• filter:
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
I recently started tracking my monthly expenses because I wanted to effectively calculate exactly how much the fluctuations in my net worth were affected by the ups and downs in the stock market and how much those fluctuations in my net worth were affected by my spending habits.  I use an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of everything, and although the worksheets have become rather complex and full of a lot of information, much of which might not be all that relevant, it's still, at its core, a basic Excel spreadsheet with several worksheets.

One aspect of my total net worth that's not affected by either the market or by my spending is the depreciation of my owned and fully paid off vehicle, a 2013 Nissan Rogue.  Over the past 22 months, it has depreciated at least $7K, which comes out to about $318/month.

Assuming gas, maintenance, and insurance would be a similar price for a similar leased vehicle, would it not be a better financial decision to trade in the 2013 vehicle and lease a similar new 2017 vehicle for around $250-300/month?  I used to drive around 15,000 miles/year, but now it's more like 10,000 miles/year.  Even if my monthly lease payment breaks even with what the depreciation would have cost me on the 2013 vehicle, I'm still getting the benefit of driving a brand new car instead of a four year old car.

Where's the hole in this strategy?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Bought a '99 Camry for $7,500 when it came off a 48 mo lease in early 2003 and still driving it.  No major transmission ... (more)

ach1199 (Jan. 19, 2017 @ 11:09a) |

Trade in (not retail/private) per KBB on a 2010 SHO is 13K or so.  Depreciation isn't linear, to say its still worth 35%... (more)

RedWolfe01 (Jan. 19, 2017 @ 1:34p) |

96 Accord bought in 2003 for $4k now the private sale price in fair condition is about $1k. The avg depreciation cost is... (more)

sclantw (Jan. 20, 2017 @ 12:18a) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
Your strategy only works if you want to continue driving new cars.

If you decide to "drive the car into the ground," you can win the depreciation game. A 10 year old car depreciates a lot slower than your 3-4 year old one.

rated:
DTASFAB said:   
Where's the hole in this strategy?

  
Your monthly depreciation isn't a constant $318/mo.  You've already eaten the largest amounts, and each month that number will drop closer and closer to $0.

rated:
phisher4 said:   Your strategy only works if you want to continue driving new cars.

If you decide to "drive the car into the ground," you can win the depreciation game. A 10 year old car depreciates a lot slower than your 3-4 year old one.

  Also, the # was probably comparing cars of different class. A sedan vs a SUV.

rated:
You many have to pay sales tax on the full price of the car. Insurance is higher on a new car.

rated:
DTASFAB said:   
Where's the hole in this strategy?

  
The hole is that the best move would be to avoid leasing a new car, sell your current car and buy one that's further along its depreciation curve.  I hear you can get a good deal on a Crown Vic. :-D

Put another way (as others have mentioned): The math won't work long-term.  You're assuming the car's value will drop another 7k in the next 22 months, maintaining the $318/mo average, but depreciation is a curve and eventually it will plateau.  The numbers won't work if you run them on a 5 or 10 year time horizon since older cars depreciate less.  My 13 year old car depreciates at roughly $41/mo now, but 12 years ago it was depreciating at a rate closer to yours.  Following your logic I would have had 3-4 new cars since then, which would most definitely have hurt my net worth.

rated:
atikovi said:   You many have to pay sales tax on the full price of the car. Insurance is higher on a new car.
  Just to clarify

Full insurance is high on the new car but liability portion has nothing to do with your car

rated:
faloun said:   
DTASFAB said:   
Where's the hole in this strategy?

  
The hole is that the best move would be to avoid leasing a new car, sell your current car and buy one that's further along its depreciation curve.  I hear you can get a good deal on a Crown Vic. :-D

Put another way (as others have mentioned): The math won't work long-term.  You're assuming the car's value will drop another 7k in the next 22 months, maintaining the $318/mo average, but depreciation is a curve and eventually it will plateau.  The numbers won't work if you run them on a 5 or 10 year time horizon since older cars depreciate less.  My 13 year old car depreciates at roughly $41/mo now, but 12 years ago it was depreciating at a rate closer to yours.  Following your logic I would have had 3-4 new cars since then, which would most definitely have hurt my net worth.

  well that strategy did not work for me well

I had a Hyundai Accent and a Toyota Yaris and then a Toyota Corolla. All purchased as used and they all had tons of problems

