Stop me from buying a truck!!

[Jon Bon]

So here is my plan, sell my car, buy a truck. I wanted to open this to the mmm community for appropriate advice and mocking. Let me know what you would do in a similar situation.

Current car: small 2010 CUV kbb approximately $10,000
Target car: 10 year old nissan frontier or other smaller truck. Price $8-10,000



The reason I want to do this:
1. I have small and growing realestate company that requires hauling of stuff from time to time.
2. I will be quitting my day job and working part time on this new endeavor. I would expect mileage to be around 5,000 per year.
3. Lastly the business will buy this vehicle, so it can be bought with pretax dollars.

Now outside of the obvious of an older less reliable car with poor gas mileage what am I missing?

[Papa bear]

Dear Jonbon,

Buy the truck so your good friend papa bear can borrow it. 

- papa bear


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris22]

The fact that every truck no matter how its used is helpess to do anything but rape polar bears and give babies asthma and put NYC under 6 feet of water?  -MMM


Go ahead and buy a damn truck.

[spud1987]

The purchase might not necessarily be made with "pre-tax dollars" as you claim.

Cars/Trucks used for a business must be capitalized and depreciated over a number of years (either 5 or 7 I believe). In the past few years the IRS has allowed "bonus depreciation," meaning you may deduct 50% (or 100% in some cases) of the cost the first year that the car/truck is placed in service. But this rule expired in 2014 and it may or may not be extended. There is also a special rule for accelerated depreciation for large trucks, but it may not apply in this case.

[Bajadoc]

Doesn't sound too dumb, I'd do it.

[Gone Fishing]

I'm guessing the CUV you have probably gets better milage than the truck. If so, get a small utility trailer for the CUV.  A 4x8 trailer runs around $500 new or a little less used.  In my state a lifetime plate runs $75, and annual taxes are less than $5.  You will probably be able to haul more weight on the trailer  than you could in the bed of a smaller pickup, plus you don't have to worry about breaking your window or tearing up your bed. And you also keep your ability to carry a few more passengers. 

[bobechs]

1. Your current vehicle won't sell for as much as you think it will.  KBB pricing, especially for people who fantasize that their car is better than average condition (it isn't) or ,even worse, look at dealer prices to plan what they will actually get from an actual buyer with actual money are in for a shock.

2. You won't get the replacement vehicle as cheap as you think.  Not easily anyway, see 1. above.

3. Even if 1. and 2. are completely the opposite of true in your unique case, in effect trading straight across a five year old vehicle that can do what you want with an inexpensive modification (light trailer and Class 1 hitch) for a ten year old vehicle that can also do what you want isn't really a good deal, unless you believe that cars get better with more age and miles.

4. But...but... you'll have a TRUCK, man.  A TRUCK fer'krissakes.  If that gives you the chubby you need , like the man says "doesn't sound too dumb."  However too dumb is.

[cars+FIRE]

A big thing to consider is that a 10 year old truck is much farther down the depreciation curve than a 5 year old CUV.  Although this cost is not realized until the sale of either vehicle, it does have an offset to the higher fuel/maintenance costs of the truck.

To me, a big unknown that we'd need more detail on, is if the CUV is currently fulfilling any sort of duty that the truck can't, AND also that can't be fulfilled with a more efficient car.

[10dollarsatatime]

I just got rid of a 10 year old frontier.  I loved the thing.  It was a really nice truck.  I hauled things with a few times a month.  I put less than 6000 miles a year on it.  But I traded it in for a 15 year old CRV with a decent towing capacity. I can haul just as much now with a small trailer as I could before with the truck.  The mileage is so much better.  It's more useful all around.  There's more room for people, more room for things that need to stay locked up and/or out of the weather.  Unless you're hauling large/heavy things constantly, the truck is a waste of money.  I mean, I like trucks... it took me 4 months to finally convince myself to let it go... but I'm really happy with my CRV and all the money it's currently not costing me.

[WranglerBowman]

Define time to time...

1. I have small and growing realestate company that requires hauling of stuff from time to time.

If you're getting into real estate you're going to want something that can hold 4 people comfortably.  Now if you need to haul big stuff weekly, especially dirty stuff that can be out in the weather I would go with a truck.  Otherwise I would hands down go with 10dollarsatatime's plan which IMO is the best all around option.

