Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Rebuttal to the Buy A Nice Car blog post

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Zaphod
    replied


    .
    Click to expand...


    What part doesnt have a ton of evidence?

    The safety part certainly does. You're more than twice as likely to die in an accident if in a smaller vehicle vs. a larger one, there is data for all classes. Now they arent "safer" necessarily, but with their larger mass and crumple zones, etc...they transfer that risk to the smaller vehicle. When the car mix on the road shifts to only SUVs, there will be zero advantage, but of course still a large disadvantage if not.

    You do not need a fancy car to get safety, just bigger than the average one.

    Leave a comment:


  • ginmqi
    replied
    Craig,

    Very good point and one that I had not considered. I do know that automakers share platforms across models (my Acura TL and the Accord share a platform for example) but that makes sense that the smaller SUVs share sedan platforms.

    The Land Cruiser and other large SUVs would definitely provide that large mass and height advantage. Cost would be an issue as well as reliability compared to other, nicer brands. And of course here comes the arena where spending will need to be decided by the buyer...whether it's worth it to get that bigger vehicle. The Millionaire Next Door defnitely won't approve as much...though a great book nevertheless!

    I actually just saw the new Ford's website on the '18 Expedition...looks gigantic! The front end styling is not really my cup of tea and honestly seems like a deformed Ford Edge front end....and I don't want to know the MPG...though I heard they only offer Ecoboost now and no V8 for the new Expedition (probably to save whatever meager MPG they can)

    Thanks for the insight and our factual back and forth. I do and will likely consider SUVs as well in my future car purchase. A friend's sister is a PharmD and drives in a Infiniti QX56 (same as an Armada, as you mentioned) and the higher ride height is quite nice and you can easily see over many things and can be very useful to the safe driver. The gauge cluster is totally messed up though (RPM gauge not working at all) and is about $700 to replace apparently....hence my gravitation towards Land Cruisers....likely will try for used example but they are a legendary marque (of Top Gear fame of the undying truck brand....) and hence used prices will even be inflated....

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied










    Technology has certainly improved rollover risk dramatically and we’re all very thankful for that.

    Looking at the data it is very true, from the IIHS, that overall death rates for SUV as a vehicle type is quite low from that link you cited.

    But if you look at those quotes they do not address the fact that SUVs still do rollover much more so than cars. Again physics. (I don’t see how our current level of technology can break the law of physics/equations….) Those quotes specifically tout the low death rate, which is true…and the lower rollover risk than before…which is also true.

    But the IIHS states this on their own website regarding rollover risk for SUV:

    source: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/rollover-crashes/qanda
    Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?




    Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. In 2014, 50 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 44 percent of deaths in pickups and 22 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.

    Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. SUVs and pickups are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to roll over than a lower-riding vehicle. 2

    Driver behavior may contribute to the increased rollover involvement rate of SUVs and pickups. Pickups and SUVs are more likely than cars to be driven on rural roads, where rollovers occur more frequently. Lower belt use among pickup occupants 3 means they are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured when rollovers occur.”




     

    The sheer number of fatalities by pure number are higher due to more people buying them these days but the rates are lower.
    How has the number of rollover fatalities changed over time?

    The number of fatalities in rollover crashes on U.S. roads increased as SUVs became more popular. However, the newest SUVs have much lower rollover fatality rates than earlier models and even have lower rates than the newest cars. For 1-3-year-old passenger vehicles of all types, the rollover fatality rate has declined from 27 driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 2000 to 6 deaths per million in 2014. “

     

    Looks like rollovers overall are a small % of crash types, about 2%, but they are quite deadly. And with the ESC the cars that STILL rollover are probably more severe/harsh in their circumstances leading to likely more serious crashes. Definitely a safe behavior is to always wear seatbelts and drive safely with proper maintenance/tires and not to always trust technology to save you.