Maybe I am behind times and I relied on Toyota too much. but the quality is not there anymore. If the car is old it will have problems

rated:
I should add there are a couple issues with the current vehicle. First is that it was vandalized a couple months ago, keyed in three places (IOW, three unique distinct scratches) and it needs a new fuel door, which will have to be painted. Two of the three scratches are light enough that a good buffing would make them almost unnoticeable, but the third one definitely is rather deep. To have the entire repair done properly at a real Body Shop would cost over $2K because of the amount of paint work needed (basically almost a quarter of the car). If I take it to a detail place, they might be able to conceal the deep scratch by using filler. Regardless, I will still need a fuel door that will have to be painted, so best case scenario, I'm looking at probably about $800-1000 out of pocket for an acceptable repair. I don't want to file an insurance claim because the amount is too small. Deductible is $500.

The other issue is that it has 47,000 miles and needs new tires. I've never had an alignment done, so the first thing I'm going to do after having tires installed (cost of around $500-600) is a four-wheel alignment, which will cost another $90-100. The brake pads still have a lot of material remaining right now, but this model is notorious for warped rotors because it's a 3400 pound vehicle that uses the 2800 pound Sentra braking system. If I keep the vehicle long-term, I'm probably going to want to replace the pads and rotors by 60,000 miles to smooth out the shaking in the steering wheel, even if the pads still have some life in them at that time.

$318/month over 22 months isn't that much less than the overall depreciation of $380/month in the 42 months since I drove it off the lot for the first time.

By the time the depreciation curve gets down to be almost negligible, the vehicle will be at least 10 years old and likely to start having significant repair problems. I fully understand the amount of monthly depreciation decreases as the vehicle gets older, but it seems like that's really only financially beneficial beyond 10 years of ownership.

I guess the question is, would it be better to liquidate the $10-11K in equity I could get for it right now, or wait six years and get little for it when it's 10 years old? I don't see myself keeping it longer than 10 years total.

rated:
DTASFAB: You're describing nickle and dime stuff. Tires are consumables. 47,000 miles? The car is just getting good. Keep it at least another 4-5 years, get up to 100k and then decide what to do.

Who's to say your "new" leased car won't get keyed?

Things break on cars. But you can buy a whole lot of tires when you don't have a car payment every month.

rated:
DTASFAB said:   The other issue is that it has 47,000 miles and needs new tires. I've never had an alignment done, so the first thing I'm going to do after having tires installed (cost of around $500-600) is a four-wheel alignment, which will cost another $90-100. 
  If you got 47,000 miles out of your tires, I doubt it needs an alignment. Just something else the tire store wants to sell you.

rated:
Ok I guess I'll keep it for a while longer. Thanks everybody.

rated:
fleetwoodmac said:   
atikovi said:   You many have to pay sales tax on the full price of the car. Insurance is higher on a new car.
  Just to clarify

Full insurance is high on the new car but liability portion has nothing to do with your car

 Full insurance is exactly the kind of insurance he will need if he is leasing.

rated:
DTASFAB said:   I recently started tracking my monthly expenses because I wanted to effectively calculate exactly how much the fluctuations in my net worth were affected by the ups and downs in the stock market and how much those fluctuations in my net worth were affected by my spending habits.  I use an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of everything, and although the worksheets have become rather complex and full of a lot of information, much of which might not be all that relevant, it's still, at its core, a basic Excel spreadsheet with several worksheets.

One aspect of my total net worth that's not affected by either the market or by my spending is the depreciation of my owned and fully paid off vehicle, a 2013 Nissan Rogue.  Over the past 22 months, it has depreciated at least $7K, which comes out to about $318/month.

Assuming gas, maintenance, and insurance would be a similar price for a similar leased vehicle, would it not be a better financial decision to trade in the 2013 vehicle and lease a similar new 2017 vehicle for around $250-300/month?  I used to drive around 15,000 miles/year, but now it's more like 10,000 miles/year.  Even if my monthly lease payment breaks even with what the depreciation would have cost me on the 2013 vehicle, I'm still getting the benefit of driving a brand new car instead of a four year old car.

Where's the hole in this strategy?

