Honda Car Forum

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 04:54:40 GMT, Liam Devlin
<LiamD@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:


>> You lose more in the first years than at any other time.
>> So if you're flexible with your color and trim options you will save enough
>> to have a nice vacation with your new wheels.
>
>Money is so cheap now it pays to finance your car, even if you can write
>a check for the entire thing. I bought an Accord EX sedan w/auto last
>month and financed it through Honda at 3.64%. I can definitely do better
>than 3.64% with my money.

Good strategy. Likewise, it would pay to finance a two or three
year old car instead of taking the big depreciation hit in the first
two years of a new car. A car is a *depreciating* asset and a new
car is about the _worst_ investment you can make.

>Also, if you take a look at Honda's resale values, they hold up much
>better than Detroit iron. A 2 year old Accord isn't that much cheaper
>than a new one. A 2 year old Taurus is probably about half price (just
>guessing).

Then buy a Nissan, where you don't find artificially high prices
created by smart marketing and soccer Moms who droll over Camry's
and Accords.

>As always, YMMV.

Indeed.

You have pointed out one more problem with Japanese sedans.
They are smaller than most of the domestics with which they
compete, even though they cost 25 to 30 percent more to drive
home.



mike hunt




Kai Ponte wrote:
>
> "Grant" <grantf@untouchable.net> wrote in message
> news:beqds8$7cs2j$1@ID-135848.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > I'm looking forward to purchasing a new car. I've narrowed my options to
> > buying one of the following:
> >
> > - Honda Accord Coupe or Sedan
> > - Nissan Altima
> >
>
> My $.02 - I carpool with one person who has an '02 Accord. It is way too
> small! I feel totally cramped in there. Other than that, it seems like a
> fine car.
>
> Kai

Go with automatic, easy to use and Hondas are better than Nissan
My Accord 91 has passed through 4 owners and I am the 5th ,.. still the
car's history has no major repair...but everybody has maintained it so well
that I still have the maintainance records of the first owner.

"Grant" <grantf@untouchable.net> wrote in message
news:beqds8$7cs2j$1@ID-135848.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm looking forward to purchasing a new car. I've narrowed my options to
> buying one of the following:
>
> - Honda Accord Coupe or Sedan
> - Nissan Altima
>
> I'd like hear which one you guys would suggest.
>
> Thank you.
>
>

We hear that 'better resale' stuff in the NG's all the time,
but actually the resale rates on Japanese cars is NOT AS GOOD
as domestics, if you figure the resale value as a percentage of
what they cost to drive home. New domestic have a much better
return on investment. For instance the Taurus you sited is
indeed worth $4,000 less than an Accord but the Accord cost
at least $7,000 more to drive home two years ago, even more today
when the financing is factored in. Domestic finance
rates are much better, ZERO interest up to five years on many
model. That can easily save one another %5,000 if you must
finance your purchase.



mike hunt




Liam Devlin wrote:
>
>
> Money is so cheap now it pays to finance your car, even if you can write
> a check for the entire thing. I bought an Accord EX sedan w/auto last
> month and financed it through Honda at 3.64%. I can definitely do better
> than 3.64% with my money.
>
> Also, if you take a look at Honda's resale values, they hold up much
> better than Detroit iron. A 2 year old Accord isn't that much cheaper
> than a new one. A 2 year old Taurus is probably about half price (just
> guessing).
>
> As always, YMMV.

That is why I said people that can AFFORD a new car, buys a new
car. If one must make a choice between a new car and the other
things in life, than he can't afford a new car. Contrary to what
you may believe, you can never know for sure what type of use or
abuse a sued car was subjected to or what service it did or did
not receive, no matter how 'good' it appears the day you buy it.
When one chooses that two year old car they are choosing one with
30K miles on the clock readily for its first big service, set of
tires and nearly out of warranty. On the other hand the previous
owner only needed to do a half dozen oil changes. Any problems
would have been covered by a warranty. Ever notice when somebody
comes "into money" from a lottery or inheritance the first thing
they buy is a new car. LOL