    In general given the rarity of the rollovers, even though SUVs are more likely to do so than cars, and given that in other crashes SUVs will fare better I do see a logical reason to go for SUVs rather than smaller/lighter cars. Whether it’s worth it financially is up to the buyer. I myself am very intrigued by this and I’ll likely look at SUVs as a potential vehicle type in my future car buying list.
    Click to expand…


    You’ll settle on an SUV, its just the overall best mix of features and safety. Picking even the one spot that its not as good at is way overshadowed by the relative infrequency of that event. Nothings perfect. There are lots of reasonably priced SUVs, you dont have to have the biggest or a Lexus, its more the mass that matters and Im sure Toyotas are very similar to their Lexus counterparts.
    Click to expand…


    Indeed. Perhaps smaller sized SUVs would be viable as well? CR-V or RAV4. Though of course a Toyota Sequoia/Land Cruiser is always a possibility. Defnitely would go for a Toyota Land Cruiser as it is essentially same as a Lexus LX. Though the sticker price on Land Cruiser is still quite a bit. Will definitely need to look in the used market for these
    Click to expand...


    CRV and Rav-4 are Civic and Corolla based, respectively, so you're going to have less mass, lower height, smaller crumple zones, etc.  However, the passengers do ride a little higher so in theory it would be a little safer.  Any modern Honda or Toyota product should offer a modern crash structure, but after that, mass is really king followed by depth of crumple zone and height.

    At some point though buying based on mass and size gets a little ridiculous, even though The Millionaire Next Door would beg to differ .  There was a Comedians in Cars getting Coffee episode with Jimmy Fallon and I want to say they were driving a classic Corvette, and Fallon asked Seinfeld if he worries about the lack of belts, airbags, etc.  Seinfeld said something to the effect of "how often do you use the airbags?" and that's pretty true.   :lol:

    Yes the LX and the Land Cruiser are the same thing.  Personally I really like the Land Cruiser but IMO it's a bit outdated compared to its competition, and priced very high to boot.  For new Land Cruiser money you could have a Range Rover, Merc GLS, Audi Q7, Volvo XC90, all of which are arguably much nicer vehicles.  That said, you probably wouldn't want to own any of those outside their warranty periods, whereas the Toyota and Lexus products are designed to have a product lifetime of 25 years.  On the more budget-friendly side, Nissan just launched its new Armada this year and Ford just unveiled its new 2018 Expedition literally today.  The Sequoia is less money but again, it has been virtually the same design with a few refreshes here and there for well over a decade now.

    Leave a comment:


  • ginmqi
    replied







    Technology has certainly improved rollover risk dramatically and we’re all very thankful for that.

    Looking at the data it is very true, from the IIHS, that overall death rates for SUV as a vehicle type is quite low from that link you cited.

    But if you look at those quotes they do not address the fact that SUVs still do rollover much more so than cars. Again physics. (I don’t see how our current level of technology can break the law of physics/equations….) Those quotes specifically tout the low death rate, which is true…and the lower rollover risk than before…which is also true.

    But the IIHS states this on their own website regarding rollover risk for SUV:

    source: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/rollover-crashes/qanda
    Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?




    Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. In 2014, 50 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 44 percent of deaths in pickups and 22 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.

    Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. SUVs and pickups are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to roll over than a lower-riding vehicle. 2

    Driver behavior may contribute to the increased rollover involvement rate of SUVs and pickups. Pickups and SUVs are more likely than cars to be driven on rural roads, where rollovers occur more frequently. Lower belt use among pickup occupants 3 means they are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured when rollovers occur.”




     

    The sheer number of fatalities by pure number are higher due to more people buying them these days but the rates are lower.
    How has the number of rollover fatalities changed over time?

    The number of fatalities in rollover crashes on U.S. roads increased as SUVs became more popular. However, the newest SUVs have much lower rollover fatality rates than earlier models and even have lower rates than the newest cars. For 1-3-year-old passenger vehicles of all types, the rollover fatality rate has declined from 27 driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 2000 to 6 deaths per million in 2014. “

     

    Looks like rollovers overall are a small % of crash types, about 2%, but they are quite deadly. And with the ESC the cars that STILL rollover are probably more severe/harsh in their circumstances leading to likely more serious crashes. Definitely a safe behavior is to always wear seatbelts and drive safely with proper maintenance/tires and not to always trust technology to save you.