  
The hole in your strategy is that the depreciation going forward the next 2 years of your lease is going to be far less than it was in the last 2 years. While it varies depending on vehicle, just lookup the Nissan Rogue depreciation estimates from edmunds or others. Also according to consumer reports, car ownership main expense remains depreciation for the first 8 years so you're early in that process. Once you start leasing, your cost of ownership are pretty much fixed at whatever your lease is plus new vehicle sale/registration/license fees. Tack on higher insurance as well.

Thinking in terms of the next 10 years, your annual cost of ownership on your current car are gonna be depreciation + maintenance (outside of routine like oil changes etc). Say you lease for $300/month (rolling into that the 3 downpayments on new leases every 3 years or so, and extra insurance), in 10 years you will have spent $36k on your leases minus the ROI on money coming from sale of current car invested somewhere at no risk (not gonna be a lot realistically). Your depreciation on your current car is it's current value minus its value in 10 years which is only gonna be like $2-3k. The remaining unknown is the non-routine maintenance costs for your current car. If that plus the current car depreciation is below $36k, keeping your current car is the financially better option. But that also depends on whether your car being in the shop now and then will cost you in terms of income generation. That depends on your work so it's something to think about. 

My favorite way to look at it, is to think about how the dealer calculates your lease payment. To make break even for the dealer, a 3-yr lease has to cover the difference between how much the dealer can get for a new car sale and how much they would get for the same 3-yr old car with the agreed amount of miles on it. Since there'd be 0 maintenance on it, the lease amount has to basically cover the 3 years of depreciation on new cars which are known to be the worst, especially the first year. So in terms of total cost of ownership, I think this is the strongest argument. So for me, that makes it hard to think of a scenario where your cost of ownership would be less in a scheme where you're constantly paying the first 2-5 years of depreciation on your cars. (and I'd love to hear a coherent counter argument because I'm driving a 15-yr old camry lol)

rated:
Shandril said:   
Thinking in terms of the next 10 years, your annual cost of ownership on your current car are gonna be depreciation + maintenance (outside of routine like oil changes etc). Say you lease for $300/month (rolling into that the 3 downpayments on new leases every 3 years or so, and extra insurance), in 10 years you will have spent $36k on your leases minus the ROI on money coming from sale of current car invested somewhere at no risk (not gonna be a lot realistically). Your depreciation on your current car is it's current value minus its value in 10 years which is only gonna be like $2-3k. The remaining unknown is the non-routine maintenance costs for your current car. If that plus the current car depreciation is below $36k, keeping your current car is the financially better option. But that also depends on whether your car being in the shop now and then will cost you in terms of income generation. That depends on your work so it's something to think about. 

Right... this makes total sense.  But it possibly only makes sense because the $16-17K my current vehicle has already depreciated since I bought it is a sunken cost that can never be recovered.  This is why in my case, it's definitely better to just keep what I have.
Shandril said:   
My favorite way to look at it, is to think about how the dealer calculates your lease payment. To make break even for the dealer, a 3-yr lease has to cover the difference between how much the dealer can get for a new car sale and how much they would get for the same 3-yr old car with the agreed amount of miles on it. Since there'd be 0 maintenance on it, the lease amount has to basically cover the 3 years of depreciation on new cars which are known to be the worst, especially the first year. So in terms of total cost of ownership, I think this is the strongest argument. So for me, that makes it hard to think of a scenario where your cost of ownership would be less in a scheme where you're constantly paying the first 2-5 years of depreciation on your cars. (and I'd love to hear a coherent counter argument because I'm driving a 15-yr old camry lol)

This is a good argument for buying vs. leasing, but it depends on what kind of deal you can get in either payment format.  If you want something with a $35K MSRP that you can buy for $34.5K OTD or lease that same vehicle for $390/month with $3K down, that 36-month lease will cost $17,040.  Assuming you could repeat the same deal three years later on another vehicle (three model years newer) at the end of the lease for the same price, six years will double the cost to $34,080.  So after six years, you've basically broken even compared to buying for $34.5K OTD, and you've never had to drive a vehicle that was older than 2.X years at any time during that six-year period.  The added cost is that you lose whatever equity would have been left in the original six-year old vehicle if you had originally purchased it rather than leased it.  Another potential hidden cost is that you may experience anxiety about going over the mileage limit on either or both 36-month leases that you wouldn't have found bothersome if you had owned the first vehicle outright.

rated:
@ Shandrill - Exactly right. Calculate the depreciation on my 2000 Mustang. Car was purchased new for $15K in 2000. Probably $2,000 in non-maintenance repair since then. That's like $90/mo. So I figure I've saved $40K+ vs leasing a new car during that time. Of course, my old mustang isn't quite as nice as a new corolla, but I'll take the cash. And insurance has been dirt cheap for the last 9 years.

rated:
Leasing is generally the most expensive way to own a car. There are a few exceptions where the manufacturer underestimates how much a car will depreciate but generally it is true. An example was the Nissan Leaf... electric cars depreciated a lot more than expected leaving Nissan with huge losses.

