Are Beemers getting ugly or Hyundai's getting cute?

PeeTex wrote

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog...

LOL... my version ... it ain't the horsepower, but the traction/handling, reliability, cargo capacity, mpg and driving range...

:)

PeeTex wrote

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog...

Did they eliminate weight classes in fighting sports?

x10003q wrote

PeeTex wrote

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog...

Did they eliminate weight classes in fighting sports?

Good one

Im a little slow but how having a defender would people think you have a lot of cash and big whatever you call them.  

Different strokes for different folks.    I like driving around in decent vehicles....the target thing I dont get either? how are people target driving around in a Rover?  

Sounds like something people say to justify there lack of saving...which is OK by me.. as long as they dont come looking to me with  hands out  cause there plan of life is to short did not work out well.  

tjf1967 wrote

Im a little slow but how having a defender would people think you have a lot of cash and big whatever you call them.  

Different strokes for different folks.    I like driving around in decent vehicles....the target thing I dont get either? how are people target driving around in a Rover?

Let me spell it out then, you would need to come up with about $80k euros for a Defender, have it modified for US and then import it. You would then have a vehicle that goes anywhere anytime and looks just like you came in off the outback. Put a snorkel on it if you want to be real tough. A mans car.
If you prefer the Rover, that's cool.

As far as being a target, my house is more likely to get broken on to if there is a new Rover out front than an old Subi. At least that's my thinking anyway.

I don't think less of anyone driving anything they like. Some of the San Jose boys I run around with drive Lamborghinis and complain about their kids tuition to Stanford, each to their own.

tjf1967 wrote

Sounds like something people say to justify there lack of saving...which is OK by me.. as long as they dont come looking to me with  hands out  cause there plan of life is to short did not work out well.

Or something people say that have known too many good people, with lots of money but too short of a life to enjoy what they've worked hard to save for someday in the future that they never got to see.  

I no longer worry about whether I will outlive my money, rather I worry that with Alzheimer's and Dementia - will I outlive my mind. My wife thinks I already have...  

x10003q wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Small, fuel efficient, beater cars ftw.

Define small - anybody choosing a smart car for long skiing trips?
Fuel efficient - the less you  drive the less it matters
beater - that might change to "no beater" when you have a kid

1. Small as in "smaller than the Ford Excursion/Yukon Denali that people seem to think they need" (probably the same people who buy 5500 square foot houses for families of 4). Cubic footage is more important than square footage, so the Honda Fit kind of mold would work pretty well for most people. I can fit 3 people, 3 bikes, and gear in my Scion xB. Or, as I did once, 2 people, 2 kayaks, 2 bikes.
2. Yes, it matters if you drive less, but you just listed "long ski trips" in your answer to my "small car" idea. If you're driving to a ski area every weekend, you want a fuel efficient car. Like I said, with the money you save on fuel and vehicle cost over the course of many years, you can then get a place to live in whatever ski town you want and ride a bike to the lifts, thereby addressing your concern about driving too much.
3. "Beater" doesn't necessarily mean "breaks down all the time". For me, it just means that I won't get pissed if I scratch the rear bumper while loading a pair of skis and I drive my car longer than most. I'm on 135,000 now after getting my car in February, 2009. If I can go 70,000 more miles without a bunch of maintenance headaches, I would love it.

I'm sorry I haven't been back to argue with you guys lately. It's just been too nice outside and I've been playing on the trails and lakes.

mattchuck2 wrote

1. Small as in "smaller than the Ford Excursion/Yukon Denali that people seem to think they need" (probably the same people who buy 5500 square foot houses for families of 4).

Less than 5500 sq. ft!!!!!

Where oh where will I park all my Range Rovers?

Buy your car like your backpack.  Smallest that can fit everything you NEED.  I find that unnecessary junk is just a headache and hassle I don't want to deal with.  Simplify.

And yes, making trips from Rochester to the Adirondacks every other week or so, efficiency is very important.

I also find that for me, ground clearance matters.  Some of the backroads in the park can be brutal, our Jetta didn't have enough... it continually scraped and bottomed even going slow.

mattchuck2 wrote

x10003q wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Small, fuel efficient, beater cars ftw.

