd owner of my 1989 Nissan 240SX and other than 2 injectors leaking, the
> car has been trouble free. Very dependable, just regular maintinence
stuff.
> Body is still in near mint condition with minimal rust on underbody of
> vehicle, not bad for 14 years. Only reason I'm selling it is I wanted
> something newer. My mother has an 89 Nissan Sentra and it has never had
any
> mechanical problems either, again she just wants something newer now after
> buying as a repo with 1800 miles on it in 1989. Both cars have 127,000
> miles or so on them and still go strong. Again if you take care of the
car
> it takes care of you. Just my 2 cents. I would never choose a Honda over
> my Nissan.
>
>
> -BD
>
>

Well my 2 cents Hondas and Toyotas are most reliable, Nissan come second.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and can spend their money as
the please. I guess I need to post this one more time. If one
must make a CHOICE between a new car and the other things in
life, than he can't afford a new car without effecting his other
options in life. If one must choose between a new car and
investing or putting money into an IRA, they have no choice but
to buy used. One must also factor in the replacement price of the
used car they now own, the same as does the new car buyer.. I've
kept many of the cars I bough new, as collector cars. Personally
I'm glad people are willing to buy the cars I no longer want. If
not for them placing a VALUE on my used cars I could not as
easily afford to buy new every two years. I sold my last two
cars for only a few thousand dollars less than I paid to buy them
new. Now if I can only find people willing to buy used clothing
and furniture I could save some BIG money on all the things my
wife buys. LOL


mike hunt

 

I recently purchased a 2003 Accord Coupe LX 4cyl Auto. I was set on
buying a used Accord Coupe (99-01) and had looked EVERYWHERE in
Southern California. I was hoping to spend around $12,000 for a three
year old Accord. All the cars I looked at around that price were
GARBAGE. Three or four of them were in accidents, with the
sellers/dealers denying the fact. It was obvious as there were body
panels that didn't line up and mismatching colors. All the nice
Accords that were well maintained and not in accidents were around
$14,000. I really didn't want to buy new, but I thought I'd look into
it anyway. When I found out that I could get a brand new 03 Accord
Coupe LX for $17,000, I decided to go with that. For $3000 more, I got
the new body style and I got a car that I will know the maintenance
history of.

Who cares about resale value if you plan on keeping the car until it
dies? My only reason for buying a new car was because my 89 Civic was
starting to go (with 230,000 MILES on the odometer)

I realize I could have saved a little by buying used, but the biggest
problem is that you don't know anything about the car's past. Who
cares if you have the maintenance history. It does no good to have the
oil changed every 3K if the car was roughly abused. All the people I
know who leased have abused their cars. One friend of mine had a 95
Integra that he used to race. He even ran Nitrous regularly! Once the
lease was up, he took his suspension parts, wheels, and nitrous system
off and made the car appear stock again. I certainly wouldn't want to
buy that car!

I'm sure not all cars are like that, but you are taking a gamble.




> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:06:36 -0400, "Paul Bielec" <me@no.spam> wrote:
>
> >When I was at university, I bought a 3 yo car that was a return from lease.
> >I couldn't afford a new one at that time.
> >The car looked great and everything seemed fine for couple of months until
> >some weird noises that a 3 yo Mazda is not supposed to do started...
> >Got rid of it and bought a new Honda.
> >
> ><BigJohnson@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >news:3F12E25C.905FFF0B@mailcity.com...
> >> That is why I said people that can AFFORD a new car, buys a new
> >> car. If one must make a choice between a new car and the other
> >> things in life, than he can't afford a new car. Contrary to what
> >> you may believe, you can never know for sure what type of use or
> >> abuse a sued car was subjected to or what service it did or did
> >> not receive, no matter how 'good' it appears the day you buy it.
> >> When one chooses that two year old car they are choosing one with
> >> 30K miles on the clock readily for its first big service, set of
> >> tires and nearly out of warranty. On the other hand the previous
> >> owner only needed to do a half dozen oil changes. Any problems
> >> would have been covered by a warranty. Ever notice when somebody
> >> comes "into money" from a lottery or inheritance the first thing
> >> they buy is a new car. LOL
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> mike hunt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 'nuther Bob wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:09:50 GMT, BenDover@mailcity.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >The guy looking at new cars so he must be able to afford a new
> >> > >car. The only people that buy used cars are those that can't
> >> > >offered to buy a new car.
> >> >
> >> > Lots of us can "afford" a new car. Some of us realize that you
> >> > can save $10K buy a two year old off lease car and get everything
> >> > but the new car smell and a big loss in our "investment" over the
> >> > next two years. Put that $10K into a real investment, it's $150K
> >> > when you retire. Go ahead, you decide. If your money, and if you can
> >> > as you say "afford to buy a new car" I'm sure you already have
> >> > $2m in the bank for retirement anyway.
> >> >
> >> > >Why buy something that somebody
> >> > >else no longer wanted and one that you can never know for
> >> > >sure what type of use or abuse it was subjected to or what
> >> > >service it did or did not receive?
> >> >
> >> > People who lease cars turn them in in 2 or 3 years. The don't turn
> >> > them in because they're broken, they turn them in because the lease
> >> > is up and they want another new car. In fact, most of these folks
> >> > are very careful with their cars because they don't want to pay extra
> >> > money to the leasing company at turn in. If you now something about
> >> > cars, you start by looking at reliable makes, then you look for a
> >> > car that's cosmetically perfect (it's been cared for) then you look
> >> > at the mechanics and buy one that has no problems or abnormal wear.
> >> > It's not hard.
> >> >
> >> > Now, we could discuss the people who lease and turn in their car
> >> > every three years. Not only do they need a "new" car, but they've been
> >> > suckered in by the leasing people into believing that leasing a car is
> >> > even better because you get an even pricier car for the same money
> >> > per month. Salesmen have been "selling the monthly payment" for years
> >> > and suckers buy in. Somehow I think most of the folks leasing could
> >> > use a course in "managing your finances" too.
> >> >
> >> > A car is a *depreciating* asset. The first two years incur *major*
> >> > depreciation. It doesn't make sense to buy a highly depreciating
> >> > asset at high cost when a lower depreciating asset at lower cost
> >> > will do the same job.
> >> >
> >> > YMMV, some people just gotta fill up that ego bank with a new car.
> >> >
> >> > Bob
> >

 

when u quote the number 99.999999%, u mean to say that there r atleast a
million members who have ever posted a message here.

"'nuther Bob" <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:6rv7hvkpgu9af0uv9rhmcaqv0or0eb1c69@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:07:04 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> >That is why I said people that can AFFORD a new car, buys a new
> >car. If one must make a choice between a new car and the other
> >things in life, than he can't afford a new car.
>
> I'll make a rash statement then: 99.999999% of usenet posters are
> not independently wealthy and would be better off putting the
> $6-10K in their retirement plan - if they could separate the
> purpose of the car from their ego.
>
> I'm not advocating buying the least expensive car you can get. Buy
> what you like. But, buy smart.
>
> >Contrary to what
> >you may believe, you can never know for sure what type of use or
> >abuse a sued car was subjected to or what service it did or did
> >not receive, no matter how 'good' it appears the day you buy it.
>
> True. But you're paying thousands and thousands of dollars for
> that "warranty" you get with a new car.
>
> >When one chooses that two year old car they are choosing one with
> >30K miles on the clock readily for its first big service, set of
> >tires and nearly out of warranty.
>
> Could be, depends on the car. Some two year old cars only have 20K
> on the clock. The price is almost as low as the 30K cars since time
> is more a factor in book depreciation than miles. You can also
> but cars that come with 4/50 warranties. Or, if you don't like to
> gamble, buy an extended warranty - most cars cost less than $1K
> for a few years.
>
> For me, the excuse of buying tires is great. I get to purchase a
> real set of tires instead of the factory nonsense. Give me an
> excuse to buy shocks/struts too, I love it.
>
> >On the other hand the previous
> >owner only needed to do a half dozen oil changes.
>
> And he paid $10K for the privilege.
>
> >Any problems
> >would have been covered by a warranty. Ever notice when somebody
> >comes "into money" from a lottery or inheritance the first thing
> >they buy is a new car. LOL
>
> I have noticed that. I've also seen a lot of people who can barely
> afford to pay the mortgage, or can't afford a vacation, or good
> furniture, go out and buy a new car with long paybacks and/or
> disadvantageous leases. They'd be better off with a used car
> for thousands less, even if they need to sink a couple of bucks
> into it.
>
> Auto manufacturers are great at marketing
> and selling, auto salesmen are great at selling the monthly payment,
> and peoples egos keep the whole thing going.
>
> Bob