If you want to own new cars, it is going to cost a lot. I have a 11 year old car that just hit 10 cents a mile (paid $18,300 new, just hit 183,000 miles). I doubt I'll ever buy a new car again but at least I got my money's worth.

Cars generally depreciate 60-70% after year 5. If you want to reduce your car expense you need to buy older cars or keep them a lot longer. 

 

rated:
You've been on FWF a while. How many times have you seen a thread where someone comes in and essentially asks what you are asking?

"Should I lease a new car?"

The answer from FWF is always the same...

NO

You've done a lot more legwork than the average "should I lease a new car?" poster. But that still doesn't change the answer. If you want to do it, go ahead. But don't expect FWF to tell you it's a good idea.

rated:
American brands depreciate much faster than Toyota and Honda though

rated:
Best decision: Buy middle-aged car of reliable repute, and drive it into the ground. Repeat.

rated:
catanpirate said:   Best decision: Buy middle-aged car of reliable repute, and drive it into the ground. Repeat.
  give me a reliable repute car

I tried Toyotas and Hondas and after 5-6 years they all have its own problems

rated:
meade18 said:   
You've done a lot more legwork than the average "should I lease a new car?" poster. But that still doesn't change the answer. If you want to do it, go ahead. But don't expect FWF to tell you it's a good idea.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a good idea.  All I'm saying is that if you get a good deal on a lease, the added overall long-term cost might not be that great compared to buying and holding for a long time.  To some people, the benefit of always driving a newer car might be worth that extra cost, depending on *how much* extra we're talking about.  But I totally agree, it's easier to do well in terms of overall cost to buy rather than lease.  To have it all work out in your favor in the long run, all the stars have to align perfectly, and it's still probably going to cost a little more to lease than to buy.

IOW, you can get ripped off by a sleazy dealer when you buy a car and end up paying $1K more than you would have paid if you'd negotiated better.  If you keep the car 20 years, that $1K averages $50/year.  If you sign a bad lease OTOH, you're flat out screwed.

rated:
fleetwoodmac said:   
catanpirate said:   Best decision: Buy middle-aged car of reliable repute, and drive it into the ground. Repeat.
  give me a reliable repute car

I tried Toyotas and Hondas and after 5-6 years they all have its own problems

  I have been very lucky with my Honda.  I have a 2006 civic less than 100k miles on it and other than basic maintenance Breaks, tires,, etc.) I have had zero issues.
.
I agree overall Toyotas and Honda's keep their value better than the US brands.

rated:
fleetwoodmac said:   
catanpirate said:   Best decision: Buy middle-aged car of reliable repute, and drive it into the ground. Repeat.
  give me a reliable repute car

I tried Toyotas and Hondas and after 5-6 years they all have its own problems

  
I have two Toyotas:

1999 Camry purchased for $7,500 in 2003, still going strong.  Normal wear items tires, brakes, muffler, oil change, battery, timing belt and tune-up.
2001 Sienna purchase for $8,500 in 2005, still going fine.  Tires, brakes, muffler, tune ups, oil change, batteries, timing belt, valve cover/intake gaskets, Air/fuel sensors, Knock sensor (the Knock sensor was a major one where it would have cost me $1,500 but I ended up doing it myself and saved $1,200 in labor thanks to instructions posted by others on the internet.)

As you can see most of the items are for normal wear and tear.  I am looking to replace both of these as my kids wants us to have a newer cars so we're looking at Toyota's again....May be 2013-2014 Highlander and Rav4.

rated:
ach1199 said:   
fleetwoodmac said:   
catanpirate said:   Best decision: Buy middle-aged car of reliable repute, and drive it into the ground. Repeat.
  give me a reliable repute car

I tried Toyotas and Hondas and after 5-6 years they all have its own problems

  
I have two Toyotas:

1999 Camry purchased for $7,500 in 2003, still going strong.  Normal wear items tires, brakes, muffler, oil change, battery, timing belt and tune-up.
2001 Sienna purchase for $8,500 in 2005, still going fine.  Tires, brakes, muffler, tune ups, oil change, batteries, timing belt, valve cover/intake gaskets, Air/fuel sensors, Knock sensor (the Knock sensor was a major one where it would have cost me $1,500 but I ended up doing it myself and saved $1,200 in labor thanks to instructions posted by others on the internet.)

