Popular Posts

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Pros and Cons of New vs. Old Cars


Is it better to buy a used car - or spring for a new one? There are pros and cons to consider with either alternative. Here's the skinny:

New car pros, Probably the biggest single pro is the car itself. Since it's brand-new, it's never been driven by someone else. Possible abuse or failure on the part of a previous owner to have properly maintained the car are two things you don't have to worry about. Another big pro is that new cars are not unique. One 2008 Model X is going to be exactly the same as all the others on the lot - and more importantly, on another dealer's lot. You don't have to agonize about "losing" that one-of-a-kind low-miles, metallic red coupe with just the equipment you wanted. If you're getting the hard-sell at one dealership, move to the next one on your list. His new cars will be the same as the other guy's new cars. But his deals might be better.

The third big pro to buying a new car is the new car warranty. Everything from the rubber to the roof is covered - and will be, for at least the next three years and 36,000 miles (the minimum comprehensive warranty on any 2008 model year vehicle; some manufacturers offer even longer-lived comprehensive warranties - and many have limited powertrain warranties that cover big ticket items like the engine and transmission for as long as ten years and 100,000 miles). Bottom line: Even if something does go wrong, someone else will be paying for it. So one less thing to worry about.

A fourth really big pro with new cars is you can pick and choose exactly what you want - from color to options. It's true that dealers often want you to buy a car "from inventory" - meaning, choose one from among the cars sitting on his lot. But assuming the model you're interested in hasn't been cancelled and is still being produced, you can insist on ordering it with everything you want - and nothing you don't. It's your money, after all. Get what you want with it.


The Pros and Cons of New vs. Old Cars

New car cons, The big one is the bottom line: New cars cost more than used cars. A new car is at the very peak of its value and even with rebates, discounts and haggling, you will be paying top dollar. If it's a just-launched/popular model, expect to pay full MSRP sticker - and maybe some more on top of that.

Con number two is related to con number one: New cars depreciate (lose value) quickly. On average, 10-20 percent of their original sales price during the first year of ownership. That comes right out of your pocket - and should be factored into your purchasing decision, particularly if you know you will be trading it in within five years or so.

The third big con that comes with the keys to a new car are the "peripheral costs" - things like taxes (including personal property taxes) as well as (usually) higher insurance costs - especially if you are going from an older, low-value car to one that's got a replacement value of many tens of thousands of dollars. Also, some types of cars can cost a lot more to insure than many people realize - until after they've committed to buying the car. High-performance sports cars, for example. It's wise to ask your insurance company about the cost of covering the car you're thinking of buying - before you buy. And factor any applicable taxes/fees you'll have to pay into your decision.

Used car pros, You'll pay less "up front." Usually, much less.

That's probably the single biggest advantage to buying a used car. Even a slightly used car (such as a former lease car that's only 2-3 years old) will cost considerably less than a brand-new version of the same make/model car.

Number two, someone else "ate" the depreciation. Most of it, at any rate. Yes, a used car will continue to lose value the older it gets and the more miles you clock; however, the year-to-year differential is almost always less with a used car. Where a brand-new car might be worth 30 percent less than you paid for it by the time two years have passed, your used car will typically lose only about 10-15 percent of its value over the same time period. After a certain point (after about 5-7 years) the value of a used vehicle stabilizes, with further erosions in value amounting to an ever-lower percentage of the vehicle's total worth.

Third, you'll usually save a lot of money on things like personal property taxes and insurance with a used car. Property taxes are based on retail value; the lower that amount, the lower your tax bill. Where a new car might cost you $500 per year in property taxes, a 3-5 year-old car might cost you $150 or less. Over a five-year period, that can add up to a considerable savings. And while insurance companies like to talk up the latest safety advantages of brand-new cars, the actual discounts they offer are often very small relative to the total premium - which is based to a great extent on the "replacement value" of the vehicle insured. New cars cost more to replace. It's as simple as that.

