Author Topic: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?  (Read 2600 times)

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6729
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2021, 11:12:24 AM »
Regarding the maintenance/repair cost savings: do those calculations take into account the fact that eventually, the battery on every EV is going to die? Correct me if I'm wrong as my knowledge of EVs is fairly limited, but isn't the battery by far the most expensive part? In other words: what good are $10k in savings if the battery will need to get replaced for $20k after 100,000 miles? How long are current batteries rated for anyway? 100,000 miles? 150,000 miles? More? I'm genuinely curious about this as I believe that electric vehicles are the future but I also don't believe that battery technology is quite there yet and will require more refinement along the way.
I'm not entirely sure but battery costs have come down 90% in the last decade. So by the time you need a replacement (if ever) the price should be reasonable. Data on the early Teslas is showing only 10-15% degradation after around 150k-200k miles. So life of the pack could conceivably be for the entire life of the vehicle.

On that note most (all?) EVs now have 8 year / 100k battery warranties, so anything in that timeframe would be covered.

Tester

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2021, 11:13:04 AM »
Regarding battery degradation, here is one datapoint for a Chevrolet Bolt (which by the way can be found for 24k NEW right now near me....).
https://www.torquenews.com/8861/chevy-bolt-ev-battery-health-after-100000-miles

Paper Chaser

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2021, 11:49:28 AM »
So, when an EV battery "goes bad", it's usually an issue with a small number of individual battery cells in the pack. That means that an intrepid DIYer can replace just the bad cells, for pennies on the dollar and keep on motoring. The Prius/Insight crowd has been doing it for a decade now. Their battery cells can be found for $50/piece or less. So, just like you don't need to replace your ICE due to a leaky valve cover gasket and old spark plugs, the same goes for most EV battery issues. Most people don't consider an ICE engine or transmission needing thousands of dollars of repairs over it's lifetime to be a deterrent when they buy a car. If spending $5k on a replacement engine and $2500 on transmission repairs (plus the ongoing maintenance costs and smaller issues along the way) over 300k miles in an ICE is acceptable, why is spending a similar amount to replace the battery pack in an EV seen as unacceptable?

That being said, Tesloop (a CA company that exclusively used Teslas for their service) published their maintenance logs for multiple vehicles, each with over 400k miles. These vehicles were abused, with tons of miles driven in a short amount of time, and then charged on Tesla's Superchargers, which charge faster than standard home chargers and therefore create more heat and shorten the lifecycle of the batteries. They had some quality issues (par for the Tesla course) but they still saw pretty impressive lifespans from the batteries before they were replaced by Tesla. And again, replacing the whole packs was likely done just because it was faster for the company. Tesloop closed down a couple of years ago, but you might still be able to access their data here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HqBIOtNsYPalG51nAw_nubgskv4TQPGx8WhPZO4a_U8/edit#gid=0

Also, as RWD mentioned, the price of a battery pack ($/kWh) has dropped about 90% since 2010, and now represent about 21% of the cost of most EVs. That trend is expected to continue:

https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-100-kwh-for-the-first-time-in-2020-while-market-average-sits-at-137-kwh/

"Lithium-ion battery pack prices, which were above $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 89% in real terms to $137/kWh in 2020. By 2023, average prices will be close to $100/kWh, according to the latest forecast from research company BloombergNEF (BNEF)."
« Last Edit: May 26, 2021, 12:04:23 PM by Paper Chaser »

windytrail

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2021, 12:31:19 PM »
I no longer need a minivan but will require something that will be comfortable on long trips with the family, and my wife insist on driving something where she sits higher up than in a regular sedan (can't blame her with all those overcompensating flashy pickups and giant 7-seater SUVs around) as she simply doesn't feel comfortable and safe in a regular car. I was therefore thinking small SUV, aka Toyota RAV4, Kia Sportage, or Honda C-RV.
Seems to be a lot of threads on here recently from people lusting after these luxury living rooms on wheels.