Define small - anybody choosing a smart car for long skiing trips?
Fuel efficient - the less you  drive the less it matters
beater - that might change to "no beater" when you have a kid

1. Small as in "smaller than the Ford Excursion/Yukon Denali that people seem to think they need" (probably the same people who buy 5500 square foot houses for families of 4). Cubic footage is more important than square footage, so the Honda Fit kind of mold would work pretty well for most people. I can fit 3 people, 3 bikes, and gear in my Scion xB. Or, as I did once, 2 people, 2 kayaks, 2 bikes.
2. Yes, it matters if you drive less, but you just listed "long ski trips" in your answer to my "small car" idea. If you're driving to a ski area every weekend, you want a fuel efficient car. Like I said, with the money you save on fuel and vehicle cost over the course of many years, you can then get a place to live in whatever ski town you want and ride a bike to the lifts, thereby addressing your concern about driving too much.
3. "Beater" doesn't necessarily mean "breaks down all the time". For me, it just means that I won't get pissed if I scratch the rear bumper while loading a pair of skis and I drive my car longer than most. I'm on 135,000 now after getting my car in February, 2009. If I can go 70,000 more miles without a bunch of maintenance headaches, I would love it.

I'm sorry I haven't been back to argue with you guys lately. It's just been too nice outside and I've been playing on the trails and lakes.

I do not have a Tahoe/Yukon.

However, the 2015 4x4 versions are EPA rated 16/22. I drive about 10,000 miles a year on vacation trips. The gas money difference between a Tahoe/Yukon and your EPA rated Scion xb (22/28) for 10,000 miles at highway EPA is about $365 per year. Plus I can travel with more than 3 people (up to 7 people) actually making the truck a more efficient vehicle per person vs a Scion xb. My family is 4, but I do travel with other friends and family. The Scion works for your situation. It would not work for my situation. The gas savings plus the difference in price between the Tahoe and the Scion xb are not buying me a place in the mountains.

My wife and I might drive 15K miles per year over 2 vehicles. I work from home and she takes the train to work. The station is walkable. This is what I meant by driving less. The 10K miles I drive for vacations are not that costly even if I had a Tahoe/Yukon when compared to the Scion xb.

Guess you forgot to mention the $25k price difference, let alone the added cost of insurance. Maybe you could not buy a place, but you sure could do a seasonal rental for many years.

PeeTex wrote

Guess you forgot to mention the $25k price difference, let alone the added cost of insurance. Maybe you could not buy a place, but you sure could do a seasonal rental for many years.

Nope. You failed to read what I wrote.
Read the last sentence of the paragraph that starts with However. The insurance difference would be minimal in a 2 car household with no commuting.

x10003q wrote

Nope. You failed to read what I wrote.
Read the last sentence of the paragraph that starts with However. The insurance difference would be minimal in a 2 car household with no commuting.

Since much of the collision insurance cost is based on the value of the car and not how much you drive I stand by my assessment. And again, you fail to mention the purchase price difference. I could give a rats ass about what you or anyone else drives, but I fine it terribly funny all of the excuses people come up with for buying expensive cars or even doing the every couple of year trade in.

PeeTex wrote

terribly funny all of the excuses people come up with for buying ... cars or even doing the every couple of year trade in.

My cars aren't super expensive but I do have a pretty elaborate rationalization/justification/line-o-bs for trading in every six years.

PeeTex wrote

x10003q wrote

Nope. You failed to read what I wrote.
Read the last sentence of the paragraph that starts with However. The insurance difference would be minimal in a 2 car household with no commuting.

Since much of the collision insurance cost is based on the value of the car and not how much you drive I stand by my assessment. And again, you fail to mention the purchase price difference. I could give a rats ass about what you or anyone else drives, but I fine it terribly funny all of the excuses people come up with for buying expensive cars or even doing the every couple of year trade in.

Which part of the following sentence is giving you trouble? I highlighted the important part.

" The gas savings plus the difference in price between the Tahoe and the Scion xb are not buying me a place in the mountains. "

You stand by your "assessment" about the collision insurance. Collision is a small part of the overall package.

You obviously care about what other people drive as you make the snarky comment " I fine it terribly funny all of the excuses people come up with for buying expensive cars or even doing the every couple of year trade in."  The green eyed monster rears its ugly head.

I'm sorry, I'm with Pee...  I don't see where the rationalization takes into account the purchase price of the vehicle.