A final "pro" with late-model used cars is that they are generally much better-built, longer-lived and reliable than used cars once were. In the '70s, a three-year-old car with 40,000 miles on it was well into vehicular middle age. But today, a late model used car with 40,000 miles is still a baby; even with 75,000 miles on it, things should be ok for at least another 50,000 miles - assuming proper treatment by its previous owner and the same good stewardship by you! Plus, as new car warranties grow longer-lived, many late-model used cars are at least partially still covered. And you can usually purchase an extended warranty for additional piece-of-mind.

Used car cons

You don't always know what you are getting. Who knows how it was treated by its previous owner(s)? It may have been abused - or just not serviced per the factory recommendations. Problems related to lack of said service (or abuse) could be on the verge of manifesting themselves - and leaving you holding the bag for repair costs. The vehicle might have been in a wreck; or maybe under water. Sometimes, these things can be hard to detect. With a new car, you have to worry about the MSRP; with a used car, you have to worry about the price you pay - and the car itself, too.

Another big con with used cars is you will likely have less freedom of choice - and thus, be under greater pressure to buy the car you're looking at - because you know it will be tough to find another just like it, with the same options, in the same color, with the same mileage, etc. The seller knows this, too. It's harder to walk away because if you do, you know you're back to square one.

The third con is the biggest one. A used car is... used. It will have flaws (paint chips, minor damage, stains on the carpet, etc.) and it has less useful life left in it. No matter how gently you drive, no matter how rigorously you service it, a used car will not last as long as a brand-new car. You'll be paying for maintenance items more often - and the "curve" will trend upward - and faster. A used car with 40,000 miles on it is simply more likely, statistically speaking, to need things like a new transmission relative to a brand-new car with zero miles on the clock.


The Pros and Cons of New vs. Old Cars
Bottom line, With older cars, you're basically gambling - hoping you won't be dealing with major problems on the "back end" while saving a bunch of money on the "front end." Sometimes that pays off; sometimes, it doesn't. The new car buyer is more or less guaranteed against losing big bucks as a result of failures/defects - because they should be covered under warranty. But he's also guaranteed to pay more on the "front end," too. It all comes down to this: How much money would you like to save - and how much potential risk are you're willing to assume? Know the answer to that question - and you'll know how the pros and cons really stack up!

Eight Things We Don't Have to Know About, Can't Buy, Or Do Anymore

new cars have electronic fuel injectionEight Things We Don't Have to Know About, Can't Buy, Or Do Anymore, Probably you can get through life without ever having to learn to write longhand; so long as you can sign your name, you're fine. We type everything else, right? It's the same with many things car-related, too. No one today needs to know how to double-clutch, for example - unless you happen to own a car built before the 1950s. The last twenty years of technological advances have added several items to the roster of obsolescent skills and things you don't see much anymore, including:


"Choking" the engine

Since all new cars have electronic fuel injection, there's no need to set the choke (either manually, by pulling on a knob or automatically, by pumping the gas pedal) because fuel-injected cars don't have a choke. They have a cold-start enrichment circuit - but it requires no special action by the driver. Just get in, turn the key - and go.


new cars have electronic fuel injection
Threshold braking

There are still a few cars that come without ant-lock brakes (ABS) but no many - and there days are numbered. So drivers no longer need worry about learning how to apply the brakes just hard enough to get maximum braking without locking them up and sending the car into a violent skid. The computer handles that now; the driver just slams the brake as hard as he can and the system will prevent the wheels from locking while applying maximum possible braking force to slow the car down. No more loss of steering control; no more black stripes in the road leading to a pile of broken glass and crunched-up sheetmetal.

Locking the hubs

Virtually all 4WD systems today are either automatic or electronic. The onboard systems either decides for you when to engage 4WD - or the driver does it by turning a knob on the console. The manly fun of stopping in the middle of a muddy road (or in a downpour), climbing out and manually rotating the engagement mechanism on each front wheel to engage 4WD is fast slipping into the mists of history.

