The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Slam on April 30, 2015, 08:13:03 AM
-
One of my friends from college got a brand new truck. I don't know anything about trucks, but I assume it is at least a $50,000 truck, and I know it has a 2.5" receiver hitch. But he keeps the receiver reducer sleeve in his glove box for when he actually needs to tow a realistic trailer with a 2" hitch.
He was showing me his truck and I jokingly asked him, "So how many gallons per mile does this thing get?"
He laughed it off and said about 18 mpg on the highway, about 14 around town.
Then my heart skipped a beat. I at least feel slightly better about the fact that his work pays mileage when he is driving around for work related things.
-
My cousin commutes 50 miles in a 2012 Tundra. 20" wheels, bedliner, tonneau cover, etc.
At the end of his loan term, he will have more in it than I did in my first house.
I have another friend who buys a new truck every year. He makes $130k +, so I'm not so hard on him as my cousin who is probably less than 50k, but it is still a waste. I hope they both have a plan for later in life.
-
Trucks don't lose much value in the first year or two.
Buy a new truck, drive it for a year, sell it private sale... you can have a new truck for relatively little a year.
-
Trucks don't lose much value in the first year or two.
Buy a new truck, drive it for a year, sell it private sale... you can have a new truck for relatively little a year.
Sure, or GM / Ford / Ram could raise incentives and tank the value on your $45,000 truck.
I'm much more comfortable with a <$10,000 car. It can only lose $10k in value.
Eating the sales and registration taxes on a new truck every 12-24 months isn't my idea of fun.
With the increase in insurance, lower MPG, etc, i can't see the value in having "nice new stuff" when "nice used stuff" is available and costs less.
-
Sure. But if you start from the point of driving a new truck, replacing it after a year isn't actually that terrible a plan.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if the truck drivers would learn how to park. I saw a Ford 250 yesterday not only taking up two parking spaces, but parked crooked so that the truck bed stuck out really far into the driving lane.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if the truck drivers would learn how to park. I saw a Ford 250 yesterday not only taking up two parking spaces, but parked crooked so that the truck bed stuck out really far into the driving lane.
Will the truck fit into any of the spaces to start with? I normally take 2 spaces with mine, way in the back of the lot, because the alternative is to stick into the lane significantly, as nothing out here is sized for more than a compact car.
-
Trucks don't lose much value in the first year or two.
Buy a new truck, drive it for a year, sell it private sale... you can have a new truck for relatively little a year.
I call bull. You're never getting the taxes back, so even just that on a $50k truck is $4k or so. Plus interest on the loan at say $2k or so. Plus depreciation and you're looking at least $10k/year total which is very far from "relatively little."
-
Depreciation is nearly flat on a new truck.
Taxes are a thing.
And how are you getting $2k in interest? That's 4% on a loan. Most are a lot lower.
-
Depreciation is nearly flat on a new truck.
Taxes are a thing.
And how are you getting $2k in interest? That's 4% on a loan. Most are a lot lower.
Depreciation being flat is rare. Dealers are blowing out last years model with 0 miles for 5-8k under invoice all the time. There's no way you got deals better than that on a current model year (if you are, you should be flipping it for profit in the first month). Then there's the tax($2000) and registration($120), wear and tear, interest($1000 at 2% apr), poor MPG($500 more than you'd pay in a car, minimum) and the risk that you can't find a buyer.
Justify it however you want, but it's still a silly idea unless you're hauling a 5000# trailer on a daily basis for work (which you don't need a brand new 50k truck for).
-
Oh Lord, my brother just got a two year old F-150, a very nice one at that. I can't even freaking imagine, the thing cost almost as much as my last two Mazdas, and those were brand new. The kicker was how "liberating" he feels like his truck is.
I have a 96 Mazda B2300 with 175000 miles that can haul everything my brother would in his new toy. What he describes as liberation I look at as a sentence.
-
...a very nice one at that.
Go try and find a recent truck that's not a "very nice one." I'll wait. :)
(the vast majority of trucks sold in the last decade are "very nice" by most standards - the stripped out work trucks aren't for sale used until they've been entirely worn out)
-
...a very nice one at that.
Go try and find a recent truck that's not a "very nice one." I'll wait. :)
(the vast majority of trucks sold in the last decade are "very nice" by most standards - the stripped out work trucks aren't for sale used until they've been entirely worn out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0klZpwlgwOw
t;dr: the best-selling vehicle in the world, the Ford F150 is a piece of shit! [Jeremy Clackson]
I don't understand why so many american males have this insane urge to pay $50k to drive these things. Not being american I view trucks as utility vehicles. Used for construction work, or logging operations, not driving to the office. In my mind it would be like driving a tractor or front loader around town, simply silly.
A colleague just got a RAM 1500, to drive ~30 mi on the bumper to bumper interstate to a business park. He does not own a farm as far as I know. But hey it was a whole 2 (!) years old, and only x hundred/month with 6 year financing blah blah blah.. I stopped listening
-
Depreciation is nearly flat on a new truck.
Taxes are a thing.
And how are you getting $2k in interest? That's 4% on a loan. Most are a lot lower.
MSRP on a completely base 2015 F150 is $26,110. I can buy a 2014 F150 with less than 5,000 miles for $20,995 here:http://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/4995317097.html
So depreciation is at least $5,115 assuming you barely drive the thing. You can bet it would be more if you had more options, more miles, and any wear and tear.
I consider $426/mo lost to depreciation alone a ton of money. Plus taxes, plus interest, you're out as I said nearly $10k/year. Enough to pay cash for a decent and very reliable truck and never have a payment for as long as you can maintain it.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if the truck drivers would learn how to park. I saw a Ford 250 yesterday not only taking up two parking spaces, but parked crooked so that the truck bed stuck out really far into the driving lane.
Yeah, because those who drive cars never do this...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0klZpwlgwOw
t;dr: the best-selling vehicle in the world, the Ford F150 is a piece of shit! [Jeremy Clackson]
I don't understand why so many american males have this insane urge to pay $50k to drive these things. Not being american I view trucks as utility vehicles. Used for construction work, or logging operations, not driving to the office. In my mind it would be like driving a tractor or front loader around town, simply silly.
So Clarkson says that the Brits are "just to sophisticated" to buy a pickup.
Really?
A nation that has been in continuous decline for at least 115 years, produces NOTHING other than the occasional sheep and some pretty good cheese, is a technological backwater, worships an inbred "royal" family (seriously? It's 2015, folks, might be time to get rid of those ridiculous twits), still largely clings to an archaic socio economic based system upon who your great great grandparents were (as opposed to you actual ability- no wonder Britain has been fading for so long, while the USA, which is largely merit based, thrives), and goes berserk over "football," a sport they invented (but can't play worth a damn) is just sooooo sophisticated.
My ancestors had the sense to leave the fading British Empire well over 100 years ago to find better opportunities in the USA. I love to visit. It's nice to see a country that largely hasn't changed in 100 years. It's slow, quaint, cute. But far from important.
Clarkson is a buffoon. An entertaining buffoon, to be sure (well, he's entertaining when he's not out bullying/slugging people he disagrees with, anyway). Top Gear is one of the few UK shows I actually watch on occasion.
BTW, that big, dumpy, blowhard, bully, Brit (Clarkson) also hates bicyclists.
FWIW, I don't drive and F150, I prefer my Chevy Silverado.
Final point, that extremely tricked out F150 is NOT one you will find on the roads very often. Not a lot of people (Americans or otherwise) drive 380+ HP vehicles. Frankly, if an American were to spend that kind of money on a pickup, he'd probably just buy the F350 instead.
-
A nation that has been in continuous decline for at least 115 years, produces NOTHING other than the occasional sheep and some pretty good cheese, is a technological backwater, worships an inbred "royal" family (seriously? It's 2015, folks, might be time to get rid of those ridiculous twits), still largely clings to an archaic socio economic based system upon who your great great grandparents were (as opposed to you actual ability- no wonder Britain has been fading for so long, while the USA, which is largely merit based, thrives), and goes berserk over "football," a sport they invented (but can't play worth a damn) is just sooooo sophisticated.
My ancestors had the sense to leave the fading British Empire well over 100 years ago to find better opportunities in the USA. I love to visit. It's nice to see a country that largely hasn't changed in 100 years. It's slow, quaint, cute. But far from important.
wow. I guess it's how important this kind of proxy dick-measuring competition I that I just don't understand, despite being male and everything.
I agree with your points about the Imperium. The east india company isn't doing so great these days, but I'm not sure how that pertains to the fact that the dashboard of the F150 is shoddily put together, for a $50,000 vehicle. A bike hating douchebag like clackson, who's boner is inversely proportional to MPG of car hates it; you know it has to be pretty bad!
If Staling himself made a video showing how his Ikea furniture is just cheap POS MDF boards I think I could still agree with him, despite his other failings.
-
Depreciation is nearly flat on a new truck.
Taxes are a thing.
And how are you getting $2k in interest? That's 4% on a loan. Most are a lot lower.
Huh? You must be delusional. The instant you drive a new truck off the lot you're losing a huge chunk of change. You could try to sell it the next day and have to take a $5,000 hit.
-
Final point, that extremely tricked out F150 is NOT one you will find on the roads very often. Not a lot of people (Americans or otherwise) drive 380+ HP vehicles. Frankly, if an American were to spend that kind of money on a pickup, he'd probably just buy the F350 instead.
To throw fuel on the fire, my truck's engine makes well over 380 HP, as does my car's engine. Boat is a bit less than that. 400 HP is a solid ballpark for a cheap reliable engine that is mild enough to be suitable for driving every day and offer decent fuel economy. Compact cars can be quite peppy with 300 HP engines and get around 30 MPG if built for economy. Regardless, I have far less into all those vehicles than the cost of a new Prius, and if it helps, my motorcycle is under 100 HP. I'll wait for the flames?
-
Look at the new Dodge V-6 turbo diesel. Its a crewcab 2WD full sized pickup. Gets 30 mpg. Pretty impressive for that size of vehicle. They are using Fiat's diesel.