    In general given the rarity of the rollovers, even though SUVs are more likely to do so than cars, and given that in other crashes SUVs will fare better I do see a logical reason to go for SUVs rather than smaller/lighter cars. Whether it’s worth it financially is up to the buyer. I myself am very intrigued by this and I’ll likely look at SUVs as a potential vehicle type in my future car buying list.
    Click to expand…


    You’ll settle on an SUV, its just the overall best mix of features and safety. Picking even the one spot that its not as good at is way overshadowed by the relative infrequency of that event. Nothings perfect. There are lots of reasonably priced SUVs, you dont have to have the biggest or a Lexus, its more the mass that matters and Im sure Toyotas are very similar to their Lexus counterparts.
    Click to expand...


    Indeed. Perhaps smaller sized SUVs would be viable as well? CR-V or RAV4. Though of course a Toyota Sequoia/Land Cruiser is always a possibility. Defnitely would go for a Toyota Land Cruiser as it is essentially same as a Lexus LX. Though the sticker price on Land Cruiser is still quite a bit. Will definitely need to look in the used market for these

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied




    Technology has certainly improved rollover risk dramatically and we’re all very thankful for that.

    Looking at the data it is very true, from the IIHS, that overall death rates for SUV as a vehicle type is quite low from that link you cited.

    But if you look at those quotes they do not address the fact that SUVs still do rollover much more so than cars. Again physics. (I don’t see how our current level of technology can break the law of physics/equations….) Those quotes specifically tout the low death rate, which is true…and the lower rollover risk than before…which is also true.

    But the IIHS states this on their own website regarding rollover risk for SUV:

    source: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/rollover-crashes/qanda
    Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?




    Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. In 2014, 50 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 44 percent of deaths in pickups and 22 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.

    Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. SUVs and pickups are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to roll over than a lower-riding vehicle. 2

    Driver behavior may contribute to the increased rollover involvement rate of SUVs and pickups. Pickups and SUVs are more likely than cars to be driven on rural roads, where rollovers occur more frequently. Lower belt use among pickup occupants 3 means they are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured when rollovers occur.”




     

    The sheer number of fatalities by pure number are higher due to more people buying them these days but the rates are lower.
    How has the number of rollover fatalities changed over time?

    The number of fatalities in rollover crashes on U.S. roads increased as SUVs became more popular. However, the newest SUVs have much lower rollover fatality rates than earlier models and even have lower rates than the newest cars. For 1-3-year-old passenger vehicles of all types, the rollover fatality rate has declined from 27 driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 2000 to 6 deaths per million in 2014. “

     

    Looks like rollovers overall are a small % of crash types, about 2%, but they are quite deadly. And with the ESC the cars that STILL rollover are probably more severe/harsh in their circumstances leading to likely more serious crashes. Definitely a safe behavior is to always wear seatbelts and drive safely with proper maintenance/tires and not to always trust technology to save you.

    In general given the rarity of the rollovers, even though SUVs are more likely to do so than cars, and given that in other crashes SUVs will fare better I do see a logical reason to go for SUVs rather than smaller/lighter cars. Whether it’s worth it financially is up to the buyer. I myself am very intrigued by this and I’ll likely look at SUVs as a potential vehicle type in my future car buying list.
    Click to expand...


    You'll settle on an SUV, its just the overall best mix of features and safety. Picking even the one spot that its not as good at is way overshadowed by the relative infrequency of that event. Nothings perfect. There are lots of reasonably priced SUVs, you dont have to have the biggest or a Lexus, its more the mass that matters and Im sure Toyotas are very similar to their Lexus counterparts.

    Leave a comment:


  • ginmqi
    replied
    Technology has certainly improved rollover risk dramatically and we're all very thankful for that.

    Looking at the data it is very true, from the IIHS, that overall death rates for SUV as a vehicle type is quite low from that link you cited.

    But if you look at those quotes they do not address the fact that SUVs still do rollover much more so than cars. Again physics. (I don't see how our current level of technology can break the law of physics/equations....) Those quotes specifically tout the low death rate, which is true...and the lower rollover risk than before...which is also true.

    But the IIHS states this on their own website regarding rollover risk for SUV:

    source: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/rollover-crashes/qanda
    "Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?




    Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. In 2014, 50 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 44 percent of deaths in pickups and 22 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.

    Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. SUVs and pickups are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to roll over than a lower-riding vehicle. 2

    Driver behavior may contribute to the increased rollover involvement rate of SUVs and pickups. Pickups and SUVs are more likely than cars to be driven on rural roads, where rollovers occur more frequently. Lower belt use among pickup occupants 3 means they are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured when rollovers occur."