Just want to point out that you are 50% more likely to kill a pedestrian or cyclist in an SUV than a sedan. The main reasons:
- Lower visibility, huge blind spots
- Higher clearance and grills means you are more likely to run people over than have them bouncing off the hood

Please take the lives of your neighbors into consideration before purchasing your next vehicle. And it may be helpful to refer to MMM's thoughts on the whole matter (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/)

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2021, 12:57:27 PM »
I no longer need a minivan but will require something that will be comfortable on long trips with the family, and my wife insist on driving something where she sits higher up than in a regular sedan (can't blame her with all those overcompensating flashy pickups and giant 7-seater SUVs around) as she simply doesn't feel comfortable and safe in a regular car. I was therefore thinking small SUV, aka Toyota RAV4, Kia Sportage, or Honda C-RV.
Seems to be a lot of threads on here recently from people lusting after these luxury living rooms on wheels.

Just want to point out that you are 50% more likely to kill a pedestrian or cyclist in an SUV than a sedan. The main reasons:
- Lower visibility, huge blind spots
- Higher clearance and grills means you are more likely to run people over than have them bouncing off the hood

Please take the lives of your neighbors into consideration before purchasing your next vehicle. And it may be helpful to refer to MMM's thoughts on the whole matter (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/)

Oh yes I hate the tiny windows on some of those. Completely stupid design.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4920
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2021, 01:42:22 PM »
I no longer need a minivan but will require something that will be comfortable on long trips with the family, and my wife insist on driving something where she sits higher up than in a regular sedan (can't blame her with all those overcompensating flashy pickups and giant 7-seater SUVs around) as she simply doesn't feel comfortable and safe in a regular car. I was therefore thinking small SUV, aka Toyota RAV4, Kia Sportage, or Honda C-RV.
Seems to be a lot of threads on here recently from people lusting after these luxury living rooms on wheels.

Just want to point out that you are 50% more likely to kill a pedestrian or cyclist in an SUV than a sedan.
The vehicles in question here are not giant SUVs. The RAV4 and CR-V are closer in size to a Honda Fit than they are to a Chevy Tahoe. The Kia Sportage is actually shorter in height than the original Scion xB (a vehicle mentioned in MMM's own article on best cars). These are technically all compact crossovers (to give you a sense of size, the CR-V actually uses the Honda Civic platform).

kms

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Minion Money Hippie
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #56 on: May 26, 2021, 01:58:10 PM »
Thank you, @RWD, I was just about to point that out myself. Compared to the average vehicle size in Texas both the RAV4 and C-RV are tiny, and I absolutely understand why my wife feels uncomfortable in a regular sedan or hatchback. You'll be basically staring at giant bumpers and wheel arches at eye level all around. I will gladly let anyone who wants continue arguing that point take it up with my wife.

It's one of the few drawbacks of living around here. Everything is bigger in Texas, including vehicles.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2021, 07:22:42 AM »
Oh yes I hate the tiny windows on some of those. Completely stupid design.

Half of that is to improve crash safety. There is definitely designer influence in trying to create "aggressive" proportions, but increasing the body panel coverage helps tremendously with side impact protections. And is easier to create a more sturdy cage for protecting occupants. Glass doesn't have the material properties to protect whilst maintaining crumple zones. You design for what you measure, and cars all have to pass crash safety tests so there you have it.

Modern cars can get away with it more because of all of the smart features: lane assist, backup cameras, blind spot warnings, etc. That does come at some cost for situational awareness, but I'd wager that distracted driving causes significantly more pedestrian/bike incidents than any of that.

The safest way to avoid hitting people with your vehicle is to not drive as much.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2021, 07:57:42 AM »
Oh yes I hate the tiny windows on some of those. Completely stupid design.

Half of that is to improve crash safety. There is definitely designer influence in trying to create "aggressive" proportions, but increasing the body panel coverage helps tremendously with side impact protections. And is easier to create a more sturdy cage for protecting occupants. Glass doesn't have the material properties to protect whilst maintaining crumple zones. You design for what you measure, and cars all have to pass crash safety tests so there you have it.

Modern cars can get away with it more because of all of the smart features: lane assist, backup cameras, blind spot warnings, etc. That does come at some cost for situational awareness, but I'd wager that distracted driving causes significantly more pedestrian/bike incidents than any of that.