The Mercedes (formerly Dodge) Sprinter van is big and gets good mileage too considering it's size.
Drove a Ford Transit V-? rental van recently. 18 mpg. An older Econoline van also on the same trip got ~12 mpg.
MPG is getting better even for the big vehicles. Next vehicle I buy will be something getting 40+ mpg. I don't expect "cheap" gas to last forever. When the Saudis are ready they'll close the taps a little and the price will climb again. They are merely maintaining the addiction to oil we have.
-
Final point, that extremely tricked out F150 is NOT one you will find on the roads very often. Not a lot of people (Americans or otherwise) drive 380+ HP vehicles. Frankly, if an American were to spend that kind of money on a pickup, he'd probably just buy the F350 instead.
To throw fuel on the fire, my truck's engine makes well over 380 HP, as does my car's engine. Boat is a bit less than that. 400 HP is a solid ballpark for a cheap reliable engine that is mild enough to be suitable for driving every day and offer decent fuel economy. Compact cars can be quite peppy with 300 HP engines and get around 30 MPG if built for economy. Regardless, I have far less into all those vehicles than the cost of a new Prius, and if it helps, my motorcycle is under 100 HP. I'll wait for the flames?
holy cow that's a lot of horses. Other than shits-and-giggles, why do you need that much power in a compact?
-
Every summer when I worked in the bush I'd be given a brand new, shiny pickup truck (leased). After 4 months and 25-30,000 km of almost 100% deactivated logging roads, heavy mud and brutal terrain, the truck would be on the verge of complete collapse. Because these trucks are not built to actually do hard things, just to look they they can. Chev, Ford, Dodge, all the same - not up to the tasks we gave them over even a single summer.
We would then have it detailed, and return the lease. The dealer would then ship the truck down to the US as sell it as an 'almost new' pickup.
Moral of the story - if you are buying a used pickup, especially a 4x4, be very careful.
-
Depreciation is nearly flat on a new truck.
Not where I live. Bought an F250 for 70% of the original price when it was just 3 years old and low mileage. Just like any other car depreciation is worse in the first few years and then levels off. Right now after 1.5 years it still sells for the price I paid for it but I would probably lose 1-2k$ to dealer's profit if I want to sell it quick.
I drove it 9000 miles last summer towing my RV and visiting the national parks and other places with the family. Then drove it about 500 miles all of winter just going to the train station. Right now I am biking to work and the truck sits at home waiting for vacation season.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if the truck drivers would learn how to park. I saw a Ford 250 yesterday not only taking up two parking spaces, but parked crooked so that the truck bed stuck out really far into the driving lane.
Yeah, because those who drive cars never do this...
Of course they do. But percentage-wise, at least where I live, trucks offend more often because they are built too large for the city's and businesses' already-built-and-paid-for infrastructure. But I live in Texas where trucks are a way of life. Admittedly, I both rationally and irrationally dislike them. I'm fine with work trucks (used for actual work) and ranch trucks (used for actual ranching). But most of the work trucks I see around town are sensibly-sized flatbeds, not these huge, hulking shiny monsters.
The huge, hulking shiny monsters generally belong to the suburban cowboys who have no need for a truck--other than that one trip to Costco a year when they buy a big-screen TV and need to haul it home.
There are currently more trucks than cars in my work's parking lot. Most are nearly new; most are nearly spotless; and most take up almost 100% of the parking space they are in (or are taking up 2 spaces). That means very little room to open and close car doors for the poor little car flanked on both sides by these ridiculous things.
I won't even get started on these trucks parking on both sides of suburban neighborhood streets outside of homes. Ugh.
-
I thought that trucks were a colossal waste of money until I actually ran the numbers. My husband bought a new GMC Sierra All-Terrain last year. He bought the GMC and not the Chevy because you can change your headlights in the GMC without tearing the entire front end off of the truck.
Anywho....he had a 2005 Silverado that he bought new. The Silverado was starting to make noises and some things were going out. Yes, it was still a nice truck. Yes, we could have put more money into it, but the last problem was at the shop three times and still wasn't fixed. He got fed up. They gave him over $10,000 for that truck on trade. He got GMS pricing because his mother retired from GM. He got all of the incentives and military discounts. He wrote a check for $30,000 all in. The sticker on that truck was $52k. If he drives it for 10 years and gets $10k out of it at that time, it will be rather cheap transportation. Also, he hauls gear around for his side gig so he really does need a truck.
You just can't really buy decent used trucks for cheap.
-
I thought that trucks were a colossal waste of money until I actually ran the numbers. My husband bought a new GMC Sierra All-Terrain last year. He bought the GMC and not the Chevy because you can change your headlights in the GMC without tearing the entire front end off of the truck.
Anywho....he had a 2005 Silverado that he bought new. The Silverado was starting to make noises and some things were going out. Yes, it was still a nice truck. Yes, we could have put more money into it, but the last problem was at the shop three times and still wasn't fixed. He got fed up. They gave him over $10,000 for that truck on trade. He got GMS pricing because his mother retired from GM. He got all of the incentives and military discounts. He wrote a check for $30,000 all in. The sticker on that truck was $52k. If he drives it for 10 years and gets $10k out of it at that time, it will be rather cheap transportation. Also, he hauls gear around for his side gig so he really does need a truck.
I'm absolutely baffled that you can look at those set of circumstances and conclude that it isn't a "colossal waste of money" and how it can possibly be "rather cheap transportation". What the MSRP (list price) is is irrelevant. He paid $30k cash plus a $10k trade in for a new truck that gets an estimated 16mpg. Assuming $3/gallon fuel that's 18¢/mile; adding in the $30k he shelled out over an optimistic 200k miles and thats another 15¢/mile in depreciation. Repairs, tires, etc and he's easily in the mid 40¢/mile before factoring in insurance (which will be more on an expensive, shiny new truck).
This is one expensive truck. I'm also curious what gear he hauls around for a side gig (not his full-time job) that requires such a behemoth.
-
If you start with a requirement to have a truck (which, as much as it's not a popular view on this forum, does exist), it's often more efficient to just have a truck than to have two vehicles, especially if you're biking around a lot when not hauling stuff. The fixed costs of a second, efficient vehicle take a lot of driving to recoup.
-
If you start with a requirement to have a truck (which, as much as it's not a popular view on this forum, does exist), it's often more efficient to just have a truck than to have two vehicles, especially if you're biking around a lot when not hauling stuff. The fixed costs of a second, efficient vehicle take a lot of driving to recoup.
Of course - the insurance alone makes it prohibitively expensive to own two vehicles, as has been discussed in several threads already. But buying a full-sized new pickup can never be considered "cheap" transportation, and it certainly doesn't have 'nearly flat" depreciation.
-
I thought that trucks were a colossal waste of money until I actually ran the numbers. My husband bought a new GMC Sierra All-Terrain last year. He bought the GMC and not the Chevy because you can change your headlights in the GMC without tearing the entire front end off of the truck.
Anywho....he had a 2005 Silverado that he bought new. The Silverado was starting to make noises and some things were going out. Yes, it was still a nice truck. Yes, we could have put more money into it, but the last problem was at the shop three times and still wasn't fixed. He got fed up. They gave him over $10,000 for that truck on trade. He got GMS pricing because his mother retired from GM. He got all of the incentives and military discounts. He wrote a check for $30,000 all in. The sticker on that truck was $52k. If he drives it for 10 years and gets $10k out of it at that time, it will be rather cheap transportation. Also, he hauls gear around for his side gig so he really does need a truck.
I'm absolutely baffled that you can look at those set of circumstances and conclude that it isn't a "colossal waste of money" and how it can possibly be "rather cheap transportation". What the MSRP (list price) is is irrelevant. He paid $30k cash plus a $10k trade in for a new truck that gets an estimated 16mpg. Assuming $3/gallon fuel that's 18¢/mile; adding in the $30k he shelled out over an optimistic 200k miles and thats another 15¢/mile in depreciation. Repairs, tires, etc and he's easily in the mid 40¢/mile before factoring in insurance (which will be more on an expensive, shiny new truck).
This is one expensive truck. I'm also curious what gear he hauls around for a side gig (not his full-time job) that requires such a behemoth.
part time musician. so.... speakers, guitars, amps and whatnot. The gear all fits in the back of his truck and he puts carpet down making it pretty easy to slide everything in and out and keep it safe while traveling. We do deduct mileage expenses for practices, shows, marketing, etc.
Yes, spending money on vehicles is not popular on this forum but it was the best option for us. It gives him reliable transportation that is easy to load and unload. He will drive it for at least 10 years worry free.
-
part time musician. so.... speakers, guitars, amps and whatnot. The gear all fits in the back of his truck and he puts carpet down making it pretty easy to slide everything in and out and keep it safe while traveling. We do deduct mileage expenses for practices, shows, marketing, etc.
Yes, spending money on vehicles is not popular on this forum but it was the best option for us. It gives him reliable transportation that is easy to load and unload. He will drive it for at least 10 years worry free.
Trailer. Put a receiver hitch on a small, fuel economic car and you can haul more than most people ever put in a pickup bed. Plus, it's much easier to load and unload as it's lower to the ground. I'm towing a trailer around with my 2004 Prius, for chrissake. :-)
-
I thought that trucks were a colossal waste of money until I actually ran the numbers. My husband bought a new GMC Sierra All-Terrain last year. He bought the GMC and not the Chevy because you can change your headlights in the GMC without tearing the entire front end off of the truck.
Anywho....he had a 2005 Silverado that he bought new. The Silverado was starting to make noises and some things were going out. Yes, it was still a nice truck. Yes, we could have put more money into it, but the last problem was at the shop three times and still wasn't fixed. He got fed up. They gave him over $10,000 for that truck on trade. He got GMS pricing because his mother retired from GM. He got all of the incentives and military discounts. He wrote a check for $30,000 all in. The sticker on that truck was $52k. If he drives it for 10 years and gets $10k out of it at that time, it will be rather cheap transportation. Also, he hauls gear around for his side gig so he really does need a truck.