If only they made a small affordable 4 door diesel pick up in the states!

[Digital Dogma]

If you do end up purchasing a truck I highly recommend a single cab 4cyl truck, consider some of the old Mazda Bs with the low ratio (3:10?) rear axle and manual front wheel locks (or even a 2X4). They are about as utilitarian a work truck as you can get.

[Jon Bon]

Thanks guys!

I think I'll try and make due with a hitch and a trailer in the short term. Now that I Read some of the comments  the CUV is pretty much better in almost all situations. Even most trips to lowes the CUV will excel due to better mpg and enclosed cargo area.

[mpg350]

I'm guessing the CUV you have probably gets better milage than the truck. If so, get a small utility trailer for the CUV.  A 4x8 trailer runs around $500 new or a little less used.  In my state a lifetime plate runs $75, and annual taxes are less than $5.  You will probably be able to haul more weight on the trailer  than you could in the bed of a smaller pickup, plus you don't have to worry about breaking your window or tearing up your bed. And you also keep your ability to carry a few more passengers.

I second this if it works for what your doing.

[genesismachine]

I just bought a 1991 Mazda B2600i. For $2000. Nothing is wrong with it, seats are clean, all dials and buttons work (except charger port doesn't charge, and minor emissions issue during startup). It's fuel injected, and it's the last truck Mazda made before going into that weird Ford/Ranger/Mazda partnership.

I've hauled 1000+lb loads in it ~100 miles many times, threw on a $200 roof rack from craigslist, and hauled ~800 pounds on that before.

I did have to replace the front brake calipers. Thankfully, everything on that truck costs next to nothing. It cost me $50 in parts.

Oh, and 27mpg.

PS - If you live somewhere hot, get the model with AC. It SUCKS not having AC on 100 degree days.

[FIRE47]

Not really anything wrong with a several years old compact truck - they basically don't depreciate anymore after a few years old especially the 4x4 models and a lot of them are some of the most dependable vehicles on the road. Mines just now getting to the point after 3.5 years that I can't basically get my full money back on it.

The gas mileage generally isn't even that bad, especially highway compared to what people think of when they think truck.

The main drawback is that they don't really seat that many passengers comfortably, so unless you need to tow something fairly serious or really need to go off road/need 4x4 it's hard to make a case for one - and I own one myself.

Beyond these attributes there really is no quantifiable advantage, they will likely have less creature comforts for the price.

[Chris22]

Not really anything wrong with a several years old compact truck

Yeah, it's surprising to me the knee-jerk people have against "TRUCK" in the "small truck" phrase.  I get making fun of the guy in the jacked up F-350 commuting to an office, but a small Frontier or Ranger or similar?  It's probably the most frugal and versitile vehicle you can buy if you don't have to carry more than 1 passenger frequently.  They cost nothing to run, gas mileage is only slightly down from an average car, as mentioned they don't depreciate, and they're hugely useful in doing other things that save you money (like your own home repairs and maintenance).  Heck, in my efforts to remodel and move into our house, I briefly considered buying a $2k truck and then selling it when I was done, but I knew I'd want to hang onto it and I have literally no place to put a 4th vehicle. 

[Digital Dogma]

Not really anything wrong with a several years old compact truck

Yeah, it's surprising to me the knee-jerk people have against "TRUCK" in the "small truck" phrase.  I get making fun of the guy in the jacked up F-350 commuting to an office, but a small Frontier or Ranger or similar?  It's probably the most frugal and versitile vehicle you can buy if you don't have to carry more than 1 passenger frequently.  They cost nothing to run, gas mileage is only slightly down from an average car, as mentioned they don't depreciate, and they're hugely useful in doing other things that save you money (like your own home repairs and maintenance).  Heck, in my efforts to remodel and move into our house, I briefly considered buying a $2k truck and then selling it when I was done, but I knew I'd want to hang onto it and I have literally no place to put a 4th vehicle.

Those 4cyl Ranger/B series trucks aren't very fuel efficient at highway speeds because of their low gear ratio rear axle which gives it the necessary torque to operate easily at low speed. I'd deff say that a small Fit-style hatch is way more fuel efficient if you're going to use it as a daily highway driver.
The other thing about these small ranger style trucks is that they're deadly in rollovers because the cab crushes in on the drivers head.