The safest way to avoid hitting people with your vehicle is to not drive as much.

I never had a backup camera until a couple weeks ago. I get motion sickness so being able to turn around and look where I'm going is important to me both as a driver and a passenger. If I try to do it by just looking at a screen I will lose my lunch.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4920
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2021, 08:34:35 AM »
Oh yes I hate the tiny windows on some of those. Completely stupid design.

Half of that is to improve crash safety. There is definitely designer influence in trying to create "aggressive" proportions, but increasing the body panel coverage helps tremendously with side impact protections. And is easier to create a more sturdy cage for protecting occupants. Glass doesn't have the material properties to protect whilst maintaining crumple zones. You design for what you measure, and cars all have to pass crash safety tests so there you have it.

Modern cars can get away with it more because of all of the smart features: lane assist, backup cameras, blind spot warnings, etc. That does come at some cost for situational awareness, but I'd wager that distracted driving causes significantly more pedestrian/bike incidents than any of that.

The safest way to avoid hitting people with your vehicle is to not drive as much.

I never had a backup camera until a couple weeks ago. I get motion sickness so being able to turn around and look where I'm going is important to me both as a driver and a passenger. If I try to do it by just looking at a screen I will lose my lunch.

You're not really supposed to back up while looking at the screen. You're supposed to look at the screen before backing up to make sure there isn't anything hidden from view, then back up while looking over your shoulder as normal.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #60 on: May 27, 2021, 08:45:04 AM »
Oh yes I hate the tiny windows on some of those. Completely stupid design.

Half of that is to improve crash safety. There is definitely designer influence in trying to create "aggressive" proportions, but increasing the body panel coverage helps tremendously with side impact protections. And is easier to create a more sturdy cage for protecting occupants. Glass doesn't have the material properties to protect whilst maintaining crumple zones. You design for what you measure, and cars all have to pass crash safety tests so there you have it.

Modern cars can get away with it more because of all of the smart features: lane assist, backup cameras, blind spot warnings, etc. That does come at some cost for situational awareness, but I'd wager that distracted driving causes significantly more pedestrian/bike incidents than any of that.

The safest way to avoid hitting people with your vehicle is to not drive as much.

I never had a backup camera until a couple weeks ago. I get motion sickness so being able to turn around and look where I'm going is important to me both as a driver and a passenger. If I try to do it by just looking at a screen I will lose my lunch.

You're not really supposed to back up while looking at the screen. You're supposed to look at the screen before backing up to make sure there isn't anything hidden from view, then back up while looking over your shoulder as normal.

I use my side mirrors for backing up. If we are talking about "technically correct" pedantic speak, that is how you are supposed to do it. But that's not a hill I want to die on, nor something that most people feel comfortable with. Just like you're never supposed to underhand wrist up at the 12:00 position to turn the wheel, but I've given up on pointing that one out too. Or shift into neutral when slowing down in a manual. Can you tell I have a hard time being a passenger when my wife is driving, lol!

I don't have any experience with being motion sick from backing up. I wonder how common that is?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2021, 08:49:06 AM by StashingAway »

DeniseNJ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #61 on: May 27, 2021, 09:12:26 AM »
I really don't like a too high up car. I like putting stuff up on top if I need to and not have to stand on a chair to do it. Even hauling stuff into the back of an SUV is a pain--too much lifting.  I love a station wagon or hatchback. I once slid an IKEA sofa right up on top of my station wagon all by myself, tied her up and brought her home. Home Depot hauls or stops at the steel place are a lot easier in a wagon than a high up SUV.  Even my old Kia sportage was too high up.

Tester

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #62 on: May 27, 2021, 02:29:49 PM »
Regarding electric vehicle buying, I would wait a little until the legislation for incentives passes (or fails). Just read that it got approved from the Senate FInance something and it increased the incentives to 12500 (the proposal I mean).
Waiting..... :).
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-panel-advances-ev-tax-credit-up-12500-2021-05-27/

windytrail

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #63 on: May 27, 2021, 02:45:21 PM »
Thank you, @RWD, I was just about to point that out myself. Compared to the average vehicle size in Texas both the RAV4 and C-RV are tiny, and I absolutely understand why my wife feels uncomfortable in a regular sedan or hatchback. You'll be basically staring at giant bumpers and wheel arches at eye level all around. I will gladly let anyone who wants continue arguing that point take it up with my wife.