You just can't really buy decent used trucks for cheap.
I have a buddy who does landscaping full-time in an old Ranger he bought for $2k. He hauls a riding mower and piles of other gear in the bed and on a trailer. Not only does he get 50% better gas mileage, but he could buy one every single year and still come out ahead. Your idea of "cheap" must be a bit different than ours, and your claim about "no good used trucks" is just totally silly.
Commuting in a truck is a waste of at least a couple hundred a month for most situations, even before depreciation, so I'm curious what he makes on the side gig and how many days a month it happens. If it's just a weekend or two, he's probably wasting enough gas to pay for a rental when he needs it. More days, more money, it might work out and it might not. It just seems you're keeping your analysis deliberately oversimplified to ensure a happy conclusion. It's suspicious.
-
Trailer. Put a receiver hitch on a small, fuel economic car and you can haul more than most people ever put in a pickup bed. Plus, it's much easier to load and unload as it's lower to the ground. I'm towing a trailer around with my 2004 Prius, for chrissake. :-)
You live in the flatlands, I'm guessing? I'm fairly sure the Prius doesn't come with a tow rating, so you're into the "experimental" category, and probably in questionable areas if you get into an accident while towing.
-
I'm absolutely baffled that you can look at those set of circumstances and conclude that it isn't a "colossal waste of money" and how it can possibly be "rather cheap transportation". What the MSRP (list price) is is irrelevant. He paid $30k cash plus a $10k trade in for a new truck that gets an estimated 16mpg. Assuming $3/gallon fuel that's 18¢/mile; adding in the $30k he shelled out over an optimistic 200k miles and thats another 15¢/mile in depreciation. Repairs, tires, etc and he's easily in the mid 40¢/mile before factoring in insurance (which will be more on an expensive, shiny new truck).
This is one expensive truck. I'm also curious what gear he hauls around for a side gig (not his full-time job) that requires such a behemoth.
part time musician. so.... speakers, guitars, amps and whatnot. The gear all fits in the back of his truck and he puts carpet down making it pretty easy to slide everything in and out and keep it safe while traveling. We do deduct mileage expenses for practices, shows, marketing, etc.
Yes, spending money on vehicles is not popular on this forum but it was the best option for us. It gives him reliable transportation that is easy to load and unload. He will drive it for at least 10 years worry free.
Look - I've got no problems with people spending money on things that make them happy. That's what money is for. However, I do take issue when someone tries to pull some bat-shit crazy line out like how a full-sized pickup is a cheap form of transportation. No, it isn't. And if you are saying it's "worry free" that's because you are fortunate enough not to worry about money.
As others have suggested there are far more economical choices, like a trailer, a wagon or a van. All cost less and allow you to lock up the gear. Even large amps and speakers are not prohibitively heavy - I moved around of band equipment plenty in my 20s.
-
You live in the flatlands, I'm guessing? I'm fairly sure the Prius doesn't come with a tow rating, so you're into the "experimental" category, and probably in questionable areas if you get into an accident while towing.
Towing with a vehicle like that could cause warranty issues (if it were still in warranty), but insurance is unlikely to care.
-
So much wrong here...
I prefer to spend under 5k in CASH. keep it 2 years. that means it cost about 250/ month. That's an average car payment. Any time it lasts over 2 years it is a FREE CAR.
50k trucks are for people who can't do math. Losing 2k / yr in value is just silly no matter who you are.
-
Final point, that extremely tricked out F150 is NOT one you will find on the roads very often. Not a lot of people (Americans or otherwise) drive 380+ HP vehicles. Frankly, if an American were to spend that kind of money on a pickup, he'd probably just buy the F350 instead.
To throw fuel on the fire, my truck's engine makes well over 380 HP, as does my car's engine. Boat is a bit less than that. 400 HP is a solid ballpark for a cheap reliable engine that is mild enough to be suitable for driving every day and offer decent fuel economy. Compact cars can be quite peppy with 300 HP engines and get around 30 MPG if built for economy. Regardless, I have far less into all those vehicles than the cost of a new Prius, and if it helps, my motorcycle is under 100 HP. I'll wait for the flames?
holy cow that's a lot of horses. Other than shits-and-giggles, why do you need that much power in a compact?
Doesn't seem like a lot to me. I've always driven 60s vehicles so a small block putting out 300 HP is not much more than how the higher output engines came from the factory. The reasons for that power level are of course fun, but also because it costs about the same to build a 300-325 HP engine as it does to build a 200 HP engine. May as well have more power for the same price. You can push a taller rear axle ratio and overdrive gear to keep RPM down, getting to that sweet spot of around 30 highway MPG or in some cases closer to 40 MPG and still having good acceleration. If you don't have the power to run 2000 RPM or less at highway speed you'll be wasting a lot of gas. Another thing to keep in mind is compact cars or the 60s and 70s are much larger (practical, comfortable, capable) than new cars, more comparable to a new midsize car. They are less aerodynamic so takes more power to push at highway speed, but also typically weigh about 1000 lbs less than new subcompacts (fuel savings).
-
You live in the flatlands, I'm guessing? I'm fairly sure the Prius doesn't come with a tow rating, so you're into the "experimental" category, and probably in questionable areas if you get into an accident while towing.
Towing with a vehicle like that could cause warranty issues (if it were still in warranty), but insurance is unlikely to care.
Yes, flatlands <-- see Jacksonville, FL under my pic. I concur that insurance is unlikely to care, as long as my vehicle meets the statutary requirements for what I'm doing (i.e., properly mounted hitch, trailer that doesn't exceed hitch rating, lights if necessary, etc.
I mentioned the Prius to make a point of how ridiculous the "I need a giant pickup" thing is. No, Toyota doesn't recommend towing with the Prius, but you can buy a perfectly serviceable Class 1 hitch from several manufacturers, and it does in fact tow a small utility trailer quite well.
My tow rig for years has been my 1994 Lexus SC300, which I used to move my ~1000 lb. TIG welder, all of the tear off debris from my recent roofing job on one of my houses, and any number of other jobs too heavy or dirty for most people's pristine pickups.
-
holy cow that's a lot of horses. Other than shits-and-giggles, why do you need that much power in a compact?
Doesn't seem like a lot to me. I've always driven 60s vehicles so a small block putting out 300 HP is not much more than how the higher output engines came from the factory. The reasons for that power level are of course fun, but also because it costs about the same to build a 300-325 HP engine as it does to build a 200 HP engine. May as well have more power for the same price. You can push a taller rear axle ratio and overdrive gear to keep RPM down, getting to that sweet spot of around 30 highway MPG or in some cases closer to 40 MPG and still having good acceleration. If you don't have the power to run 2000 RPM or less at highway speed you'll be wasting a lot of gas. Another thing to keep in mind is compact cars or the 60s and 70s are much larger (practical, comfortable, capable) than new cars, more comparable to a new midsize car. They are less aerodynamic so takes more power to push at highway speed, but also typically weigh about 1000 lbs less than new subcompacts (fuel savings).
Interesting conversation. I understand some about gear ratios, but I'm still scratching my head how having more HP can have equivalent fuel economy.
I live in a city though and what I find attractive about the newer cars is just how compact they are without feeling cramped inside. For me total length (with shorter being better) is attractive to me, as is fuel economy. I can't relate to cars from the 60-70s being 'comfortable' - but that's probably because I only have memories of my grandparents old station-wagons to compare it to, which were decidedly uncomfortable.
What about the value of ABS, airbags and other safety features? It's hard to deny that fatalities-per-accident has gone down in recent decades as fewer people perish in car crashes. I've been lead to believe that's due to advances in automobiles (which in turn has made them much heavier). Do you have a different take?
-
Interesting conversation. I understand some about gear ratios, but I'm still scratching my head how having more HP can have equivalent fuel economy.
A higher horsepower engine can typically push a given load at lower RPM. An awful lot of the power of an otto cycle gasoline engine goes to pumping losses and frictional losses, which are proportional (at some exponential value) to RPM.
Corvettes, as an example, frequently see high 20s to low 30s for fuel economy on the highway if you're doing something resembling the speed limit. Yeah, they've got a huge V8, but they're aerodynamic, and the engine is loafing along at 1000-1200 RPM on the highway at a fairly high manifold pressure. It's nicely efficient there.
-
Interesting conversation. I understand some about gear ratios, but I'm still scratching my head how having more HP can have equivalent fuel economy.
I live in a city though and what I find attractive about the newer cars is just how compact they are without feeling cramped inside. For me total length (with shorter being better) is attractive to me, as is fuel economy. I can't relate to cars from the 60-70s being 'comfortable' - but that's probably because I only have memories of my grandparents old station-wagons to compare it to, which were decidedly uncomfortable.
What about the value of ABS, airbags and other safety features? It's hard to deny that fatalities-per-accident has gone down in recent decades as fewer people perish in car crashes. I've been lead to believe that's due to advances in automobiles (which in turn has made them much heavier). Do you have a different take?
As Syonyk said, more power and torque means you can run a lower gear ratio so the engine turns less RPM at any given speed. Some of the tricks we use to get more power efficiently are higher compression ratios, polished pistons and combustion chambers, tight quench distances and grooves in the quench pad. These help to run more compression on pump gas which varies from 91 to 93 octane depending on your region. Also high initial timing and aggressive timing curves which gets the most push down on the piston on each power stroke out of the amount of gas in the cylinder. Ported heads that flow more efficiently. Cam profiles selected for torque and dynamic compression target. So much that goes into building an engine that will make big power AND be fuel efficient... Meaning low brake specific fuel consumption (lbs of fuel per HP per hour), specifically at your target cruise RPM. Less efficiency at higher RPM and power levels doesn't matter as it's only used when you want or need it. Many of these decisions are just appropriate build choices and time to blueprint an engine vs just assemble parts, and others are choices between several different parts that act wildly differently but cost about the same.