     

    The sheer number of fatalities by pure number are higher due to more people buying them these days but the rates are lower.
    "How has the number of rollover fatalities changed over time?

    The number of fatalities in rollover crashes on U.S. roads increased as SUVs became more popular. However, the newest SUVs have much lower rollover fatality rates than earlier models and even have lower rates than the newest cars. For 1-3-year-old passenger vehicles of all types, the rollover fatality rate has declined from 27 driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 2000 to 6 deaths per million in 2014. "

     

    Looks like rollovers overall are a small % of crash types, about 2%, but they are quite deadly. And with the ESC the cars that STILL rollover are probably more severe/harsh in their circumstances leading to likely more serious crashes. Definitely a safe behavior is to always wear seatbelts and drive safely with proper maintenance/tires and not to always trust technology to save you.

    In general given the rarity of the rollovers, even though SUVs are more likely to do so than cars, and given that in other crashes SUVs will fare better I do see a logical reason to go for SUVs rather than smaller/lighter cars. Whether it's worth it financially is up to the buyer. I myself am very intrigued by this and I'll likely look at SUVs as a potential vehicle type in my future car buying list.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied
    Your claims re rollover risk are simply no longer backed up by the facts.

    Here's just some of the information out there:

    http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1
    A decade ago, SUVs had some of the highest rates, due to their propensity to roll over (see Status Report special issue: driver death rates, March 19, 2005). However, the spread of electronic stability control (ESC) through the fleet has dramatically lessened the risk of rollover crashes in these and all vehicles. The rollover death rate of 5 per million registered vehicle years for 2011 models is less than a quarter of what it was for 2004 models.

    With ESC dramatically reducing rollover risk, the inherent advantages offered by SUVs' greater size, weight and height emerge more clearly. Today's SUVs have the lowest driver death rate of any vehicle type.

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/autos/suv_rollover/
    Once feared for their dangerous rollover tendencies, high-riding SUVs are now much less likely to be involved in the deadly crashes than ordinary cars.

    In fact, someone driving a 2009 model year car is almost twice as likely to die in a rollover accident as someone driving a 2009 model year SUV.

    Sure, the Jeep product you cite is poor, but the whole segment shouldn't be judged by one or two poor performers.

    Arguments like overconfidence, driver ability have little merit since again the stats simply don't back up the claim that driving an SUV will somehow make you a less safe driver.  Good driving will help you be safer in any car.  And no matter how good a driver you are, it's not going to stop a bad driver from rear-ending you, running a red light, etc.  With all of the aggressive drivers out there in their pickups and SUVs, you really don't want to be the lightweight billiard ball on the table.

    The fact remains that modern SUVs are the safest place to be on the road by a very large margin.

    Leave a comment:


  • ginmqi
    replied




    This thread has reached rapidly diminishing returns, but I’ll go ahead and chime in anyway. I don’t think it matters whether a person making a high income buys a new car. What could make a difference in becoming FI is how often that person buys a new car since depreciation is not constant each year.
    Click to expand...


    I agree.

    The danger with buying the latest/greatest "safe" car mentality is that how often DO you replace your car?

    If you bought something new 10 years ago...it's obviously not as safe as modern day cars. Maybe every 5 years? It's difficult to tell. And of course if you are splurging on a large, luxury SUV with all the gadgets it could easily be 50k+ and that can be quite a financial hit.

    Modern cars I noticed have these little lights that flash on at the side mirrors when a car is next to them and these are becoming every more frequent and I suspect will become the standard very soon in new cars (if not already). This can be a great deterrent in lane change safety but at the same time I wonder if this will instill overconfidence in drivers who will start to rely on these technologies/computers more and more instead of safe driving habits. IE, just looking for that little amber light to change lanes instead of actually looking physically.

    Future car safety may be more and more associated with technology reliability.....

    Leave a comment:


  • ginmqi
    replied




    Okay I skimmed it, and coming from a rambler that was TL;DR.