mike hunt



'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:09:50 GMT, BenDover@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> >The guy looking at new cars so he must be able to afford a new
> >car. The only people that buy used cars are those that can't
> >offered to buy a new car.
>
> Lots of us can "afford" a new car. Some of us realize that you
> can save $10K buy a two year old off lease car and get everything
> but the new car smell and a big loss in our "investment" over the
> next two years. Put that $10K into a real investment, it's $150K
> when you retire. Go ahead, you decide. If your money, and if you can
> as you say "afford to buy a new car" I'm sure you already have
> $2m in the bank for retirement anyway.
>
> >Why buy something that somebody
> >else no longer wanted and one that you can never know for
> >sure what type of use or abuse it was subjected to or what
> >service it did or did not receive?
>
> People who lease cars turn them in in 2 or 3 years. The don't turn
> them in because they're broken, they turn them in because the lease
> is up and they want another new car. In fact, most of these folks
> are very careful with their cars because they don't want to pay extra
> money to the leasing company at turn in. If you now something about
> cars, you start by looking at reliable makes, then you look for a
> car that's cosmetically perfect (it's been cared for) then you look
> at the mechanics and buy one that has no problems or abnormal wear.
> It's not hard.
>
> Now, we could discuss the people who lease and turn in their car
> every three years. Not only do they need a "new" car, but they've been
> suckered in by the leasing people into believing that leasing a car is
> even better because you get an even pricier car for the same money
> per month. Salesmen have been "selling the monthly payment" for years
> and suckers buy in. Somehow I think most of the folks leasing could
> use a course in "managing your finances" too.
>
> A car is a *depreciating* asset. The first two years incur *major*
> depreciation. It doesn't make sense to buy a highly depreciating
> asset at high cost when a lower depreciating asset at lower cost
> will do the same job.
>
> YMMV, some people just gotta fill up that ego bank with a new car.
>
> Bob

When I was at university, I bought a 3 yo car that was a return from lease.
I couldn't afford a new one at that time.
The car looked great and everything seemed fine for couple of months until
some weird noises that a 3 yo Mazda is not supposed to do started...
Got rid of it and bought a new Honda.

<BigJohnson@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3F12E25C.905FFF0B@mailcity.com...
> That is why I said people that can AFFORD a new car, buys a new
> car. If one must make a choice between a new car and the other
> things in life, than he can't afford a new car. Contrary to what
> you may believe, you can never know for sure what type of use or
> abuse a sued car was subjected to or what service it did or did
> not receive, no matter how 'good' it appears the day you buy it.
> When one chooses that two year old car they are choosing one with
> 30K miles on the clock readily for its first big service, set of
> tires and nearly out of warranty. On the other hand the previous
> owner only needed to do a half dozen oil changes. Any problems
> would have been covered by a warranty. Ever notice when somebody
> comes "into money" from a lottery or inheritance the first thing
> they buy is a new car. LOL
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> 'nuther Bob wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:09:50 GMT, BenDover@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > >The guy looking at new cars so he must be able to afford a new
> > >car. The only people that buy used cars are those that can't
> > >offered to buy a new car.
> >
> > Lots of us can "afford" a new car. Some of us realize that you
> > can save $10K buy a two year old off lease car and get everything
> > but the new car smell and a big loss in our "investment" over the
> > next two years. Put that $10K into a real investment, it's $150K
> > when you retire. Go ahead, you decide. If your money, and if you can
> > as you say "afford to buy a new car" I'm sure you already have
> > $2m in the bank for retirement anyway.
> >
> > >Why buy something that somebody
> > >else no longer wanted and one that you can never know for
> > >sure what type of use or abuse it was subjected to or what
> > >service it did or did not receive?
> >
> > People who lease cars turn them in in 2 or 3 years. The don't turn
> > them in because they're broken, they turn them in because the lease
> > is up and they want another new car. In fact, most of these folks
> > are very careful with their cars because they don't want to pay extra
> > money to the leasing company at turn in. If you now something about
> > cars, you start by looking at reliable makes, then you look for a
> > car that's cosmetically perfect (it's been cared for) then you look
> > at the mechanics and buy one that has no problems or abnormal wear.
> > It's not hard.
> >
> > Now, we could discuss the people who lease and turn in their car
> > every three years. Not only do they need a "new" car, but they've been
> > suckered in by the leasing people into believing that leasing a car is
> > even better because you get an even pricier car for the same money
> > per month. Salesmen have been "selling the monthly payment" for years
> > and suckers buy in. Somehow I think most of the folks leasing could
> > use a course in "managing your finances" too.
> >
> > A car is a *depreciating* asset. The first two years incur *major*
> > depreciation. It doesn't make sense to buy a highly depreciating
> > asset at high cost when a lower depreciating asset at lower cost
> > will do the same job.
> >
> > YMMV, some people just gotta fill up that ego bank with a new car.
> >
> > Bob

"Buddy" <buddytrojan@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:beuma0$5g7$1@usc.edu...
> Go with automatic, easy to use and Hondas are better than Nissan
> My Accord 91 has passed through 4 owners and I am the 5th ,.. still the
> car's history has no major repair...but everybody has maintained it so
well
> that I still have the maintainance records of the first owner.