For me 60s and 70s cars are most comfortable and the least stressful to operate, as well as most trucks into the 80s as trucks lagged behind cars with the modern "features". I don't see how a large plush bench seat can be uncomfortable, along with plenty of head and leg room. New cars feel very tiny inside and constricting to me. I am tall so often do not have enough head room in new cars. I dislike all the electronics and complexities. It means higher failure rates, less reliability, and more time consuming and expensive repairs. No thanks.
As for safety, I believe new cars which insulate the driver from the road encourage bad driving habits. ABS is a crutch for people who don't know how to threshhold brake and my observation among younger drivers is it encourages tailgating and late hard braking. Airbags are only useful if you get into a wreck. Being highly aware and playing the "what if" game of always plotting an escape if someone does something stupid trains yourself to make good immediate reactions to avoid wrecks. New cars have terrible visibility, wide A/B/C pillars, small windows, high doors, huge headrests on all seats, etc. and small mirrors that often appear to zoom in on a small area. This is extremely unsafe and increases likelihood of wrecks from not seeing other vehicles and being unaware of your surroundings. When I have to drive a rental or newer car it is an extremely stressful experience for me as I cannot see anything and there is no road feel, just total detachment from the task at hand. I also don't care for all the fancy luxury features and confusing controls on new cars. Very confusing and distracting. Accident avoidance is far preferable to me than surviving a more likely accident, maybe with permanent or expensive injuries.
-
You just can't really buy decent used trucks for cheap.
This is simply not right. You can justify buying a new truck all you want but you can always find a decent used truck for cheap if you're willing to look. Nine years ago I bought an '86 diesel F250 for $2200 which I didn't consider any kind of crazy good deal. I started my trash hauling business with it and now it's my mowing truck for my side business of cutting grass. In nine years of hard hauling and pulling all it's needed besides normal fluids and filters is new tires, a new clutch, and glow plugs. I laugh every day I'm mowing when I see my competitors pulling their mowers with their pristine $50k trucks.
-
I thought that trucks were a colossal waste of money until I actually ran the numbers. My husband bought a new GMC Sierra All-Terrain last year. He bought the GMC and not the Chevy because you can change your headlights in the GMC without tearing the entire front end off of the truck.
Anywho....he had a 2005 Silverado that he bought new. The Silverado was starting to make noises and some things were going out. Yes, it was still a nice truck. Yes, we could have put more money into it, but the last problem was at the shop three times and still wasn't fixed. He got fed up. They gave him over $10,000 for that truck on trade. He got GMS pricing because his mother retired from GM. He got all of the incentives and military discounts. He wrote a check for $30,000 all in. The sticker on that truck was $52k. If he drives it for 10 years and gets $10k out of it at that time, it will be rather cheap transportation. Also, he hauls gear around for his side gig so he really does need a truck.
You just can't really buy decent used trucks for cheap.
You can't put "cheap transportation" and "He wrote a check for $30k" in the same story!
-
Nine years ago I bought an '86 diesel F250 for $2200...
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
I drove $100-$400 beaters in college. A fancy car was $2k. They do not exist anymore. Enough used cars were destroyed that the market is entirely distorted, and those cheap deals are no longer out there.
-
Nine years ago I bought an '86 diesel F250 for $2200...
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
I drove $100-$400 beaters in college. A fancy car was $2k. They do not exist anymore. Enough used cars were destroyed that the market is entirely distorted, and those cheap deals are no longer out there.
A fancy car was $2k nine years ago?
So because of Cash for Clunkers we all have to buy $50k trucks?
-
For me, $2k was sure fancy. AC and everything!
But my point is that the market is not what it was a decade ago.
You don't need to buy $50k trucks, but $2k running trucks aren't really a thing anymore in most areas.
-
So buy a $4k or $5k truck. I just used mine as an example. I said you can get good cheap used trucks. I stand by that.
-
Ok.
They're still hard to find. Anything that doesn't require major mechanical or body work seems to start around $10k.
-
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
I drove $100-$400 beaters in college. A fancy car was $2k. They do not exist anymore. Enough used cars were destroyed that the market is entirely distorted, and those cheap deals are no longer out there.
Cheap beaters will be making a return. Cash for Clunkers was one reason, the other reason was the price of scrap steel was through the roof. October 2014, steel was $220/ton. When I was at the yard in March it was down to $110/ton. I'm starting to see sub-$500 project cars for the first time in 5 years and I'm getting giddy.
-
Ooh. That would be very welcome. I'd like to do 24 hours of Lemons at some point, and right now, I don't think I could score a $500 car at all.
-
So much wrong here...
I prefer to spend under 5k in CASH. keep it 2 years. that means it cost about 250/ month. That's an average car payment. Any time it lasts over 2 years it is a FREE CAR.
50k trucks are for people who can't do math. Losing 2k / yr in value is just silly no matter who you are.
I just want to point out the math here because of the irony of accusations of 50k trucks are for people who can't do math. If your 5k car lasts 2 years that is 25k over 10 years. If I pay $40k for a $50k truck and get $10k out of it in 12 years that is exactly the same cost as your 5k car.
carry on.
-
Ok.
They're still hard to find. Anything that doesn't require major mechanical or body work seems to start around $10k.
Where do you live? I'm looking at my local CL right now. I searched "Ford f150" with a maximum price of $6k. There are 91 listings, plenty of which say the truck looks and runs great.
-
Yes, flatlands <-- see Jacksonville, FL under my pic. I concur that insurance is unlikely to care, as long as my vehicle meets the statutary requirements for what I'm doing (i.e., properly mounted hitch, trailer that doesn't exceed hitch rating, lights if necessary, etc.
I mentioned the Prius to make a point of how ridiculous the "I need a giant pickup" thing is. No, Toyota doesn't recommend towing with the Prius, but you can buy a perfectly serviceable Class 1 hitch from several manufacturers, and it does in fact tow a small utility trailer quite well.
My tow rig for years has been my 1994 Lexus SC300, which I used to move my ~1000 lb. TIG welder, all of the tear off debris from my recent roofing job on one of my houses, and any number of other jobs too heavy or dirty for most people's pristine pickups.
Oh, I'm right there with you. I drove a 2002 Protege5 hauling a 2-person travel trailer (and occasionally other things) for tens of thousands of miles and several moves.
Sort of a tangent, but I read about a guy using a Tesla Model S to plow the fields on his boutique farm... it was pretty hilarious. Not Mustachian at all, but amusing for thinking outside the box.
-
So much wrong here...
I prefer to spend under 5k in CASH. keep it 2 years. that means it cost about 250/ month. That's an average car payment. Any time it lasts over 2 years it is a FREE CAR.
50k trucks are for people who can't do math. Losing 2k / yr in value is just silly no matter who you are.
I just want to point out the math here because of the irony of accusations of 50k trucks are for people who can't do math. If your 5k car lasts 2 years that is 25k over 10 years. If I pay $40k for a $50k truck and get $10k out of it in 12 years that is exactly the same cost as your 5k car.
carry on.
If you can't make a $5k car last more than two years your problem isn't an inability to do math.
-
I just want to point out the math here because of the irony of accusations of 50k trucks are for people who can't do math. If your 5k car lasts 2 years that is 25k over 10 years. If I pay $40k for a $50k truck and get $10k out of it in 12 years that is exactly the same cost as your 5k car.
carry on.
Yeah, I heard about how the government shows up 2 years after you buy a 5k cars and just crushes it right in your driveway. I thought about fighting them, but what can you do? You can't fight the government and their crazy laws. Bam, crushed flat and worthless just like that. If only someone like you had told me about the 2 year crush law before I spend 5k on a used vehicle...
Edit: Sarcasm aside, I get how we tell ourselves lies in order to justify what we want and what we purchase, that is natural and I give myself face punches for buying expensive crap and paying more than I could be paying all the time. Being mustachian isn't always about NOT spending the money, but it most certainly is about not lying to ourselves about the facts of our spending...
-
Don't be too hard on yourself. There are levels of mustachianism. I don't think it's lying to ourselves more about justifying our decisions. And we don't have to justify our choices to anyone else.
Once you are FI, your criteria for what is expensive and what isn't, probably changes. Also, depending on your income and spending habits, it may be perfectly inline with your goals to buy a new vehicle.
We are already FI. Buying a new vehicle has very little impact on our finances, especially long-term. The bar is not the same for everyone.
I think saying people are lying to themselves because they don't buy 15 year old cars and haul trailers behind them, is a bit much.
-
So much wrong here...
I prefer to spend under 5k in CASH. keep it 2 years. that means it cost about 250/ month. That's an average car payment. Any time it lasts over 2 years it is a FREE CAR.
50k trucks are for people who can't do math. Losing 2k / yr in value is just silly no matter who you are.
I just want to point out the math here because of the irony of accusations of 50k trucks are for people who can't do math. If your 5k car lasts 2 years that is 25k over 10 years. If I pay $40k for a $50k truck and get $10k out of it in 12 years that is exactly the same cost as your 5k car.
carry on.
I think you are missing the point - you can buy a car for $5k with ~100k miles on it, drive it for two years and then sell it for ~$4k. Depreciation cost is ~$500/year
Or you could drive said car an 'average' amount (~12k-15k miles/year) for about five years and then still sell it for $2.5k. Depreciation cost is the same.
You paid $30k cash for the truck (plus trade-in), are hoping to get $10k after 10 years. Depreciation cost = $2,000/year
However, I honestly think you are missing the bigger picture here. Reading between the lines I think you see yourself as having a $52k truck that you only paid $30k for and hope to get $10k at the back end. You are rationalizing that $20k over 10 years is "cheap transportation" and are ignoring the 2005 you traded in for it. However, that $20k is only the depreciation. Here's what else is going to make it very expensive over 10 years (assuming 150k miles over 10 years).
Fuel: 9,375 gallons (at 16 mpg) - $28,100 at ave $3/gallon
Tires: 3 sets (truck tires cost almost 2x over car tires) $2400-4000
Those two alone are substantial because they cost far more than the would for a wagon or van.