Rolling down the windows

Have you noticed how few cars still come without power windows as standard equipment? Even the meanest little econo-boxes increasingly include power windows (and air conditioning) in the car's base price. It's become an expected "given" - and probably within three or four years at the outside it will be impossible to find a new car that still offers manual roll-up windows. (See also: Locking doors manually.)

Emptying the ashtray

As smoking has become politically incorrect, cup-holders and power points have supplanted ashtrays - several of which, at least, used to be found in just about every new car. Today, if an ashtray is even available, you have to special order it as part of an optional "smoker's package."

Lubing the chassis

Many new vehicles have no grease fittings - and so, don't require the periodic attentions of the grease gun. They are "lubed for life" - which (according to automaker PR) reduces maintenance costs but also means that expensive suspension/chassis parts are also "throw away" parts that can't be serviced, either.


new cars have electronic fuel injection
Laying rubber

It's still possible to screech the tires and leave a pair of black marks in the road - but electronic nannies are making it harder and may soon render it impossible. Burnouts are irresponsible (though fun!) and the automakers are working feverishly to put under computer control any uncontrolled vehicle movement - such as a slip-sliding drag race-style launch. Traction/stability control systems are becoming omnipresent; they may soon be impossible to turn off.

Rustproofing

This is handled by the factory, which does a magnificent job of applying protective coatings that keep new cars from rusting out for many years. These days, it's common for the body to outlast the engine - the reverse of what used to be the case. And it's completely superfluous to buy a rust-proofing package beyond what the car got when it was assembled at the factory. That business has gone the way of the pet rock and Betamax.

Best Reviewing the 2011 Chevy Cruze


From the Vega to the Chevette to the Cavalier to the Cobalt - GM's economy cars have had their ups and downs. Some (like Cobalt) were decent; others (like Cavalier) were disasters. Mostly, GM looked on small, economy-type cars as throwaways - "loss leaders," in the language of Detroit. The money was in big cars (and bigger SUVs). So that's where the effort went.


Exiting bankruptcy - and facing a world that has come to appreciate the virtue of well-built small cars - GM knows that so-so isn't going to cut it anymore. The 2011 Cruze shows GM has learned a hard lesson. The big question is whether it's in time to recover the market share now owned by the Japanese (and increasingly, the Koreans). Not to mention Ford - which has a helluva little car in the just-released 2011 Fiesta and an already successful slightly larger small car in the Focus.


Best Reviewing the 2011 Chevy Cruze
WHAT IT IS

The Cruze is a front-wheel-drive sedan that replaces the Cobalt as Chevrolet's entry-level compact. Prices begin at $16,275 for a base LS with 1.8 liter engine and run to $21,975 for an LTZ with the turbocharged 1.4 liter engine. It competes against models like the slightly smaller Ford Fiesta and roughly same-size Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic, among others.

WHAT'S NEW FOR 2011

The Cruze is a brand-new model for 2011.

WHAT'S GOOD

A huge improvement over the outgoing Cobalt. On looks, features and equipment, build quality, etc. this car is absolutely competitive with the segment leading Corolla and Civic - and nicer than the Focus. Optional 1.4 liter turbo engine has on-demand boost for almost as much power as standard (non-turbo) 1.8 liter engine while achieving 40-plus MPGs on the highway. Six-speed manual transmission available with both engines (Ford Fiesta/Focus and Toyota Corolla have five-speeds). Big (for a compact) 15 cubic foot trunk; comparable to some mid-sized cars' trunks. Roomy backseat, too.

WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD

It's a bit pricey. The outstanding 2011 Ford Fiesta starts out almost $3,000 lower ($13,320); a Honda Civic starts at $15,655 and a Toyota Corolla starts at $15,450. High-mileage 1.4 liter turbo engine carries a $2,000 price premium ($18,175) that offsets much of the economy advantage. Chevrolet doesn't have the Blue Chip status of the segment leading Corolla and Civic. Long-term quality/durability is an open question.