As you can see most of the items are for normal wear and tear.  I am looking to replace both of these as my kids wants us to have a newer cars so we're looking at Toyota's again....May be 2013-2014 Highlander and Rav4.

  those are old Toyotas

the new ones are different, I heard some parts are made in China now if not most

rated:
It's not that complicated. You want a new car every 3 years? You will pay extra for it when you lease. "Depreciation" means "people will pay more for a newer car." If you lease, "people" in this instance is "you."

You mention that a lease costs half the value of the car, so why not just lease 2 new cars over 6 years? Well, if you do that, after 6 years you have spent $35K and have no car (you must buy/lease a new one or take the bus). If you buy, after 6 years you have spent $35K and own a car that is worth $X. And maybe you can drive that car another 3, or 6, or 9 years (mine is 15 years old and I still love it) with $0 car payment. So after 15 years, you can spend $87.5K (to always drive newer cars) or spend $35K (and still own something at the end!).

If you can afford to lease a new car every 3 years, hey, it's your money. But it IS more expensive. Know that. Don't rationalize what you want by pretending you figured out some free lunch and that it won't cost you any more.

rated:
New Car Games: The only winning move is not to play

rated:
If you simply buy a 3-5 year old used car, most of the depreciation cost has already been shouldered by someone else. You are trying to find an equate depreciation with a car payment as an excuse to buy a new car. Financially it makes the most sense to buy used and drive it into the ground. Your monthly cost is about $50/month in depreciation.

rated:
It is possible to save thousands by keeping your car for 10 to 20 years. Still driving a 97 Lexus that was purchased used in 2000 for 22.5. Maybe 1500 in repairs including timing belt so far. Current mileage 180 K. Now the car is slowly showing issues that I do not want to fix. So another car is in my horoscope for 2017. However, one thing is if you get into a saver's mindset, it is really hard to spend the money you saved

rated:
I noticed that a car's value and its depreciation rate generally halve every 5 years, varying somewhat depending on the reputation of the car (For example, Toyotas hold value better than GMs).

A $20k car is worth about $10k in five years, $5k after another five years, and $2.5k in another five years.

rated:
I have gotten some good deals buying dealer demos or similar cars. I get to be the 'first' owner on the title, I get most of the benefit of the warranty and I get the advantage of the drive-it-off-the-lot depreciation plus a little more.

rated:
I tend to do the same. I buy a brand new, "1 at this price" type deal, or use that as leverage to get a similar priced deal. I buy sensible cars that are used for transportation. Drive it forever and do most maintenance myself. Last car got me to 150k and 11 years before I bought a new one. This one is 2 years in and just getting good.

rated:
My sweet spot for buying cars has been those with just over 100K miles, only when the previous owners have all maintenance records. Why 100K? Well, assuming they had proper work done, most of the major consumables/suspension parts and others have already been replaced at least once and probably in the last 25K miles.

At this point, there is really very little depreciation left either.

rated:
meade18 said:   You've been on FWF a while. How many times have you seen a thread where someone comes in and essentially asks what you are asking?

"Should I lease a new car?"

The answer from FWF is always the same...

NO

You've done a lot more legwork than the average "should I lease a new car?" poster. But that still doesn't change the answer. If you want to do it, go ahead. But don't expect FWF to tell you it's a good idea.