Ignoring everything else they add ~$31k to your truck expenses over 10 years.
Your truck costs over $5k/year just in depreciation, fuel and tires. Then there's the other expenses listed below. To be fair, most of these you would have regardless of what car you drove.
Insurance - way more for a truck valued at $52k(!)
~30 oil changes
*20 tire rotations
*4 passenger air filters
*3 engine air filters
*3 brake fluid changes
*3 brake pads
*a new set of spark plugs
*water pump and drive belts
lots of other little stuff
(likely) at least one major repair over 10 years
* reference - 2015 GMC Sierra owners manual
-
I just wanted to put this picture of my last truck here. I'll go do something productive now. Maybe.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8172/8025066607_ede07b7cfe_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/de9yHn)
-
that is a very nice and fast truck. I really like the calipers. I bet you miss it.
DH loves his truck.... A whole lot more than he would love a Prius with a trailer. And I can't put a $$ value on that.
-
MMM is all about maximum savings.
I'm sure your new truck scheme may work for you, but for 98.3% of people it will fail.
A $40-50k truck is a massive payment. Not only do you have to dump that money into it every month, but it's also messing up your DTI ratio. For anyone not FIRE yet, this is a major concern. It will affect your ability to refinance your mortgage to lower rates, buy rental properties. You'll be putting $600-1000 between payments, gas and depreciation into an asset that at some point reaches $0 in value (long term). This money would be better off invested. At a low return of 4%, your $1000/month is $91,000 after 7 years.
So I guess the question is: What do you want more? $91,000 or a new pickup truck ?
For nearly $100,000 every 7 years, I will drive a beater truck if I have to. The good news is, I'll be able to shop around for the best price / remaining life because I will have the cash in hand to do it. If you buy something around $4,000, your maximum loss is $4,000. Have it inspected, perform your routine upkeep, and the vast majority of these cheap trucks will do everything the new ones will.
I'm not saying your plan doesn't work for YOU; But you really need to specify that you DONT CARE what it really costs you. You like it, and it's not about the money. That is not the mindset of most of us here. We are still trying to build the FU money stacks, so every drop counts. $1000 / month is a flood. Be glad that you got where you are. Congrats! I think the post belongs more in the "post FIRE life" section.
-
Since nobody has mentioned it yet, also keep in mind the opportunity costs. Any money spent on a vehicle, even if you are not paying interest, is money you could have in investments making money for you rather than depreciating. You need to add that cost to your calculation, not just the depreciate, taxes, gas, insurance, etc.
-
I've always found it funny that most people that are on the frugal side of things (which I tend to consider Mustachians a specific kind of frugal) always hate the idea of spending money on vehicles. I get it from a simplicity standpoint and Mustachians are typically different, but I always see people talking about how stupid it is to want an expensive/nice car that then go out to eat several times a week saying that it is a hobby.
From a purely financial standpoint almost everything we purchase is a terrible investment. But there isn't a price tag that can be derived from pleasure and everyone derives pleasure from different things. I prefer IPAs to Natural Light. So technically, 1 I am making a terrible investment in beer because it provides no nutritional value to the human body and 2 because there are many cheaper versions of beer. Someone who goes on vacation and stays in a reasonable hotel instead of camping or staying in a hostel type room is wasting money, etc., etc.
Getting back to my original point, I always find it odd how cars and trucks take the brunt of these types of discussions as terrible investments, but very few people seem to have the same disdain for other "wastes" of money.
Or this could be my way of rationalizing the "want" of a somewhat nicer, yet overpriced vehicle despite it being a terrible investment :)
-
I've always found it funny that most people that are on the frugal side of things (which I tend to consider Mustachians a specific kind of frugal) always hate the idea of spending money on vehicles. I get it from a simplicity standpoint and Mustachians are typically different, but I always see people talking about how stupid it is to want an expensive/nice car that then go out to eat several times a week saying that it is a hobby.
Personally, I don't see it quite this way. I believe the 'blow-back' in this thread is centered around how the poster declared it to be a 'cheap form of tranportation' and then used really shady and incomplete math to show how cheap it was. Most of the time, when people couch an expense as important them and they make an honest report of the costs people here are very understanding. Just off the top of my head over the last month I've seen various posters list expenses of $4000/month for childcare/private-school, $10k/year travel budgets, mortgage payments >$2k and $400/mo spending on restaurants. As long as people can afford it and are honest with themselves about the costs I've got no problems with any of these. It's when I feel like someone's either deluding themselves or trying to pull the wool over my eyes that I feel the need to stand up and say "ok wait just a minute..."
-
I've always found it funny that most people that are on the frugal side of things (which I tend to consider Mustachians a specific kind of frugal) always hate the idea of spending money on vehicles. I get it from a simplicity standpoint and Mustachians are typically different, but I always see people talking about how stupid it is to want an expensive/nice car that then go out to eat several times a week saying that it is a hobby.
Personally, I don't see it quite this way. I believe the 'blow-back' in this thread is centered around how the poster declared it to be a 'cheap form of tranportation' and then used really shady and incomplete math to show how cheap it was. Most of the time, when people couch an expense as important them and they make an honest report of the costs people here are very understanding. Just off the top of my head over the last month I've seen various posters list expenses of $4000/month for childcare/private-school, $10k/year travel budgets, mortgage payments >$2k and $400/mo spending on restaurants. As long as people can afford it and are honest with themselves about the costs I've got no problems with any of these. It's when I feel like someone's either deluding themselves or trying to pull the wool over my eyes that I feel the need to stand up and say "ok wait just a minute..."
My post wasn't meant to specifically call out this forum or the OP. I don't disagree with you. Just generalities I have seen across other finance/personal finance forums when it comes to buying cars that aren't Honda's or Toyota's. Obviously everyone will try their hardest to rationalize an expensive purchase or they will experience strong cognitive dissonance. I just find that people come down the hardest on people that do this for vehicles. Although, to be fair, I seldom see people come to forums asking which hotel they should stay at when the are traveling or which restaurants they should eat at when they go out for dinner/lunch. People are much more likely to ask for advice regarding vehicles which does invite the judgment.
-
Getting back to my original point, I always find it odd how cars and trucks take the brunt of these types of discussions as terrible investments, but very few people seem to have the same disdain for other "wastes" of money.
Or this could be my way of rationalizing the "want" of a somewhat nicer, yet overpriced vehicle despite it being a terrible investment :)
Because you NEED shelter to live. Buying a home is a way to save money in the long run over renting.
Most of us NEED transportation to get to work so that we can earn the stacks. MMM principals dictate that a bike is the cheapest. A $5000 small hatchback will probably do the job. And yet, people are out spending $50,000 on a trucks that cost more to run, fix, insure, and park than a small car (or bike). New and expensive cars are such a facepunch item that even myself as a gearhead (i've owned 4 camaros, 4 audis, 2 bmws, 4 motorcycles, and a few jeeps) can't begin to understand how people interested in FIRE can think new / expensive cars are okay.
I have learned how to temper my vehicular lust and enjoy toys on a budget. My 2006 S-Line Audi was $6800. My Ducati was $2100. If I was into pickup trucks, I could do that, but I wouldn't set $50,000 on fire to do it. I'm actually planning to downsize (in value) to a late 90's 4runner so that the wife and I can go off roading and overland camping. Target price is around $3500. I'll be able to sell the Audi, and save a few years for a $6000 sportscar (350z, C5 corvette, E36 M3). That's 2 enthusiast type non-MMM vehicles for less than $10k.
I deserve the face punch for this habit, and I know it. Vehicles are a losing proposition. It's about reeling it in to a manageable level. There's no need (even for an enthusiast) to spend $50k on a car.
-
In defense of the smallish used truck being just as practical as a larger expensive new truck. Bought my 2001 Ford Ranger XLT extra cab (V-6) in 2007 for $4000, had low mileage, and ran perfect. I slapped a shell on it to use for long camping trips and now, 8 years later, it still runs fine and will likely last another 50K - 100K miles. There ARE nice small used trucks out there that can do the same job as most big trucks so no reason to drop $50K on something for that reason alone. It'd be much cheaper to buy a used small compact car for the daily driver and a used truck to haul around "whatever" when needed then to buy a new truck.
x1000 this.
Thanks for showing a good example of my earlier point. The ranger can do 90% of the tasks for 10% of the price.
-
From a purely financial standpoint almost everything we purchase is a terrible investment. But there isn't a price tag that can be derived from pleasure and everyone derives pleasure from different things. I prefer IPAs to Natural Light. So technically, 1 I am making a terrible investment in beer because it provides no nutritional value to the human body and 2 because there are many cheaper versions of beer. Someone who goes on vacation and stays in a reasonable hotel instead of camping or staying in a hostel type room is wasting money, etc., etc.
Getting back to my original point, I always find it odd how cars and trucks take the brunt of these types of discussions as terrible investments, but very few people seem to have the same disdain for other "wastes" of money.
Or this could be my way of rationalizing the "want" of a somewhat nicer, yet overpriced vehicle despite it being a terrible investment :)
Buying an IPA over natty boh is a difference of a few bucks, maybe $100 over a year. And people are usually aware of choosing the more expensive options. Trucks can cost you $100s thousands over the cheaper options.
Problems with people buying huge trucks (or other silly vehicles) is a) they have grossly misjudged their need and b) often have no idea of the math and the actual cost. Usually this is for non-MMM types, but clearly even folks here are guilty.
The hilarious justification here is a great example. "Had to" buy a new $50,000 truck so he could haul some speakers and amps every now and then?! So <5% of the use case dictated the type of vehicle? To the detriment of the other 95%. A $15k honda CR-V could not do the same? And get double the milage? A used minivan? (how do you haul speakers on that thing if it rains anyway? Seems stupid).