UNDER THE HOOD

Cruze comes with one of two available four-cylinder engines. The standard engine in the LS displaces 1.8 liters and produces 136 hp. Optional is a smaller 1.4 liter engine with a turbocharger that's rated at 138 hp. These figures put the Cruze a notch above the Fiesta (1.6 liters, 119 hp) and Corolla (1.8 liters, 132 hp) and just below the Civic (1.8 liters, 140 hp) and Focus (2.0 liters, 140 hp) as far as engine size/output go. A six-speed manual is standard with either Cruze engine; a six-speed automatic (with manual shift function) is optional.

The purpose of the turbo four is not to offer more power/performance than the larger, non-turbo four does. It is to offer equivalent on-demand power/performance from a smaller, more fuel-efficient engine. At the time of this review, official EPA figures hadn't been published - but GM is claiming the Cruze with 1.4 liter engine is capable of just over 40 miles per gallon on the highway - which if accurate would make it among the most fuel-efficient cars on the road.

An "Eco" package is available with the 1.4 liter engine that includes low rolling resistance tires plus aerodynamic tweaks to eke out maybe another 1-2 MPGs on top of that. Acceleration is leisurely, regardless. Both engines get the car to 60 mph in just under 10 seconds - with either transmission. But that's par for the segment. All versions of the Cruze are front-wheel-drive.

ON THE ROAD

Older economy cars may not have sucked gas but they absolutely sucked to drive. They felt fragile, weak - and cheap. You drove one because you had to - and hated every minute of it.

New economy cars like the Cruze (and its competitors) are light-years improved. They may not be quick, but they do have adequate power for most driving situations - and more important than that, they feel tight and well-built. They'll pull 80 mph all day, if you want (and can get away with it). The wheelcovers don't fly off in corners. Hit a pothole and the suspension wont bottom out, kicking loose your fillings.

The Cruze differs from its competitors in approaching the fuel economy vs. power paradigm by using a turbo to provide on-demand power equivalent to a larger engine when the driver needs to accelerate quickly - with the superior fuel economy potential of a smaller engine during light-load/steady cruise driving. The Cruze's optional 1.4 liter turbo engine is pretty much the smallest four-cylinder gas engine (outside of a hybrid or something really tiny like the two-seater SmartCar) on the market.

On the plus side, it performs just as GM intended. It delivers big engine (for an economy car) power, without surging, when you stab the gas - but it's more economical than the larger (and thus, thirstier) non-turbo 1.8 liter engine.

On the downside, there is a roughly $2k price premium to get the turbo 1.4 liter engine, which, don' forget, only produces 2 hp more and doesn't significantly improve the car's acceleration. Yes, it delivers better fuel economy (3-4 mpgs on top, according to estimates). But that up-front price will take some time to work off in the form of improved fuel economy.

Also, there's the potential down-the-road cost issue of the turbocharger, which is an expensive piece of equipment. Many people buy economy-type cars expecting to be driving them 150,000-plus miles. Will the turbo last that long without needing a rebuild?

A Cruze plus is the six-speed manual transmission, which provides both a fuel economy and fun-to-drive benefit. It lowers engine RPM in top gear on the highway and though it doesn't make the Cruze quicker by the stopwatch, it feels zippier because the gear spacing is tighter than in competitors like the Fiesta and Corolla, which have only five-speeds.

AT THE CURB

The exterior of this car is fairly generic small sedan-looking. It's by no means unattractive, but nothing special, either. On the inside, though, the Cruze has a very handsome dual-cockpit layout accented (on higher trim versions) with two-tone inserts and brushed metal/nickle trim. It's very upscale for a modestly priced car.