  I would disagree with always a NO.  It all depends on the car cost, car usage, your financial situation, opportunity cost, etc
For example, a business deduction for a leased vehicle can be made pretty straightforward, and it's essentially uncapped (minus tiny inclusion amount). Where depreciation deduction for a passenger vehicle was capped at (2016)  $11,160.  So, if you bought a car that depreciated 20K (cars over $90K) during that year, you are not using your full depreciation deduction.   For some people that are in the highest tax bracket, that adds up to a nice chuck of money.  This makes even more sense if you intend to buy a vehicle after the lease ends anyway.
However, I view this as more advanced financial awareness, and agree that for most of the population leasing should be a NO.

rated:
DTASFAB said:   
meade18 said:   
You've done a lot more legwork than the average "should I lease a new car?" poster. But that still doesn't change the answer. If you want to do it, go ahead. But don't expect FWF to tell you it's a good idea.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a good idea.  All I'm saying is that if you get a good deal on a lease, the added overall long-term cost might not be that great compared to buying and holding for a long time.  To some people, the benefit of always driving a newer car might be worth that extra cost, depending on *how much* extra we're talking about.  But I totally agree, it's easier to do well in terms of overall cost to buy rather than lease.  To have it all work out in your favor in the long run, all the stars have to align perfectly, and it's still probably going to cost a little more to lease than to buy.

IOW, you can get ripped off by a sleazy dealer when you buy a car and end up paying $1K more than you would have paid if you'd negotiated better.  If you keep the car 20 years, that $1K averages $50/year.  If you sign a bad lease OTOH, you're flat out screwed.

  
The benefit of always driving a newer car is very real, but also very subjective. The benefit of not having a car payment (or a much lower payment) is much easier to measure, and is often the preferred benefit of members of FWF. 

Driving a "newer" car also depends on your circumstances. I have a 12 year old car right now. I could buy a "newer" car every 3-5 years (and resell the "older" one) pretty easily. l bought my car for cash when it was 7 years old with 160,000 miles and have had it for 5 years. If I bought the same model, but 5 years newer today after selling my car, I would probably pay a similar amount ($9,000 in cash) to own the newer version than I did 5 years ago. Figure $9,000 over five years to own a car from the 7-12 year old range comes out to $150/month. That's not bad considering if I bought the new model version of this car it would cost $727/month. If someone handed you $577 a month to drive a 7-12 year old version of your car, would you take it? Sure, a 7 year old car isn't new, but it sure FEELS new after driving a 12 year old car; the same way that driving a brand new car feels new after driving a 5 year old car.

rated:
codename47 said:   If you simply buy a 3-5 year old used car, most of the depreciation cost has already been shouldered by someone else. 
  
I would pin this more on the 5-year horizon. Depending on the brand, and depending on where you buy, it can be within 10% of new to buy similar models used when whatever forces (general popularity, price of gas, market upturn) make the used car pricing depreciate less. 

I'm not saying to buy new. I'm saying to look for lower mileage, 5-10 year-old cars.

rated:
codename47 said:   If you simply buy a 3-5 year old used car, most of the depreciation cost has already been shouldered by someone else. You are trying to find an equate depreciation with a car payment as an excuse to buy a new car. Financially it makes the most sense to buy used and drive it into the ground. Your monthly cost is about $50/month in depreciation.
  That's why I'm keeping what I have.  I know everything that's wrong with mine, and it's mechanically sound and reliable.  There's no point in trading it for someone else's version of what's essentially the same thing.

rated:
Lease will rarely compare favorably with buying a quality vehicle at a fair price and running it for 10-15 years. I bought a new 06 RAV4 for $24k. It now has 165,000 miles and is worth $7000, give or take. That's $17k depreciation in 10.5 years, or $135 per month. Add in repairs and maintenance and my out of pocket costs are still far less than the lease you are talking about, approximately 60% the cost.

If you can afford a new vehicle very few years then go for it. However, you can't justify the new vehicle on the basis of wealth creation.

rated:
smart financial decision would be don't buy new car, get a beater for 2-3k, drive it to the ground.

Skipping 91 Messages...
rated:
ach1199 said:   
 
  Bought a '99 Camry for $7,500 when it came off a 48 mo lease in early 2003 and still driving it.  No major transmission or engine issues.  My depreciation cost around $50/mo.  No the most beautiful looking car in the world but it gets me from point A to point B and it has NEVER stranded me in the last 14 years.
 

96 Accord bought in 2003 for $4k now the private sale price in fair condition is about $1k. The avg depreciation cost is around $17/mo. It has treated me well.
My next car will be a low mileage reliable model that is about 8 yrs old. It seems like a sweet spot to me. Though with Trump having more new cars to be manufactured in the US, it could mean higher price to purchase the car new. If the avg. income does not increase (not sure about the combined effect from trade war, tax and regulations that may change), then more people will choose buying used cars which raises the used car price as result. Maybe it's a good idea to get the used car sooner than later..
 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017