It's one of the few drawbacks of living around here. Everything is bigger in Texas, including vehicles.
Yeah, everyone has their own reasons for wanting a bigger car. I'm not trying to single you out -- SUV/truck lust is happening everywhere, not just in Texas. For example, the number of SUVs purchased in New York City rose 21% from 2016 to 2020 (https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/05/25/data-shows-a-dangerous-rise-in-suv-purchases-in-nyc/), now comprising over 60% of the vehicles there. Why the hell do you need an SUV in the most transit-friendly city in our country?

Oh yes I hate the tiny windows on some of those. Completely stupid design.

Half of that is to improve crash safety. There is definitely designer influence in trying to create "aggressive" proportions, but increasing the body panel coverage helps tremendously with side impact protections. And is easier to create a more sturdy cage for protecting occupants. Glass doesn't have the material properties to protect whilst maintaining crumple zones. You design for what you measure, and cars all have to pass crash safety tests so there you have it.

Modern cars can get away with it more because of all of the smart features: lane assist, backup cameras, blind spot warnings, etc. That does come at some cost for situational awareness, but I'd wager that distracted driving causes significantly more pedestrian/bike incidents than any of that.

The safest way to avoid hitting people with your vehicle is to not drive as much.
Improving crash safety for whom? The US's federal New Car Assessment program does not test for pedestrian safety, only safety for vehicle occupants (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/u-s-new-car-safety-ratings-are-overdue-for-update). This contrasts with Europe, Australia, China, Korea, and Japan, all of which require pedestrian safety testing as part of their ranking program.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2021, 02:51:35 PM by windytrail »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2021, 03:14:35 PM »

Improving crash safety for whom? The US's federal New Car Assessment program does not test for pedestrian safety, only safety for vehicle occupants (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/u-s-new-car-safety-ratings-are-overdue-for-update). This contrasts with Europe, Australia, China, Korea, and Japan, all of which require pedestrian safety testing as part of their ranking program.

I believe your comment is wildly misdirected. In fact, it quite bothers me. Let me explain:

We were discussing window proportions relative to body panel size. I pointed out that one reason windows are smaller is because having larger areas of sheet metal positively affects crash test safety ratings. This in no way is making claims either way about pedestrian safety. But now that we're on it: I suspect larger body panels relative to window size is also safer for pedestrians. It is easier to make a giving impact in sheet metal than glass. Do other countries test for pedestrian visibility, or just pedestrian impact? Because that is a vital difference! And I imagine both tests lead to the same conclusion: more metal, less glass.

Now, it can be said that visibility affects pedestrian safety. But it does NOT affect pedestrian IMPACT safety. You seem to be counter arguing a point which was not made.

/rant

windytrail

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2021, 05:18:57 PM »

Improving crash safety for whom? The US's federal New Car Assessment program does not test for pedestrian safety, only safety for vehicle occupants (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/u-s-new-car-safety-ratings-are-overdue-for-update). This contrasts with Europe, Australia, China, Korea, and Japan, all of which require pedestrian safety testing as part of their ranking program.

I believe your comment is wildly misdirected. In fact, it quite bothers me. Let me explain:

We were discussing window proportions relative to body panel size. I pointed out that one reason windows are smaller is because having larger areas of sheet metal positively affects crash test safety ratings. This in no way is making claims either way about pedestrian safety. But now that we're on it: I suspect larger body panels relative to window size is also safer for pedestrians. It is easier to make a giving impact in sheet metal than glass. Do other countries test for pedestrian visibility, or just pedestrian impact? Because that is a vital difference! And I imagine both tests lead to the same conclusion: more metal, less glass.