You can equip the Cruze with a variety of high-end-ish features, too - everything from leather and seat heaters to 18-inch alloy wheels. Some of this stuff is of debatable value in what's supposed to be, after all, a value-priced car. The optional 18 inch wheels, for example. Sure, they look nice. But they also add significantly to the cost of the car and not just up-front, either. Large wheels require larger (and more expensive) tires; tires that also wear out sooner and which give the car a firmer (read: harsher) ride. In a Corvette or Camaro, big wheels and grippy, performance tires make sense; but the Cruze is supposed to be about getting from "a" to "b" comfortably and inexpensively. Eighteen-inch ree-uhms kind of defeats the purpose.

On the other side of the coin, all but the top-of-the-line LTZ trims come with drum rear brakes (instead of discs all around). Drums cost less up front and much less to maintain than disc brakes because the main service parts are cast iron/steel drums (cheap and hard to hurt) and even cheaper and long lasting shoes that can routinely go for 40,000 miles or more - vs. easy to damage (via an air gun over-tightening lug nuts during a tire rotation) rotors and (often shockingly expensive) calipers.

So, that's a plus in terms of keeping down the Cruze's ownership costs.

Front-seat head and legroom is about par for the segment; but this little Chevy has a lot more backseat legroom (35.4 inches) than the Ford Fiesta (31.2 inches) and also edges out the Civic sedan (34.6 inches). The Toyota Corolla has a more generous backseat (36.3 inches) but a much punier trunk, just 12.3 cubes (12 in the Civic; 12.8 in Fiesta and 13.8 in the Focus) vs. the Cruze's almost mid-sized 15.4 cubic foot trunk.

In fact it has the largest trunk of any car in this segment - and that makes the Cruze more road-trip viable (and family-friendly) than its small-car competition.

THE REST

The standard-issue Cruze LS comes equipped with all the really important stuff - like air conditioning, power windows and locks, as well as a very decent CD and MP3-playing/satellite-ready stereo - standard.

Ditto the major safety stuff - which (like AC) is becoming a given on even low-cost vehicles. That means stability and traction control, ABS and curtain air bags. But the Cruze notches things up by also including a standard driver's side knee air bag and rear seat side-impact bags, too (in addition to front seat side-impact bags). The knee air bag - a feature that as recently as two or three years ago was available for the most part only in high-end luxury vehicles - can dramatically reduce the severity of injuries to your legs in a front-end wreck. That it's standard equipment even in base trim versions of the Cruze is much to Chevy's credit.

A factory GPS unit is available but I would recommend skipping it because an aftermarket Garmin or similar unit will cost you less, can be used in other vehicles and perhaps most importantly - in five years' time, if your aftermarket unit is out of date, upgrading it is easy and fairly cheap. Replacing an outdated factory GPS unit isn't.


Best Reviewing the 2011 Chevy Cruze

THE BOTTOM LINE

The Cruze's biggest weakness is its fairly high price relative to the established players in this segment (Corolla and Civic) as well as newcomers like the thoroughly excellent Ford Fiesta, which is only slightly smaller outside and has nearly the same interior space, backseat legroom excepted. (Ford has an updated version of the Focus on deck for the 2012 model year; expect it to one-up the Cruze in several key categories.)

If Chevy had figured out a way to start this car out around $15k rather than over $16k, it'd be one of the top choices out there, without question.

Modern Performance Cars Aren't Muscle Cars


The Dodge Challenger, Chevy Camaro and Ford Mustang are great performance cars, but they aren't muscle cars. That species is extinct - and there's no bringing them back.

Muscle cars were born at a unique moment in American history when technology had developed to the point that enormously powerful engines were becoming available but the government hadn't caught up with them yet. When it was possible to build a machine with a six or seven liter engine with no concern whatever for how loud it was, how much pollution it belched or how much gas it drank. Before government regulators made it legally impossible to offer such unchained wildness to the general public. When there were no requirements that new cars be fitted with electronic safety nets ranging from air bags to ABS. When it was still possible for a person just out of their teens (not well into middle age, as now) to buy a V-8 powered tire-fryer, brand-new - right off the showroom floor.

