one thing that is illogical is when people say they dont want to buy a used car, they need to buy a new car, but then they will drive it forever. at some point, your new car will become a used car. then you will still be an owner of a used car. why not cut to the chase? :)
(speaking as a reformed "new car buyer" :)
N
The answer on that is simple: If I buy a new car, I know exactly how it has been treated its whole life. If I take care of it, I know it has been taken care of its whole life. If I buy used, I am trading that knowledge and security for a lower price.
The question is: at what point is a lack of maintenance (that you can't readily identify when buying the car) going to affect you, and how much cost will it really incure? The logic in this strategy isn't flawed, only the math. The simple fact is, the chance of something going wrong is low, and the price difference is almost certainly going to be much lower than the amount saved by going used.
Take for example, my previous car, a 2004 Mazda 6 I purchased at the end of 2005 for 2/3rds its original value. Aside from being larger than I needed, it was a pretty great car. It had all the options I wanted: moar powaaaar V6, stick shift, sun roof. And it lacked the things I didn't want: leather and annoying touch screen. But what it also lacked was rust proofing by the previous owner. So while all the regular maintenance had been done (by the dealership) for its first two years, it was never rust proofed in an area that suffers nasty winters and uses a lot of road salt. I rust proofed it as soon I got it, but the damage was done.
So, when the car was 7 years old (but still had less than 100,000 miles on it), it still looked fairly new (save a few small rust spots forming on the wheel wells), and drove better than many cheap new cars, it started to have mechanical issues related to underbody rust. The oil pan developed a rust hole and started leaking. A number of other big repairs came up (which I've forgotten now). In the end, I put close to $4k in repairs into the car that I felt I wouldn't have had to had it been rust proofed when it drove off the lot the first time.
So the math goes like this:
I sold the car for $7k (Canadian, for those South of the Border who think these numbers look way too high).
I purchased it for $22k (after tax).
It was $35k (after tax) when new.
My purchase cost fo the car over the 5 years I owned it was $15k. I had an additional $4k in exepenses that I'm guessing I wouldn't have incurred had I been the first owner. Comparative cost: $19k for five years.
If I owned it until it was 12 years old and nothing else had gone wrong, comparative cost would have been $26k for 10 years of ownership.
Had I purchased it new, and kept it until it was ten years old, comparative cost would have been $35k for ten years of ownership.
So the math says that it would have taken an additional $9k in repairs (that it would not have required had I owned it for the first two years) over the next five years to cost as much as having simply bought it new. Which is pretty unlikely, I will admit.
If I'd keep it until death (lets say 15 years old), used it would have cost me $2k per year over 13 years, new would have cost me $2.3k per year over 15 years.
What the numbers don't say is just how frustrating it is to have a car that keeps breaking down in ways that feel premature. Which was why I sold it. Hopefully it is treating the kid who bought it pretty well.