Now, it can be said that visibility affects pedestrian safety. But it does NOT affect pedestrian IMPACT safety. You seem to be counter arguing a point which was not made.

/rant
@Morning Glory 's comment was that the smaller windows are bad for visibility -- and thus for pedestrian safety. Your reply that smaller windows are associated with positive crash test ratings failed to mention that pedestrians are not included in those safety tests, and thus needed clarification.

Your idea that larger body panels are somehow safer for pedestrians is pure speculation. The truth is that SUVs and trucks are much more dangerous for those of us who lack an armor of sheet metal.

blingwrx

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #66 on: May 27, 2021, 07:43:40 PM »
I have a 2017 cr-v I bought 4.5 years ago. I received offers from Carmax and caravana for $26k. I bought the car new for 30k. Used car prices are nuts period. If you could wait then wait to the shortage to be over. Otherwise go for the new car itís going to be a better deal right now. With new cars some are selling for over MSRP as there is a shortage. Back then you could probably talk down the price like 5-10% under MSRP depending on the demand for that model.

I live in NYC so Gas mileage sucks in the city. The next car I would get would be a hybrid or EV.

kms

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Minion Money Hippie
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2021, 06:49:23 AM »
While and as long as I have all the experts' attention I figured I might as well ask what y'all think about the following service items recommended by both Kia last year when I had it in for a safety recall as well as CBA. I've declined all these mainly because I can do them myself.

Replace engine air filter - that's an easy one, no explanation required. Replaced that myself slightly over two years and around 11,000 miles ago and will replace again
Brake flush - the brake fluid is less than three years and only around 15,000 miles old; CBA claims it's "due by miles & history" but I can do that myself
Power steering system flush - not sure if that was ever replaced so it might make sense; according to CBA it's "dark by color"
Cooling system flush - not sure if that was ever performed. Is it really necessary? Never had to deal with this on my motorcycles as they were always air-cooled
Fuel intake system flush - that's the one I don't understand at all. Kia claims it will "restore vehicle performance".
Tune up - Recommended and "due by miles & history". What exactly is that "tune-up" and what is it good for?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2021, 06:54:00 AM by kms »

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6559
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2021, 07:20:48 AM »
I have a 2017 cr-v I bought 4.5 years ago. I received offers from Carmax and caravana for $26k. I bought the car new for 30k. Used car prices are nuts period. If you could wait then wait to the shortage to be over. Otherwise go for the new car itís going to be a better deal right now. With new cars some are selling for over MSRP as there is a shortage. Back then you could probably talk down the price like 5-10% under MSRP depending on the demand for that model.

I live in NYC so Gas mileage sucks in the city. The next car I would get would be a hybrid or EV.

I'm in a similar situation with a Ford Escape. Offer is within $200 of the (admittedly good) price we paid. lol.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4920
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #69 on: May 28, 2021, 07:24:05 AM »
While and as long as I have all the experts' attention I figured I might as well ask what y'all think about the following service items recommended by both Kia last year when I had it in for a safety recall as well as CBA. I've declined all these mainly because I can do them myself.

Replace engine air filter - that's an easy one, no explanation required. Replaced that myself slightly over two years and around 11,000 miles ago and will replace again
Brake flush - the brake fluid is less than three years and only around 15,000 miles old; CBA claims it's "due by miles & history" but I can do that myself
Power steering system flush - not sure if that was ever replaced so it might make sense; according to CBA it's "dark by color"
Cooling system flush - not sure if that was ever performed. Is it really necessary? Never had to deal with this on my motorcycles as they were always air-cooled
Fuel intake system flush - that's the one I don't understand at all. Kia claims it will "restore vehicle performance".
Tune up - Recommended and "due by miles & history". What exactly is that "tune-up" and what is it good for?
In general you can just follow the recommended mileage/time intervals for these in your owner's manual.