It is a proven fact that buying vehicles is a very emotional, and very rarely a logical, decision.  Car manufacturers take advantage of this fact with styling and creature comforts.  So it is very often that you will see people rationalize all sorts of things that don't make a lot of sense.

I've done a lot of calculating to figure out what makes the most economical sense and have done a lot of soul searching to find out what makes the most practical sense in my life.

From the financial aspect, first off, expect it to be a terrible investment.  This is fact and proven.  I've also studied that 'most' vehicles hit their best trade or resale value between 3 and 5 years, depending on miles.  I also have concluded that it is always very close in the money you 'save' on fuel for say a hybrid or Diesel over a regular gas model.  The same could be said with say larger displacement gas engine vs. a smaller turbo equivalent.  The difference in pricing is almost always exactly the amount of fuel cost you would save in 3 to 5 years.

Some people will assert that buying used is better.  That really requires a good knowledge of the vehicle and what costs may incur.  This is impossible to predict.  Also, for most cases, plan on driving the vehicle until it is scrap and recovering no equity.  This is a tricky calculation as well because it's hard to predict how many years before you give up the ghost.  Certain individuals will always remember the lucky vehicle they had that was bought for $2k and ran for 10 years with nothing but oil and gas, but this really isn't reality.  Generally, and anecdotally speaking, I hear these people constantly complain of the cost and inconvenience of vehicle repair - yet they scoff when you speak of trading a new car in 3 to 5 years.

The other thing is practical life challenges.  It always comes down to the lowest common denominator.  If you tow a trailer, for example, you will be relegated to owning some kind of gas guzzling beast.  How much depends on how big your trailer is.  If you need to bus 7 people, well you'd obviously need a Suburban sized vehicle with enough grunt to tow them around.  It is almost always more efficient to haul more people bus style with a less efficient engine than to use multiple, more efficient cars... Almost!  The rub comes in the fact that, like the trailer, it is unlikely you are going to be using this capacity full time.  So then you really need two vehicles, but in no way is that more economically viable than just driving the gas guzzler all the time.  So that's what you see on the roads.

Now if we took all that emotion out and based it on logic we'd end up taking the bus or the train, no matter where we were going.  We wouldn't tow trailers, because it's horribly inefficient.  We wouldn't all need two or three cars per household, because that's wasteful.  We'd walk or ride bikes to hubs where we could pick up mass transit.  We'd take less crap with us, because we wouldn't have space to stash it on the bus.

It's a wonderful system, but in infringes on personal freedoms... and dammit, this is 'merica!  If we want to run the planet to the ground, we damn well will... because it's within our constitutional right!

PeeTex wrote

Guess you forgot to mention the $25k price difference, let alone the added cost of insurance. Maybe you could not buy a place, but you sure could do a seasonal rental for many years.

Don't forget to factor in residule

Any 4X4 will bring a higher percentage back once traded/sold.....just sayin

That is all good and fine as far as practicality goes.  But what about the fun factor??  Life is short, I add in a fun factor when purchasing a car as well.  Engine displacement, suspension, torque!!  Personally, there is nothing like a high torque vehicle pinning you to the back of your seat when accelerating or downshifting and accelerating through a turn with a car that has a stiff, European sport suspension and feeling the increase in g-force that a more economical car can't give you.  Is that practical?  No, but it fun as hell!!

Marcski wrote

That is all good and fine as far as practicality goes.  But what about the fun factor??  Life is short, I add in a fun factor when purchasing a car as well.  Engine displacement, suspension, torque!!  Personally, there is nothing like a high torque vehicle pinning you to the back of your seat when accelerating or downshifting and accelerating through a turn with a car that has a stiff, European sport suspension and feeling the increase in g-force that a more economical car can't give you.  Is that practical?  No, but it fun as hell!!

If your lucky you will drive what you like, if you are even luckier you will like what you drive. Justifying your purchase based on fun or necessity makes sense to me, justifying an expensive vehicle based on thrift makes no sense.

I have had all kinds of cars from 50s and 60s muscle cars, early 70s British sports cars, Luxury sedans, trucks, mini vans and SUVs. Although I appreciate the finer cars, I don't think they fit my style anymore. Living in the deep woods those toys just don't fit. However, I don't see myself in a rusty old F250 either. Maybe I am just getting too old.