    Bigger cars are safer, it is simply a physics problem. As long as there are smaller cars on the road this will be true, it is simply ke=mv^2, and that there is more space between you and the car. Its not really that they are safer, just relatively so, and its really a risk transfer to those in smaller cares. Think semi truck vs smart car. Thats all it is. If you can, bigger is better.

    On the luxury standpoint (discl. I own an RX350) there is more to just models, its the subset of buyers and the way they behave that make a bigger difference than the model. Its a different demo. I’d take a huge bet on that. Put 16 year old kids from lower SES into those vehicles and the stats would equal cheaper vehicles.

    There actually have been good engineering improvements over the last ten years (watch crash videos), within 5 years it doesnt matter as much. I personally have never bought a brand new car, it makes no sense. 1-3 years older seems a great balance point.
    Click to expand...


    That is a fair point regarding risk transfer of bigger vs smaller cars. Though of course model specific issues needs to be address as well as modern technology is helping alot. A demonstration of a 1959 Chevy Impala vs a 2009 Chevy Impala is quite dramatic. And as I already mentioned above SUV models are more prone to roll-over risk (again, simple physics rules applies here as well) and some models are terrible at it (look up the Jeep Grand Cherokee Moose Test....)

    Not to mention that certain SUV/pickup/large car drivers may have an over-confidence of their safety and in fact may drive less safe than if they had that sense of fear/caution. Ie, you see people in rainy/wintry conditions driving SUVs way too fast thinking that 4WD/AWD will help them stop faster (they do not) if they are not careful about driving technique and tires.

    The confounding of the type of buyer is very true and I addressed that as well in my OP. This is to show that just by looking at models is insufficient to say that you should buy this model because it is "safe" from a statistics point of view without knowing other factors of accidents.

    I do see a point in buying a 3-year old car if you're financially able.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donnie
    replied
    This thread has reached rapidly diminishing returns, but I'll go ahead and chime in anyway. I don't think it matters whether a person making a high income buys a new car. What could make a difference in becoming FI is how often that person buys a new car since depreciation is not constant each year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied






    Click to expand…


    The Durango was 8 years old, had 107K miles, and cost $4K when I bought it. I drove it for 6 years and then got $300 or so for it. There were a few repairs along the way, the most expensive a transmission at something like 125-130K miles, fairly expected for a Durango of that age.

    It’s not ancient and it wasn’t a $2K car. You must be thinking of the Mazda 626 I bought for $1850 as a new attending. Now that was a good deal. Sold 4 years later for $1500- only repair was a new battery and some wipers. The Durango wasn’t that good. I’m not even convinced it was all that much safer. I definitely prefer Sequoias.

    The current Sequoia I’m driving has 195K miles on it and is 12 year old. I’ll be surprised if I don’t get 5 more years out of it.
    Click to expand...


    Please forgive my anti-mopar bias    I remember back in peak '90s when the 1st-gen Durango first arrived, they were supremely cool.  I remember being really disappointed that my dad didn't buy one after a test drive, but at least my aunt did.  These days though, the very few early Durangos that survive where I live are all quite, quite rough and serve as a reminder that I am in a particularly insalubrious neighborhood or possibly at walmart.

    From a quick search of WCI, the first mention of it was circa 2011, but the first appearance was in 2015.  You know, this pic that kept popping up a lot from 2015-2016:



    I suspect by the time we first got that pic it was a $2,000 car    And I'm not going to do a forensic valuation, but I also suspect that in 2011 it wasn't far off from $2k.

    Yeah it's probably not a particularly safe vehicle, not many vehicles from the '90s were, particularly domestic.  However I would be very confident that it is substantially safer than a comparable Dodge (or Plymouth, Chrysler or Eagle) product of the same era, pre-Mercedes merger.

    Your old Sequoia is miles ahead of the Durango in the quality department.  Next 5 years should be easy.  I wouldn't be surprised if you got 300,000 miles out of it.  This guy pegged his odo at 999,999  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL7fyyUNRmA

     

     

     

    Leave a comment:


  • The White Coat Investor
    replied




    After reading your post a little more thoroughly, I’ll add regarding your examples:

    Definition of a beater – If you’re a long-time reader you’ll remember the editor’s beautiful classic Durango ?  This ancient Dodge Durango with a very solid six figures of mileage was a common guest star in WCI posts on cars.  I am no expert on Durango values, but I would venture to guess that this was somewhere in the neighborhood of a $750 to $2,000 car, at its best, most earliest guest star appearance on WCI.  Thankfully the ed has since let it die.