Brake flush is supposed to be done every couple years because the fluid absorbs moisture which can corrode/rust your brake hydraulic systems.
Power steering fluid should be good for ~100k miles. If its never been done after 150k couldn't hurt to do it now.
A quick search says the original coolant should be good for 10 years/140k miles. After the first flush then you should be replacing it every 2 years.
Cleaning fuel injectors could be considered part of a tune-up. Really only necessary if you suspect they are getting clogged. A tune-up could also involve replacing filters, spark plugs, and other miscellaneous bits. If you haven't noticed a drop in fuel economy or performance I'd leave this alone (or follow the owner's manual).

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6729
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #70 on: May 28, 2021, 09:41:28 AM »
With modern spark plugs and their ~120,000 mile lifespans, I don't see the point of a regular "tune-up" service.  I'm not sure what they'd actually do other than line item "tune-up" on the invoice and charge you for it. Air filter and cabin air filter, maybe?

blingwrx

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #71 on: May 28, 2021, 02:00:51 PM »
For the Fuel intake flush. You could just buy some fuel injector cleaner and put it in your fuel tank every so often. Along with that you might do a intake manifold cleaning, gunk could build up in there over time. If you notice your car idles at a higher rpm than usual a cleaning might be good. Cleaning these system may or may not help improve fuel economy.
While and as long as I have all the experts' attention I figured I might as well ask what y'all think about the following service items recommended by both Kia last year when I had it in for a safety recall as well as CBA. I've declined all these mainly because I can do them myself.

Replace engine air filter - that's an easy one, no explanation required. Replaced that myself slightly over two years and around 11,000 miles ago and will replace again
Brake flush - the brake fluid is less than three years and only around 15,000 miles old; CBA claims it's "due by miles & history" but I can do that myself
Power steering system flush - not sure if that was ever replaced so it might make sense; according to CBA it's "dark by color"
Cooling system flush - not sure if that was ever performed. Is it really necessary? Never had to deal with this on my motorcycles as they were always air-cooled
Fuel intake system flush - that's the one I don't understand at all. Kia claims it will "restore vehicle performance".
Tune up - Recommended and "due by miles & history". What exactly is that "tune-up" and what is it good for?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2021, 05:26:53 AM »

Improving crash safety for whom? The US's federal New Car Assessment program does not test for pedestrian safety, only safety for vehicle occupants (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/u-s-new-car-safety-ratings-are-overdue-for-update). This contrasts with Europe, Australia, China, Korea, and Japan, all of which require pedestrian safety testing as part of their ranking program.

I believe your comment is wildly misdirected. In fact, it quite bothers me. Let me explain:

We were discussing window proportions relative to body panel size. I pointed out that one reason windows are smaller is because having larger areas of sheet metal positively affects crash test safety ratings. This in no way is making claims either way about pedestrian safety. But now that we're on it: I suspect larger body panels relative to window size is also safer for pedestrians. It is easier to make a giving impact in sheet metal than glass. Do other countries test for pedestrian visibility, or just pedestrian impact? Because that is a vital difference! And I imagine both tests lead to the same conclusion: more metal, less glass.

Now, it can be said that visibility affects pedestrian safety. But it does NOT affect pedestrian IMPACT safety. You seem to be counter arguing a point which was not made.

/rant
@Morning Glory 's comment was that the smaller windows are bad for visibility -- and thus for pedestrian safety. Your reply that smaller windows are associated with positive crash test ratings failed to mention that pedestrians are not included in those safety tests, and thus needed clarification.

Your idea that larger body panels are somehow safer for pedestrians is pure speculation. The truth is that SUVs and trucks are much more dangerous for those of us who lack an armor of sheet metal.

> Your idea that larger body panels are somehow safer for pedestrians is pure speculation.

It is not. More sheet metal = safer cabin (all else being equal). Why do you think modern pillars are so thick compared to older cars? The safest crash test vehicle would have no windows at all. So, because crash test performance are so highly sought after in modern cars, they design them to perform incredibly well in those scenarios. Mind you, there are also many regulations that are for pedestrian safety, but we are specifically talking about why windows are smaller in cars.

> The truth is that SUVs and trucks are much more dangerous for those of us who lack an armor of sheet metal.

The TRUTH is that I agree with this statement, yet you are somehow arguing as though I do not. In fact, I have made statements that hinted at it if you bothered reading them (the safest vehicle is one that you drive less frequently). You are preaching to the choir and missing MY point entirely.


JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6729
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #73 on: May 31, 2021, 08:19:28 AM »

Improving crash safety for whom? The US's federal New Car Assessment program does not test for pedestrian safety, only safety for vehicle occupants (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/u-s-new-car-safety-ratings-are-overdue-for-update). This contrasts with Europe, Australia, China, Korea, and Japan, all of which require pedestrian safety testing as part of their ranking program.

I believe your comment is wildly misdirected. In fact, it quite bothers me. Let me explain:

We were discussing window proportions relative to body panel size. I pointed out that one reason windows are smaller is because having larger areas of sheet metal positively affects crash test safety ratings. This in no way is making claims either way about pedestrian safety. But now that we're on it: I suspect larger body panels relative to window size is also safer for pedestrians. It is easier to make a giving impact in sheet metal than glass. Do other countries test for pedestrian visibility, or just pedestrian impact? Because that is a vital difference! And I imagine both tests lead to the same conclusion: more metal, less glass.

Now, it can be said that visibility affects pedestrian safety. But it does NOT affect pedestrian IMPACT safety. You seem to be counter arguing a point which was not made.

/rant
@Morning Glory 's comment was that the smaller windows are bad for visibility -- and thus for pedestrian safety. Your reply that smaller windows are associated with positive crash test ratings failed to mention that pedestrians are not included in those safety tests, and thus needed clarification.

Your idea that larger body panels are somehow safer for pedestrians is pure speculation. The truth is that SUVs and trucks are much more dangerous for those of us who lack an armor of sheet metal.

> Your idea that larger body panels are somehow safer for pedestrians is pure speculation.

It is not. More sheet metal = safer cabin (all else being equal). Why do you think modern pillars are so thick compared to older cars? The safest crash test vehicle would have no windows at all. So, because crash test performance are so highly sought after in modern cars, they design them to perform incredibly well in those scenarios. Mind you, there are also many regulations that are for pedestrian safety, but we are specifically talking about why windows are smaller in cars.

> The truth is that SUVs and trucks are much more dangerous for those of us who lack an armor of sheet metal.

The TRUTH is that I agree with this statement, yet you are somehow arguing as though I do not. In fact, I have made statements that hinted at it if you bothered reading them (the safest vehicle is one that you drive less frequently). You are preaching to the choir and missing MY point entirely.

Pedestrians are not in the cabin though - in the context of what you're responding to, the safety of the occupants is not at issue.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2021, 01:17:35 PM »
Pedestrians are not in the cabin though - in the context of what you're responding to, the safety of the occupants is not at issue.

The context of what I'm responding to is saying that there IS a safety reason for smaller windows, it just doesn't happen to be for pedestrians. I am not making any hard overall claims about pedestrian safety with smaller windows. I did speculate that in the event of an actual impact, that body panels are less damaging than glass- a speculation that I still stand by base on my experience with materials engineering.

This is a bit nuanced, and it might sound like I am supporting a) larger vehicles, and b) smaller windows. I AM NOT. I am merely pointing out why the smaller window trend has been happening since, like, the 70's. It is because the industry heavily favors occupant crash safety. There are in fact many regulations on design for pedestrian impact safety. There is also a good chance that the larger body panels have saved more (occupant) lives than the supposed (pedestrian) lives cost due to the lower visibility (I would bet good money on that, but it would be difficult to prove)

I've said it in other threads and I'll repeat here so that you guys don' think I'm anti MMM: The best thing for pedestrian safety is to not drive at all. The next best thing is to stay alert. Texting and driving causes way more problems than size difference between Rav4 vs Neon or window visibility.

Your rear visibility out the windows is only really relevant for pedestrians at slow speeds. And at those speeds you have more time to check your surroundings, regardless of window size. Parking lots, cities, suburban neighborhoods, etc. There should not be any high speed blind spot situation where pedestrians are in danger. In the end, I think it's a valid complaint (small windows), but a non-issue use case (pedestrian safety).