If I bought a $100k John Deere tractor to drive to work would that seem reasonable? Or a unicycle for my construction business? No, wrong tool for the job.
oh, but in the end turns out it's "he loves his truck" which is the justification. I have a fully functional rational brain and lack the ability to get strongly attached to physical objects I own so not quite sure what to say to that.
edit; "reliable" and "american car" does not belong in the same sentence (with out a "not") so that's also a poor justification for the new truck
-
Because you NEED shelter to live. Buying a home is a way to save money in the long run over renting.
Most of us NEED transportation to get to work so that we can earn the stacks. MMM principals dictate that a bike is the cheapest. A $5000 small hatchback will probably do the job. And yet, people are out spending $50,000 on a trucks that cost more to run, fix, insure, and park than a small car (or bike). New and expensive cars are such a facepunch item that even myself as a gearhead (i've owned 4 camaros, 4 audis, 2 bmws, 4 motorcycles, and a few jeeps) can't begin to understand how people interested in FIRE can think new / expensive cars are okay.
I have learned how to temper my vehicular lust and enjoy toys on a budget. My 2006 S-Line Audi was $6800. My Ducati was $2100. If I was into pickup trucks, I could do that, but I wouldn't set $50,000 on fire to do it. I'm actually planning to downsize (in value) to a late 90's 4runner so that the wife and I can go off roading and overland camping. Target price is around $3500. I'll be able to sell the Audi, and save a few years for a $6000 sportscar (350z, C5 corvette, E36 M3). That's 2 enthusiast type non-MMM vehicles for less than $10k.
I deserve the face punch for this habit, and I know it. Vehicles are a losing proposition. It's about reeling it in to a manageable level. There's no need (even for an enthusiast) to spend $50k on a car.
You do need shelter, but how much? Technically houses lose value over time, it is the land that appreciates. So if you were a true Mustachian you would have a 8-900sq ft house on your lot (perhaps 1.2-1.3 if you have a family of 4). Also, I wouldn't call myself a True Mustachian, because I really enjoy my job/career and plan to work until I am 50-55. Even after that I will probably teach at a University as an Adjunct. So I seek balance in my life. My savings rate and current nest egg should leave me with more than enough when I plan to call it quits. Some of us are just interested in FI.
Also, I have never spent 50k on a car just to be clear.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if the truck drivers would learn how to park. I saw a Ford 250 yesterday not only taking up two parking spaces, but parked crooked so that the truck bed stuck out really far into the driving lane.
U-turns are legal and common in NC. So are ginormours trucks. Traffic is often stopped across two lines while someone in a truck pulls a twenty-point u-turn. But, alas, small, efficient, city vehicles are not masculine or otherwise badass.
-
When I've reached or at least achieved near-certain success in all my other current financial goals, there's a good chance I'll buy a Tesla Model S. I have my reasons for wanting one, mostly functional, so if the capability I want arrives in a less luxurious form, even better.
I won't apologize here if I do it - facepunches notwithstanding, it's my choice and it's one I will make with confidence if the conditions are right. But I won't try to justify it as "cheap transportation" just because operating costs are low. I'll call it what it is - a conscious decision to prioritize personal feelings over financial progress.
-
Ooh. That would be very welcome. I'd like to do 24 hours of Lemons at some point, and right now, I don't think I could score a $500 car at all.
I'm doing a Chumpcar race in June... (Chumpcar is more focused on the racing that 24HOL..., less on goofy antics, so that's what I'd recommend!)
Keep in mind, my $400 car has about $5,000 in safety equipment, spare parts, and repairs into it... Cheap racing is a relative term!
-
Oh, I know. :) It sounds like a lot of fun, though.
-
Just to clear up some facts since someone posted them as if they were true. He uses the truck for his side gig about 25% of the time. Mostly weekends and occasionally a Wed/Thurs type thing. He makes about $20K on his side gig (after taxes, insurance and some other expenses). He plans to do this full time whenever he decides to leave his cushy full time job.
I looked up the word "cheap" and apparently there isn't a $$ amount associated. So, telling me I'm using the word incorrectly is just inaccurate. Maybe for someone with a household income of $50K, a $40K truck (not $50K!) would seem expensive. He buys a new truck every 10-12 years. Our household income is $300K. After trade-in value, a $30K expense every 10-12 years really does equate to rather cheap transportation in my mind. He wanted it, he uses it, it's convenient, it has no opportunity cost because he won't invest his cushion of money that he puts away for these purchases anyway.
yes, we could eat beans, live in a cardboard box under the bridge, and ride bicycles to work with trailers....BUT we don't. And yet we are still FI at 40 years old.
-
yes, we could eat beans, live in a cardboard box under the bridge, and ride bicycles to work with trailers....BUT we don't. And yet we are still FI at 40 years old.
This may sound rude, but I think needs to be said:
Well it certainly isn't because you're spending smartly. You're FI @ 40 because you have a ginormous stack of money coming in every year.
This is not a forum for bragging about how much you make or how extravagantly you can spend and still not work. This is a forum for bragging about how you are able to get by with less. Maybe you've misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. You're arguing that you CAN. Of course you CAN. Nobody is telling you that you're going to miss payments and have the truck repo'd. The argument is "is this more than I NEED?". If you can't see that the clear answer is "Absolutely", then I would redirect you to read the MMM blogs from start to finish again.
Maybe you're offended. Maybe you're angry that we don't appreciate what you have. That's good. You should be. If you take it farther than just being mad that we find your 50k truck silly, maybe you'll begin to understand how we would be more interested in hearing about how you moved a fridge by towing it on a homebuilt utility trailer behind your Honda hatchback. (MMM does it with a bike trailer);
There is a difference between a "Work truck" and what I grew up around, the "Redneck Mercedes". I don't care what the side gig is, there's no reason for a $50k truck. Brand new simple barebones work trucks can be had near 30k. Used fancypants pickups with facepunching oversize V8 motors, parasitic 4WD, and a herd of dead cattle adorning the interior can be had for even less.
Does any of this matter? To someone of your income level, probably not. It doesn't seem to bother you that you are wasting money. I just don't want you to come here and argue that you need this ridiculous expense.
-
Just to clear up some facts since someone posted them as if they were true. ...
I looked up the word "cheap" and apparently there isn't a $$ amount associated. So, telling me I'm using the word incorrectly is just inaccurate. ...
Our household income is $300K. After trade-in value, a $30K expense every 10-12 years really does equate to rather cheap transportation in my mind. He wanted it, he uses it, it's convenient, it has no opportunity cost because he won't invest his cushion of money that he puts away for these purchases anyway.
Since I was one of the ones who responded, allow me to respond. My intent was not to upset you, but to address your comment about how it is 'cheap' transportation. You are correct that 'cheap' is subjective, and I should have clarified that I was I was using it in a relative sense, as in relative to other vehicle options that would get the job done. Being a regular contributor on this form I routinely encounter people who literally have no idea that their car is costing them $10k+ per year* Also, this is a forum that tends to focus on optimizing our lives. Your initial comments talked about how it was a 'cheap' option and suggested it was a rational purchase. That is simply not true.
If your DH just really wants to own a big expensive truck, that's great! With your income you have no problem affording it.
The one thing that continues to trouble me though is that even in your most recent response you talk about how the truck will cost only "30k... every 10-12 years". I hope you realize this is a fallacy. $30k is just the purchase price (and didn't include the trade-in if I am correct), and it's just the tip of hte iceberg. You will certainly pay $10-15k more for fuel than a used wagon or van. $2k more for tires, $9k more for insurance... and the biggest one, about $50k in lost opportunity cost.
The truck will cost $100k+ every 10 years compared to a gently used wagons.
If you are fine with the costs, go with my blessing. You certainly indicate that you can afford it. But please don't come here and claim it will only costs $30k over 10 years, because there are lots of people who actually think like that and I'm really trying to get people to see the light here.
*$10k/year is actually based on CAA's data showing the median cost per car per household is $10,700
https://www.caaquebec.com/fileadmin/documents/PDF/Sur_la_route/Couts_utilisation/2013_CAA_Driving_Costs_English.pdf
-
I wonder what the truck lovers who "need" a truck for their jobs/hobbies think that people in other countries do, where these types of vehicles effectively don't even exist!
-
$9k more for insurance...
Where are you getting the 9k more in insurance? I definitely wouldn't do that, mine will probably be 1.5k more over a decade and that assumes that I would not have gotten another "newer" car over that decade which would have put my car at about 300k miles and 20 years old.
-
I wonder what the truck lovers who "need" a truck for their jobs/hobbies think that people in other countries do, where these types of vehicles effectively don't even exist!
No idea. How do you move a ton or two of gravel or wood pellets for a stove in Europe?
-
that is a very nice and fast truck. I really like the calipers. I bet you miss it.
DH loves his truck.... A whole lot more than he would love a Prius with a trailer. And I can't put a $$ value on that.
I enjoyed the Lightning, but I don't miss it. I'm headed toward FI in large part because I've been able to put my automotive addictions on hold (notice I didn't say eliminated, just on hold). I'm a car guy through and through, and I can honestly say I've been happier since I focused on an actual plan to become FI. Part of that happiness comes from knowing that I can indulge some expensive hobbies (like building fast cars) at that point if I want to, and I'll have the resources and time to plan and execute them better than my previous piecemeal efforts.
Ooh. That would be very welcome. I'd like to do 24 hours of Lemons at some point, and right now, I don't think I could score a $500 car at all.
I'm doing a Chumpcar race in June... (Chumpcar is more focused on the racing that 24HOL..., less on goofy antics, so that's what I'd recommend!)
Keep in mind, my $400 car has about $5,000 in safety equipment, spare parts, and repairs into it... Cheap racing is a relative term!
I have attended the GRM $200x challenge several times, and love seeing what people come up with for two grand! Those are truly cool cars to me, not some dude who can't turn a wrench throwing money at other people to buy a fast car. :-)
Here's the current occupant of my garage, waiting for me to sell a house and dedicate time and money to it. We call it the PimpGN (thanks to the paint) and I paid $2k for it at a pawn shop.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8434/7686719282_1b8301c804_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/cHfrQN)
-
Cheap Pickup Trucks Under $5,000
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/used-car-lot/
-
$9k more for insurance...