Most vehicles if maintained properly will last for a long time. I am the
3rd owner of my 1989 Nissan 240SX and other than 2 injectors leaking, the
car has been trouble free. Very dependable, just regular maintinence stuff.
Body is still in near mint condition with minimal rust on underbody of
vehicle, not bad for 14 years. Only reason I'm selling it is I wanted
something newer. My mother has an 89 Nissan Sentra and it has never had any
mechanical problems either, again she just wants something newer now after
buying as a repo with 1800 miles on it in 1989. Both cars have 127,000
miles or so on them and still go strong. Again if you take care of the car
it takes care of you. Just my 2 cents. I would never choose a Honda over
my Nissan.


-BD

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:07:04 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:

>That is why I said people that can AFFORD a new car, buys a new
>car. If one must make a choice between a new car and the other
>things in life, than he can't afford a new car.

Well, I guess I could have AFFORDED to buy a new GS-R in 1997 when
instead I bought a three-year-old one. I paid cash and the extra
$6-7K has just been sitting in my bank account (along with enough to
buy a second, new GS-R) ever since. Haven't needed it but it is worth
pointing out that it is there if I do.

> Contrary to what
>you may believe, you can never know for sure what type of use or
>abuse a sued car was subjected to or what service it did or did
>not receive, no matter how 'good' it appears the day you buy it.

True, but if you can AFFORD a new car, what's the big deal about
losing a little money on a used car deal?

After six years I am still driving my GS-R. I have spent some money
on clutch, brakes and tires - have to expect that in a hard-driven
performance car. But the big deal for me: I still catch myself
grinning on my daily commute. If I stop smiling, it's gone.

So why should I have spent another $6-7K?

>When one chooses that two year old car they are choosing one with
>30K miles on the clock readily for its first big service, set of
>tires and nearly out of warranty.

Worn out tires were a bonus for me. It meant that I could install the
tires I wanted, not the inferior ones that came with the car. I can
AFFORD to spend extra money on tires that wear out quickly, and I
always do. I do most of the servicing myself and regular maintenance
is not that expensive.

> On the other hand the previous
>owner only needed to do a half dozen oil changes. Any problems
>would have been covered by a warranty. Ever notice when somebody
>comes "into money" from a lottery or inheritance the first thing
>they buy is a new car. LOL

That's because most lottery tickets are sold to people who spend
frivolously.

I am not opposed to ever buying new cars. I bought my '92 Volvo Wagon
new. Significantly less reliable than the used GS-R, but it is
otherwise perfectly suited to my needs.

My real money saving tip is that, whatever you buy, drive it a long
time. The Corollary is to buy a car you really like.

In article <pfi6hvs88riji1atg0inukd8huapm7jkln@4ax.com>,
Gordon McGrew <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Worn out tires were a bonus for me. It meant that I could install the
>tires I wanted, not the inferior ones that came with the car.

Tires with some wear can tell some stories about a used car. If they
match and have even wear with no wear patterns, that is a better sign
than mismatched tires with uneven or strange wear patterns. And brand
new cheapest-possible tires could be hiding something that the old tires
would have revealed (as well as the seller expecting a premium for tires
that you probably would not have bought).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

<BenDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3F121E30.8BD716E7@mailcity.com...
> The guy looking at new cars so he must be able to afford a new
> car. The only people that buy used cars are those that can't
> offered to buy a new car.

Not true.

I buy lightly used to keep from paying the high mark up of a "new" car. One
can save themselves thousands of dollars by picking up the car they want,
with just a few thousand miles on it.

Look it up Ben.

And BTW...I can afford virtually *ANY* new production car offered in the US.

Stop spewing your ignorance Ben...it makes you look (more) stupid.