They are perfect for driving 'around town' (below highway speed) and their narrow width makes them easy to maneuver off-road. They aren't very good highway commuter trucks. Watch for rust on these things they will snap in half if you over-load the frame.

[FIRE47]

Not really anything wrong with a several years old compact truck

Yeah, it's surprising to me the knee-jerk people have against "TRUCK" in the "small truck" phrase.  I get making fun of the guy in the jacked up F-350 commuting to an office, but a small Frontier or Ranger or similar?  It's probably the most frugal and versitile vehicle you can buy if you don't have to carry more than 1 passenger frequently.  They cost nothing to run, gas mileage is only slightly down from an average car, as mentioned they don't depreciate, and they're hugely useful in doing other things that save you money (like your own home repairs and maintenance).  Heck, in my efforts to remodel and move into our house, I briefly considered buying a $2k truck and then selling it when I was done, but I knew I'd want to hang onto it and I have literally no place to put a 4th vehicle.

Those 4cyl Ranger/B series trucks aren't very fuel efficient at highway speeds because of their low gear ratio rear axle which gives it the necessary torque to operate easily at low speed. I'd deff say that a small Fit-style hatch is way more fuel efficient if you're going to use it as a daily highway driver.
The other thing about these small ranger style trucks is that they're deadly in rollovers because the cab crushes in on the drivers head.

They are perfect for driving 'around town' (below highway speed) and their narrow width makes them easy to maneuver off-road. They aren't very good highway commuter trucks. Watch for rust on these things they will snap in half if you over-load the frame.

No one is going to argue that they are more fuel efficient than a Fit-style hatch, clearly not. Mainly owing to the fact that the Ranger/B Series have not even been sold for almost 5 years now, (and probably not really updated for a decade before that) so they are obviously not gifted with the latest technology.

All I'm saying is for a Mustachian vehicle you can do a lot worse than a compact truck if you do actually need to do work or want to go offroad or want/need 4x4. 

I'm not going to get into the safety argument with you since you can't talk about safety when recommending a Fit style subcompact, as a large majority of vehicle safety is based on weight with a not insignificant amount also being attributed to ride height due to overriding the crumple zones of other vehicles, which depress even further due to the shift of weight in breaking before a collision and I would argue due to decreased visibility as well.

[Digital Dogma]

There is so much more to car safety than 'bigger is safer' that I reject your assertion. The bare bones 4cyl B trucks dont have stability control, many dont have antilock brakes, and their height is counterproductive to survival in a crash at highway speed. Thats why Id only recommend them for infrequently driven or local routes. As far as stability on the road and rollover avoidance, car suspensions are clearly superior.
These B/Ranger trucks have a reputation for killing and paralyzing drivers in rollovers for a reason, they werent designed with a focus on safety at all.
Each vehicle regardless of its weight class can be evaluated objectively for safety, as the engineers would say - one test is worth a thousand expert opinions.

[FIRE47]

There is so much more to car safety than 'bigger is safer' that I reject your assertion. The bare bones 4cyl B trucks dont have stability control, many dont have antilock brakes, and their height is counterproductive to survival in a crash at highway speed. Thats why Id only recommend them for infrequently driven or local routes. As far as stability on the road and rollover avoidance, car suspensions are clearly superior.
These B/Ranger trucks have a reputation for killing and paralyzing drivers in rollovers for a reason, they werent designed with a focus on safety at all.
Each vehicle regardless of its weight class can be evaluated objectively for safety, as the engineers would say - one test is worth a thousand expert opinions.

Oh I fully agree, these things are not known for safety - never said they were, probably primarily because they the main weaknesses of an SUV/Truck (rollover) in a crash but not very much of the size and weight and height that make them safer, although I would argue just by the nature of being 1500 lbs heavier and a foot higher which does help in a lot of collisions (if your crumple zone is overridden by the other vehicle you are in serious trouble) they are on par or better than a subcompact or compact.

With the risk of going wildly off topic about this I will just post a couple of links:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/pricier-heavier-vehicles-are-safer-national-study-by-ub-concludes-20150517

Crash tests are rarely done vs other vehicles but the rules of physics definitely apply no matter how many safety features you add.

"We also found that for every 1,000-pound increase in weight, vehicles were 19 percent safer.”