Where are you getting the 9k more in insurance? I definitely wouldn't do that, mine will probably be 1.5k more over a decade and that assumes that I would not have gotten another "newer" car over that decade which would have put my car at about 300k miles and 20 years old.
I went online and got two different auto-quotes, one for a used 2006 ford focus wagon w/80,000 miles valued at $6k†, the other for a brand new loaded 2016 GMC Sierra All-Terrain. I cleared it out of my browser but I chose the 'middle option' with 100/300/50 and $500 deductibles. The GMC came out about ~$80 more expensive per month. For certain that will go down faster than the focus, but $80 x $120 months = $9600.
You could of course cut this substantially by getting a liability-only bare bones policy, but for the analysis I made the assumption that one would want both collision and comprehensive insurance on a $52k possession. Protection levels and deductables were the same on both. Results will be affected by age, driving record, location etc. I juts used my own to see how much it would cost because I was curious. Feel free to do your own analysis and post them here.
†I chose the Ford Focus wagon because I had one in college, nad used it extensively to move band equipment and heavy scuba gear around.
-
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
Car guys love to hang this sort of shame on Cash for Clunkers but it's just not true. Cash for clunkers removed less than 900,000 cars from the road. The peak of car sales in the US was 20 million new cars in one year. There are around 14 million cars taken off the road and scrapped in a normal year. Cash for clunkers was a blip in the radar of one year, not even remotely effecting the long term used car market.
Ooh. That would be very welcome. I'd like to do 24 hours of Lemons at some point, and right now, I don't think I could score a $500 car at all.
24 Hours of Lemons is a ton of fun! I've done more than 12 races with them, one in a car I built myself and the remainder in other people's cars as an arrive and drive. I highly recommend it. It is of course not very mustachian. I would hate to tell you how much I've spent on racing!
I could write a paragraph or ten on chump versus Lemons. But either one would be fun. I prefer the fun and games and less crashy nature of Lemons. It's still serious racing, they just don't put up with rubbing and general on-track antics as much as Chump Car does. They reserve their antics for off-track times.
-
Nine years ago I bought an '86 diesel F250 for $2200...
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
I drove $100-$400 beaters in college. A fancy car was $2k. They do not exist anymore. Enough used cars were destroyed that the market is entirely distorted, and those cheap deals are no longer out there.
A fancy car was $2k nine years ago?
So because of Cash for Clunkers we all have to buy $50k trucks?
Yes 9 years ago $2k was pretty darn fancy. The government decided to use your tax dollars to destroy over 690,000 perfectly good running driving vehicles at a cost of about $24,000 each. Most of these vehicle the government bought for $24,000 were worth somewhere on the order of $500-$2000. Tremendous waste both financially and environmentally, and the repercussions are still being felt. You used to be able to buy good cars for $500 all day long, but now a comparable car is quadruple the price and depending on what you're looking for can be pretty hard to find.
Try to buy an '86 F250 diesel for $2200 that is in good condition running and driving. I see one for sale in the whole country on craigslist right now... $400, rusted out, not running for several years and had issues, no title. Basically parts and scrap and no real desirable parts on it. There's a slightly more desirable 85 inoperable no title for parts for $900. The alternative to a previously <$1000 truck is not a $50k truck, it's still the same truck only it'll take you a lot longer to find it and when you do it'll cost a few thousand. Thanks government, for increasing the cost of transportation and tools for the poor and frugal.
-
Nine years ago I bought an '86 diesel F250 for $2200...
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
I drove $100-$400 beaters in college. A fancy car was $2k. They do not exist anymore. Enough used cars were destroyed that the market is entirely distorted, and those cheap deals are no longer out there.
A fancy car was $2k nine years ago?
So because of Cash for Clunkers we all have to buy $50k trucks?
Yes 9 years ago $2k was pretty darn fancy. The government decided to use your tax dollars to destroy over 690,000 perfectly good running driving vehicles at a cost of about $24,000 each. Most of these vehicle the government bought for $24,000 were worth somewhere on the order of $500-$2000. Tremendous waste both financially and environmentally, and the repercussions are still being felt. You used to be able to buy good cars for $500 all day long, but now a comparable car is quadruple the price and depending on what you're looking for can be pretty hard to find.
Try to buy an '86 F250 diesel for $2200 that is in good condition running and driving. I see one for sale in the whole country on craigslist right now... $400, rusted out, not running for several years and had issues, no title. Basically parts and scrap and no real desirable parts on it. There's a slightly more desirable 85 inoperable no title for parts for $900. The alternative to a previously <$1000 truck is not a $50k truck, it's still the same truck only it'll take you a lot longer to find it and when you do it'll cost a few thousand. Thanks government, for increasing the cost of transportation and tools for the poor and frugal.
I'm going to chime in here not because I know a lot about cars, but because I deal with temporal trends and statistics. the CARS program removed about 690k cars from the road in 2009. Of the top ten cars traded in, only 3 were pickups (F1502WD @ #2, Chevy 2WD C-1500 at #8 and F1504WD @ #9). We can deduce from this that at best only ~200k pickups were removed from the pool of cars by the CARS program across all model years. Contrast this with annual US pickup sales of at least 5MM going back through the mid 1980s - there have been a LOT of pickups made.
I'm not refuting that a '86 F250 diesel costs more today than it did in 2009. I'm refuting that it's because of CARS. To me, the obvious explanation is that every years these cars get older, and there are fewer of them, and people are willing to pay more for the ones that remain. Time, not CARS, is the reason for scarcity - the cars are 6 years older now. The total numer of trucks which are 'lost' each year due to old age far outstrips the numbers that could have been removed by CARS.
Also, some fact correcting is needed here. The g'ment did not buy cars at an average price of $24,000. The CARS program provided incentives to buy a new vehicle and trade in a less efficient one, and the average incentive was $4,168 per trade in, and the total expense of the program was $2.877B on ~690k vehicles traded in. I have no idea where you came up with "most of these vehicle the government bought for $24,000" because it's simply not true, and it was not even possible under the program.
EDIT: changed to the correct acronym (CARS).
-
I'm going to chime in here not because I know a lot about cars, but because I deal with temporal trends and statistics. the CASH program removed about 690k cars from the road in 2009. Of the top ten cars traded in, only 3 were pickups (F1502WD @ #2, Chevy 2WD C-1500 at #8 and F1504WD @ #9). We can deduce from this that at best only ~200k pickups were removed from the pool of cars by the CASH program across all model years. Contrast this with annual US pickup sales of at least 5MM going back through the mid 1980s - there have been a LOT of pickups made.
Let's look at the actual vehicles destroyed by the government. Then within that data set look at pickup trucks and SUVs which may be interchangeable to a potential buyer, F-150, 1500, Bronco, Blazer, Ram, Ranger, etc. but not inclusive of small FWD cars or SUVs nor inclusive of cargo vans. The number I come up with, using actual vehicles destroyed, is 393,600. The number will be much higher if including vans.
I'm not refuting that a '86 F250 diesel costs more today than it did in 2009. I'm refuting that it's because of CASH. To me, the obvious explanation is that every years these cars get older, and there are fewer of them, and people are willing to pay more for the ones that remain. Time, not CASH, is the reason for scarcity - the cars are 6 years older now. The total numer of trucks which are 'lost' each year due to old age far outstrips the numbers that could have been removed by CASH.
The CARS program rapidly accelerated the increase in market price of older pickups and interchangeable vehicles by drastically reducing the supply. In a free market supply of older vehicles gradually declines as they wear out and people opt to part out or scrap them instead of repairing. My observation is during CARS, everyone thought their old $500-$1000 beater was worth $4500, after cars there was the same level of demand for cheap reliable used cars, but the supply has been greatly reduced so naturally market price for those types of vehicles rose significantly in the wake of a sudden shortage. I believe the effect of that shortage is still present. The effect is even more pronounced for those who want a specific vehicle that is not being made anymore. This, like many government programs disproportionately hurts the poor.
Also, some fact correcting is needed here. The g'ment did not buy cars at an average price of $24,000. The CASH program provided incentives to buy a new vehicle and trade in a less efficient one, and the average incentive was $4,168 per trade in, and the total expense of the program was $2.877B on ~690k vehicles traded in. I have no idea where you came up with "most of these vehicle the government bought for $24,000" because it's simply not true, and it was not even possible under the program.
$24,000 number was from a quick search and a CNN headline at top... http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/ (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/). More digging and it appears that is the number per vehicle that was figured only counting sales above the prior trend when averaged over the year (i.e. new sales, not time shifting sales that would have happened later in the year). So a total cost surely over $3B when including all the overhead and waste but not quite so bad as $17B.
-
Nine years ago I bought an '86 diesel F250 for $2200...
Nine years ago was before Cash for Clunkers utterly destroyed a generation's worth of used cars.
I drove $100-$400 beaters in college. A fancy car was $2k. They do not exist anymore. Enough used cars were destroyed that the market is entirely distorted, and those cheap deals are no longer out there.
A fancy car was $2k nine years ago?
So because of Cash for Clunkers we all have to buy $50k trucks?
Yes 9 years ago $2k was pretty darn fancy. The government decided to use your tax dollars to destroy over 690,000 perfectly good running driving vehicles at a cost of about $24,000 each. Most of these vehicle the government bought for $24,000 were worth somewhere on the order of $500-$2000. Tremendous waste both financially and environmentally, and the repercussions are still being felt. You used to be able to buy good cars for $500 all day long, but now a comparable car is quadruple the price and depending on what you're looking for can be pretty hard to find.
Try to buy an '86 F250 diesel for $2200 that is in good condition running and driving. I see one for sale in the whole country on craigslist right now... $400, rusted out, not running for several years and had issues, no title. Basically parts and scrap and no real desirable parts on it. There's a slightly more desirable 85 inoperable no title for parts for $900. The alternative to a previously <$1000 truck is not a $50k truck, it's still the same truck only it'll take you a lot longer to find it and when you do it'll cost a few thousand. Thanks government, for increasing the cost of transportation and tools for the poor and frugal.