    If you’re still driving your mom’s hand-me-down Camry and it’s still running great, absolutely keep it long as you can.  But IMO a physician (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn’t go out and spend two or three grand on a used high mileage Mopar product and expect it to be a reliable source of transportation.

    Your 0 fatality examples – all of those are new cars, regardless of make and model ?  None of those are cheap used cars.  Also, I believe that list is different depending on where you look and when whoever it is starts their counting (you better believe many have died in a Kia Sorento  ? ).  But the theme whenever you look is always larger, luxury vehicles.

    Yes, you can absolutely get good safety tech on a Honda or Toyota.  But the best safety tech is found in their new and lightly-used offerings, and you have to spend extra to get things like autobrake/safety sense, etc.  You’re not going to get that in an old beater Honda or Toyota, period.  And then with a 10-year old Honda you’re liable to buy a car with a takata airbag grenade which will blow shrapnel though your chest if you get into a fender bender.   ?

    Two big things with safety ratings:  1) IIHS and NHTSA both clearly state and acknowledge that a top pick or 5-star car from a smaller class won’t pair up with a similarly rated car in another class.  This is just physics.  A Honda Accord has a longer crumple zone than a Honda Fit.  An F-150 has more mass, inertia and a higher ride height than a Ford Focus.  2) a top pick/5-star rated car from 1990 is not the same as one from today.  The testing gets more stringent every year, and as it goes up, manufacturers beef up the cars.  A funny tidbit here: after IIHS introduced the small overlap test, several manufacturers began beefing up the drivers side (the one commonly tested) but not the passenger side.  One of the worst offenders was Toyota who had completely asymmetrical crash structures, and this came out a couple years ago forcing another redesign.  So your 2016 or 2017 RAV4 is likely to be substantially safer than your 2014 or 2015, even just a couple years newer.

    Rollover risk of SUVs has been mitigated by new vehicles with modern traction control systems.  This has not been a thing for several years now, over a decade in most brands.

    Stress/reliability – again you can find anecdotes of any given situation.  Your boss’s new Mercedes that had to be lemon lawed.  Your cousin’s Daewoo that has 400,000 miles and he hasn’t changed the oil since the Bush administration.  You name it.  These are all anecdotes.  The market does not reflect this.  And even in the “my buddy’s ’95 Probe runs great!” example, I have a hard time believing that all of the switches work, the AC blows ice cold and the interior doesn’t smell like eau-de-cladosporium.

    Expense – I think you and I generally agree here.  Spending just $8k on a quality used car over a $3,500 one is going to save you headache.  $10k, even better.  And as a physician there’s no reason to feel guilty spending $20k on a new Honda Accord.  But yeah, don’t go buy an M3 and expect it to be cheap to maintain or easy on depreciation.   ?
    Click to expand...


    The Durango was 8 years old, had 107K miles, and cost $4K when I bought it. I drove it for 6 years and then got $300 or so for it. There were a few repairs along the way, the most expensive a transmission at something like 125-130K miles, fairly expected for a Durango of that age.

    It's not ancient and it wasn't a $2K car. You must be thinking of the Mazda 626 I bought for $1850 as a new attending. Now that was a good deal. Sold 4 years later for $1500- only repair was a new battery and some wipers. The Durango wasn't that good. I'm not even convinced it was all that much safer. I definitely prefer Sequoias.

    The current Sequoia I'm driving has 195K miles on it and is 12 year old. I'll be surprised if I don't get 5 more years out of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied










    Some of the comments even pulled that further as if I was advocating that residents should go out and buy a Mercedes or a Ferrari.

    …….That’s all it is, don’t read too much into it.  I never told anyone to go buy a BMW M3 as a reliable cheap piece of transportation.
    Click to expand…


    Welcome to my world.  I keep finding myself in arguments with two other people at once, where I’m the moderate position and one is more extreme on one side and the other is more extreme on the other side!
    Click to expand…


    It is UNCONSCIONABLE that you drive an expensive SUV, throwing so much money away.  Don’t you know you can do EVERYTHING an SUV does with a good bicycle and one of these?? https://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Cycle-Schwinn-Trailblazer-Bicycle/dp/B002QAVQ5A/    ?  ?  ?
    Click to expand...