Those days are decades gone and will never return. Accordingly, neither will the muscle car. Challenger and Mustang and Camaro look the part. They are macho and big-tired and powered by large V-8 engines. But it is not the same. Their V-8s are as docile as they are powerful. They idle like Camrys and pull plenty of vacuum to run power brakes and other accessories. They all have AC... climate control AC. They are happy with automatic transmissions behind them. They can be driven by... anyone.


Modern Performance Cars Aren't Muscle Cars
If you're old enough to remember, that was most definitely not the case with something like a '70 SS 454 Chevelle or RA III GTO. Cars like these were marginally house-trained and could be very scary. They did not do well in traffic; heavy clutches and a tendency to overheat kept you working- and sweating. They were loud, poorly built and evil-handling things. Most rode on 15-inch steel wheels. Some - including a Plymouth GTX 440 Magnum owned by a high school friend of mine - had 14s. Imagine: a 4,000 pound car with a huge V-8, no traction control - with a contact patch about the same size as a current Toyota Corolla.

Muscle cars were dangerous. It was easy to get in over your head. My high school friend ended up being killed in that GTX. It almost got me, too. This car had over-boosted power steering as vague as a politician's promise - and drum brakes, all around. At 125 mph - which it would do, easily, the front end of the car began to rotate like a C-130 on its take-off roll. But you didn't have wings and once those skinny 14 inch Hurst mags up front got some air under them, your life was in the hands of the Motor Gods. Almost all the muscle cars of the '60s and '70s were ass-light and nose heavy, which resulted in violent, often uncontrollable oversteer when you gave it too much gas, too soon. This was part of the fun, of course. But it's also part of the reason why muscle cars died off. Once the insurance companies began to tabulate their losses - and predict future ones - they began to jack up the premiums to compensate. Which quickly made muscle cars unaffordable to the 18-25 set that lusted after them the most. Then gas prices went up - and soon, it was all over.

By 1975 - the first year of catalytic converters - there were no muscle cars. A few nameplates - such as Camaro and Trans-Am - persisted. But the Z28 was history and the Trans-Am had been steered; underneath the still-menacing bodywork with its flares and scoops and angry-looking eagle on the hood, the biggest and baddest you could get was a 200 hp 455 and mid 15 second quarters.

A 2011 Camry V-6 is quicker. So, what we have in cars like the revived Camaro Z28, Mustang GT and Challenger R/T are performance cars, certainly - but not muscle cars.

A muscle car, by definition, is dangerous and wild. It is rude, crude - and obnoxious, too. The closest thing to it that's remotely new is a Yamaha V-Max with straight pipes. Muscle cars were about sideways skittering burnouts and hard tire chirps on the 1-2 and 2-3 upshifts down the quarter mile, tail out powerslides barely under control and the strutting presence of an obstreperous rooster when rolling slowly through the local drive-thru joint on Saturday nights with your buddies.

Only a handful of real muscle cars even made a pretense of handling or braking ability; only one - the Pontiac Trans-Am - even offered disc brakes all around.

Not a single real muscle car ever came with traction control, stability control - or air bags and ABS. "Safety" and muscle cars go together like mustard and ice cream. Hell, being unsafe was the whole point. It was a way of thumbing your nose at The Man and showing everyone you had a pulse and something between your legs, too.


Modern Performance Cars Aren't Muscle Cars
Modern performance cars like the Challenger R/T, Mustang GT and Camaro have all the safety stuff - like it or not. They also handle and brake as well as they go in a straight line. They don't make your eyes water if you stand near the tailpipe, actually manage not-bad gas mileage and your grandmother could drive one. Which nicely proves the point that whatever these things are trying to be, they'll never be the real deal. It can't be done. That era - and those cars - are history, like the wild west and carrying kids unbuckled and rolling around like cordwood in the back of an Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser.

A lot of us pine for those days, which explains the attempted resurrection of muscle cars. But like the old Eddie Money song says: "I wanna go back and do it all over but I can't go back, I know... "