I'm going to chime in here not because I know a lot about cars, but because I deal with temporal trends and statistics. the CASH program removed about 690k cars from the road in 2009. Of the top ten cars traded in, only 3 were pickups (F1502WD @ #2, Chevy 2WD C-1500 at #8 and F1504WD @ #9). We can deduce from this that at best only ~200k pickups were removed from the pool of cars by the CASH program across all model years. Contrast this with annual US pickup sales of at least 5MM going back through the mid 1980s - there have been a LOT of pickups made.
I'm not refuting that a '86 F250 diesel costs more today than it did in 2009. I'm refuting that it's because of CASH. To me, the obvious explanation is that every years these cars get older, and there are fewer of them, and people are willing to pay more for the ones that remain. Time, not CASH, is the reason for scarcity - the cars are 6 years older now. The total numer of trucks which are 'lost' each year due to old age far outstrips the numbers that could have been removed by CASH.
Also, some fact correcting is needed here. The g'ment did not buy cars at an average price of $24,000. The CASH program provided incentives to buy a new vehicle and trade in a less efficient one, and the average incentive was $4,168 per trade in, and the total expense of the program was $2.877B on ~690k vehicles traded in. I have no idea where you came up with "most of these vehicle the government bought for $24,000" because it's simply not true, and it was not even possible under the program.
The $24,000 is how much each additional car sold cost... Edmunds/CNN have an article that claims that most of the sales credited to CARS would have happened anyway, and only 125,000 new sales were generated, meaning those additional sales cost $24,000.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/
-
The CARS program rapidly accelerated the increase in market price of older pickups and interchangeable vehicles by drastically reducing the supply. In a free market supply of older vehicles gradually declines as they wear out and people opt to part out or scrap them instead of repairing. My observation is during CARS, everyone thought their old $500-$1000 beater was worth $4500, after cars there was the same level of demand for cheap reliable used cars, but the supply has been greatly reduced so naturally market price for those types of vehicles rose significantly in the wake of a sudden shortage. I believe the effect of that shortage is still present. The effect is even more pronounced for those who want a specific vehicle that is not being made anymore. This, like many government programs disproportionately hurts the poor.
Regardless of whether you choose 200k (pickups only) or 400k (larger vehicles no including vans) for your starting number, it is <1% of the total fraction of these vehicles sold per decade (which is in excess of 50MM). Obviously much fewer than 50MM of these vehicles were still on the road when CARS began, but that's exactly the point - age and gradual decline removed vehicles from the original pool.
You are asserting that it was the removal of these cars that led to the >4x increase in price (from $500 to >$2000). In order to show an effect you have to show that the action was substantial enough to cause the shift. You cannot remove 1% or even 10% of something and expect to see a 4x increase in the ones that remain. If you can show me how CARS eliminated at least 25% of a particular class of trucks I will grant your argument may have merit. Show that and I'll willingly eat crow.
However, as you pointed out, there are also lots of vehicles that would be interchangeable for a potential buyer. Eliminating 25% of one make and model from year 198X doesn't matter so much if there are ample trucks from competing brands and two years earlier or later.
What I will grant you is that, because of CARS, people's perception of what their truck was worth may have increased, leading to them not wanting to sell below a certain point. "I coulda got $4,000 for this baby in 2009, I'm not selling for less than $3,000" may be very real. But, this is very different from saying that it was the removal of trucks that caused a shortage in supply. That's two very different things going on.
As for the program disproportionally hurting the poor - you have no argument from me there. The program immediately benefited individuals who could afford to buy a new car and never included purchasing used cars. If they had, I would have taken advantage of it.
$24,000 number was from a quick search and a CNN headline at top... http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/. More digging and it appears that is the number per vehicle that was figured only counting sales above the prior trend when averaged over the year (i.e. new sales, not time shifting sales that would have happened later in the year). So a total cost surely over $3B when including all the overhead and waste but not quite so bad as $17B.
Fair enough. I interpreted your earlier comment as saying the government was paying $24k for used cars, which simply wasn't true. I believe that the CARS program was a net loss economically, even if it was popular politically.
-
You cannot remove 1% or even 10% of something and expect to see a 4x increase in the ones that remain.
If demand is very inelastic, it mostly certainly can cause a huge difference in price.
There's a very strong demand for cheap cars, so a fairly small reduction in the available quantity can significantly affect prices.
-
$9k more for insurance...
Where are you getting the 9k more in insurance? I definitely wouldn't do that, mine will probably be 1.5k more over a decade and that assumes that I would not have gotten another "newer" car over that decade which would have put my car at about 300k miles and 20 years old.
I went online and got two different auto-quotes, one for a used 2006 ford focus wagon w/80,000 miles valued at $6k†, the other for a brand new loaded 2016 GMC Sierra All-Terrain. I cleared it out of my browser but I chose the 'middle option' with 100/300/50 and $500 deductibles. The GMC came out about ~$80 more expensive per month. For certain that will go down faster than the focus, but $80 x $120 months = $9600.
You could of course cut this substantially by getting a liability-only bare bones policy, but for the analysis I made the assumption that one would want both collision and comprehensive insurance on a $52k possession. Protection levels and deductables were the same on both. Results will be affected by age, driving record, location etc. I juts used my own to see how much it would cost because I was curious. Feel free to do your own analysis and post them here.
†I chose the Ford Focus wagon because I had one in college, nad used it extensively to move band equipment and heavy scuba gear around.
I did it. I went from a 2004 Jeep Liberty to a 2013 GMC Sierra Denali. Mine went up $12/month. My wife and I pay $92/month for a 2013 GMC Sierra Denali and a 2004 Acura TL for collision and comprehensive with a $500 deductible on both vehicles. I guess it depends where you are.
And no I did not pay anywhere near sticker for the truck. It was the end of a model, had tons of rebates, and my buddy runs the dealership. It's still worth today what I paid for it according to KBB assuming good condition. A great financial decision? Probably not, but I love it.
-
y'all truck haters just don't get it, don't be a nimby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8P5vGcf-NU
-
Back to that F250 - it did have farm plates (I am in a farming area) but was huge compared to the trucks of the farmers I know. I see lots of F150s and equivalent.
Alas, it was not parked out on the edge of the parking lot, it was 4 spots from the store. I suppose I noticed it more than I usually would because there are lots of small trucks around here, and people seem to generally know how to park them. Trucks between the lines, and positioned so they are not sticking out any more than they have to - common.
Let's be charitable and assume someone just moved up a truck size and had not made the adjustment in parking technique. And were in a hurry. It did look new and shiny.
-
Ah. Taking two spots way in the back is reasonable if you want to avoid blocking the rows. Taking 4 up front is just being an ass.
-
The problem with seeing a car parked like that is that you don't know the circumstances. I myself have had to park straddling a line because the guy next to me was straddling his line, and there was no where else to park. Then you do your business and come out to find the original perpetrator gone, and everyone giving you dirty looks...
-
So much wrong here...
I prefer to spend under 5k in CASH. keep it 2 years. that means it cost about 250/ month. That's an average car payment. Any time it lasts over 2 years it is a FREE CAR.
50k trucks are for people who can't do math. Losing 2k / yr in value is just silly no matter who you are.
I just want to point out the math here because of the irony of accusations of 50k trucks are for people who can't do math. If your 5k car lasts 2 years that is 25k over 10 years. If I pay $40k for a $50k truck and get $10k out of it in 12 years that is exactly the same cost as your 5k car.
carry on.
oh sure. Yours has resale value, but the 5 cars on the other side you don't even give scrap value.
-
I know, there are times I have 2" clearance on one side, thanks to the car next to me. It was the 30o angle and the 4' sticking out into the lane that really got to me.
At least the car in Spartana's picture is reasonably straight.
The problem with seeing a car parked like that is that you don't know the circumstances. I myself have had to park straddling a line because the guy next to me was straddling his line, and there was no where else to park. Then you do your business and come out to find the original perpetrator gone, and everyone giving you dirty looks...
-
I know it won't work for everyone but I skipped the truck and bought a trailer.
Now there are trailers aka the standard American steel utility open-top trailer from the hardware store - and there are trailers....
The standard trailer we used to own carried my stuff out in the weather and everything was subject to theft.
My current trailer is better in many ways b/c there is a locking top, solid floor and solid panel sides. I can carry stuff without worrying about it getting pilfered while parked at the store or my table saw getting rained on. Been there and done that.
I have a Brenderup 1205S and I saw an American "copy" of the concept called "Spacetrailer". There are a number of other brands to choose from. Back when I bought my Brenderup - there were few choices here in the USA. In Europe there are dozens and dozens to choose from.
If I drove a pickup I'd need a four door with a reasonable bed size. That makes for a BIG truck here in the USA by my measure. "Land of the Free" they tell it's called....
In the rest of the world, there are of course more choices.
I only need to carry a few hundred pounds when I need to haul anything so I can't justify driving a big truck all the time. That rare annual need to carry a load of dirt is satisfied by calling in a favor or just having it delivered.
We drive a small SUV (17 year old CR-V nearing 300K miles) and tow the Brenderup. Yesterday once again I hauled camping gear for eight Boy Scouts to summer camp about 90 miles down the highway. Had I installed the second set of sides (making the trailer taller) I might have been able to carry 90% of the gear in one load despite the diminutive size of the trailer.
We had several pickup trucks with back seats along to haul kids. Only one had a topper (shell). The kids didn't want to get their gear wet (rainy weekend) so the load went divided between the other Dad and myself.
Coming home empty I was occasionally touching ~80 mph to keep up with the interstate holiday weekend traffic pace. Little trailer was rock solid loaded and empty.
If you like that pickup - then enjoy. Am not passing judgment on how you spent your $$$. If you are the frugal type and don't want to drive a big pickup truck - then there is an alternative. Continue driving your existing ride and buy a good trailer like mine.