    I also have an expensive bicycle to go with my fancy SUV, but we only have one car if thats any saving grace. Two beaters traded for one nice one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied







    Some of the comments even pulled that further as if I was advocating that residents should go out and buy a Mercedes or a Ferrari.

    …….That’s all it is, don’t read too much into it.  I never told anyone to go buy a BMW M3 as a reliable cheap piece of transportation.
    Click to expand…


    Welcome to my world.  I keep finding myself in arguments with two other people at once, where I’m the moderate position and one is more extreme on one side and the other is more extreme on the other side!
    Click to expand...


    It is UNCONSCIONABLE that you drive an expensive SUV, throwing so much money away.  Don't you know you can do EVERYTHING an SUV does with a good bicycle and one of these?? https://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Cycle-Schwinn-Trailblazer-Bicycle/dp/B002QAVQ5A/    :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied
    After reading your post a little more thoroughly, I'll add regarding your examples:

    Definition of a beater - If you're a long-time reader you'll remember the editor's beautiful classic Durango  This ancient Dodge Durango with a very solid six figures of mileage was a common guest star in WCI posts on cars.  I am no expert on Durango values, but I would venture to guess that this was somewhere in the neighborhood of a $750 to $2,000 car, at its best, most earliest guest star appearance on WCI.  Thankfully the ed has since let it die.

    If you're still driving your mom's hand-me-down Camry and it's still running great, absolutely keep it long as you can.  But IMO a physician (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't go out and spend two or three grand on a used high mileage Mopar product and expect it to be a reliable source of transportation.

    Your 0 fatality examples - all of those are new cars, regardless of make and model  None of those are cheap used cars.  Also, I believe that list is different depending on where you look and when whoever it is starts their counting (you better believe many have died in a Kia Sorento  :P ).  But the theme whenever you look is always larger, luxury vehicles.

    Yes, you can absolutely get good safety tech on a Honda or Toyota.  But the best safety tech is found in their new and lightly-used offerings, and you have to spend extra to get things like autobrake/safety sense, etc.  You're not going to get that in an old beater Honda or Toyota, period.  And then with a 10-year old Honda you're liable to buy a car with a takata airbag grenade which will blow shrapnel though your chest if you get into a fender bender.   :lol:

    Two big things with safety ratings:  1) IIHS and NHTSA both clearly state and acknowledge that a top pick or 5-star car from a smaller class won't pair up with a similarly rated car in another class.  This is just physics.  A Honda Accord has a longer crumple zone than a Honda Fit.  An F-150 has more mass, inertia and a higher ride height than a Ford Focus.  2) a top pick/5-star rated car from 1990 is not the same as one from today.  The testing gets more stringent every year, and as it goes up, manufacturers beef up the cars.  A funny tidbit here: after IIHS introduced the small overlap test, several manufacturers began beefing up the drivers side (the one commonly tested) but not the passenger side.  One of the worst offenders was Toyota who had completely asymmetrical crash structures, and this came out a couple years ago forcing another redesign.  So your 2016 or 2017 RAV4 is likely to be substantially safer than your 2014 or 2015, even just a couple years newer.

    Rollover risk of SUVs has been mitigated by new vehicles with modern traction control systems.  This has not been a thing for several years now, over a decade in most brands.

    Stress/reliability - again you can find anecdotes of any given situation.  Your boss's new Mercedes that had to be lemon lawed.  Your cousin's Daewoo that has 400,000 miles and he hasn't changed the oil since the Bush administration.  You name it.  These are all anecdotes.  The market does not reflect this.  And even in the "my buddy's '95 Probe runs great!" example, I have a hard time believing that all of the switches work, the AC blows ice cold and the interior doesn't smell like eau-de-cladosporium.

    Expense - I think you and I generally agree here.  Spending just $8k on a quality used car over a $3,500 one is going to save you headache.  $10k, even better.  And as a physician there's no reason to feel guilty spending $20k on a new Honda Accord.  But yeah, don't go buy an M3 and expect it to be cheap to maintain or easy on depreciation.   :lol:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X