« Last Edit: May 31, 2021, 01:19:33 PM by StashingAway »

windytrail

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #75 on: June 01, 2021, 06:48:31 PM »


2021 Cadillac Escalade -- safe for pedestrians?

Quote
There is a clear correlation between vehicle design and the recent spike in pedestrian deaths. While the people driving SUVs are slightly safer (1.6 percent decrease in SUV occupant deaths in 2018, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the number of pedestrians killed by those drivers has skyrocketed by 81 percent in the last decade, according to a report released last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Thatís mostly because of the way SUVs are designed: larger bodies and higher carriages mean pedestrians are more likely to suffer deadly blows to the head and torso. Higher clearances mean victims are more likely to get trapped underneath a speeding SUV instead of pushed onto the hood or off to the side. Speed is also a factor because SUVs have more horsepower than a typical sedan. A recent investigation by USA Today and the Detroit Free Press found that the growing popularity of SUVs accounts for the alarming rise in pedestrian deaths.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/19/21522959/cadillac-escalade-2021-first-drive-safety-oversized
« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 06:51:39 PM by windytrail »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #76 on: June 02, 2021, 06:37:44 AM »

2021 Cadillac Escalade -- safe for pedestrians?

Quote
There is a clear correlation between vehicle design and the recent spike in pedestrian deaths. While the people driving SUVs are slightly safer (1.6 percent decrease in SUV occupant deaths in 2018, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the number of pedestrians killed by those drivers has skyrocketed by 81 percent in the last decade, according to a report released last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/19/21522959/cadillac-escalade-2021-first-drive-safety-oversized

The fact that you still think that I'm saying that bigger cars are better for pedestrians shows that you are not reading my comments. What, specifically, do you think my point of view is? I would like to see an answer to that...


p.s.: How do we know the correlation isn't with cell phone usage? Or with population density (and we just happen to be driving more SUVs)?
 

« Last Edit: June 02, 2021, 06:39:23 AM by StashingAway »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6729
Re: New vs. used car - where has my math failed me?
« Reply #77 on: June 02, 2021, 08:15:17 AM »

2021 Cadillac Escalade -- safe for pedestrians?

Quote
There is a clear correlation between vehicle design and the recent spike in pedestrian deaths. While the people driving SUVs are slightly safer (1.6 percent decrease in SUV occupant deaths in 2018, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the number of pedestrians killed by those drivers has skyrocketed by 81 percent in the last decade, according to a report released last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/19/21522959/cadillac-escalade-2021-first-drive-safety-oversized

The fact that you still think that I'm saying that bigger cars are better for pedestrians shows that you are not reading my comments. What, specifically, do you think my point of view is? I would like to see an answer to that...

p.s.: How do we know the correlation isn't with cell phone usage? Or with population density (and we just happen to be driving more SUVs)?

So while I'm not going to dispute that larger vehicles with bigger blind spots are more likely to cause injury, the way that these articles are presenting information tingled my spidey sense so I went poking around a little.

I went back through the linked articles until I ended up at the freep story and it mentions how pedestrian deaths are getting closer to the all time high in 1979.  What it does not mention is that the population of the US is nearly 50% higher than it was then.

They do claim that SUVs are involved in "about one third" of pedestrian crashes while causing 40% of fatalities. I really don't like the use of "about" numbers when presenting a mathematical argument, so after hunting for a bit I found their source NHTSA data table here



In order to arrive at their numbers of "about one third" and 40%, you have to include "large trucks or buses."  To validate their math, we have 25063 injuries out of 72176 (34.72%) and 1894 deaths out of 4818 (39.31%).

If we re-run the numbers only with the categories of small SUVs/pickups, large SUVs/vans, and large pickup trucks (excluding large trucks and buses), we have 22861 injuries out of 72176 (31.67%) and 1449 deaths out of 4818 (30.01%).

Overall, large trucks or buses account for 3.05% of injuries and 9.24% of fatalities, but these are not the topic at hand (at least I don't recall suggestions of using sedans for freight and public transit).

Furthermore, the "unknown vehicle" category comprises 12.68% of injuries and 12.99% of deaths, which throws any concept of accuracy out the window.