"bo peep" <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138633651.605381.203020[at]o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

- quote -

Another possibility is a used police car. I bought one-year old Ford police
cruiser in North Carolina in 1967 at a tremendous savings over the price of
a new car. Even though the mileage after that first one year was huge, the
thing was in good shape and lasted a long time. These cars were sold by the
state police department directly, not by dealers. Whether the same thing is
available nowadays, I know not.

Elle wrote:
- quote -

I used to believe the same thing you do. But the cost savings in
gasoline doesn't yet justify the premium you pay for a smaller,
supposedly more efficient car. And in some cases the cost savings are
totally imaginary to begin with.

My '95 Buick LeSabre (that's one of the huge ones) gets 28 mpg. That's
better than the '94 Subaru Legacy it replaced (1.8L engine IIRC, 22 to
25 mpg.) Newer slightly smallers Buicks get just over 30 mpg. Let's be
generous and say the Honda gets 45 mpg.

4 years of driving 30k miles per year:
120000 mi / 30 mpg = 4000 gallons of fuel
120000 mi / 45 mpg = 2665 gallons (approx)

At $3 per gallon average cost over the next 4 years, the Buick will cost
about $4000 more in fuel. And the Honda will cost about $15000 to
$20000 more in initial cost, not including the interest paid on
financing, the higher insurance costs, etc.

The 3.8L engine can easily go 200k miles without a major repair. Small
car engines require a new timing belt every 80k miles as part of the
routine maintenence. If the timing belt breaks on an American made
engine, the engine stops and you pay for an tow and a timing belt job
($450 last time that happened to me, 15 years ago.) If the timing belt
breaks on a Japanese car, the valves can hit the pistons as the engine
comes to a stop and destroy the whole engine (they call them
"interference engines" because they are designed where the piston travel
and valve travel overlap.) The timing belt can fail prematurely even if
you have the belt replaced by a dealer every 75k miles. That's what
happened to me with my Dodge Lancer; the belt broke at just under 50k
miles when I was in the middle of nowhere on a Saturday afternoon.

The economics clearly favor the well-maintained older (but not too old)
car. I pick Buicks because I have some experience with them. Your
experience may be quite different.

Best regards,
Bob

<<Cars can stand having a lot of miles put on them in a short period of
time. It's putting both miles and years on a car that does them in.>
Buying a used rental car is an alternative. What you get is a fairly
new, well maintained, high mileage car. Typically about 1 to 1.5 years
old with about 40k-50k miles on it. Plus some kind of a warranty.

John Cowart

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote
- quote -

Of course you couldn't, just like I can't resist pointing
out that these Buicks you keep pushing here are not fuel
efficient except in comparison to maybe Hummers.

For cripes sake, I don't even have to look up this car at
www.fueleconomy.gov to tell you the fuel mileage on a 3.8L
engine is going to be terrible compared to the many 1.4L to
2L engines available. I'm talking around 25-50% better fuel
mileage with the smaller engine.

I am also wagering that, according to reliability surveys
like that found in the April issue of Consumer Reports, your
Buick is garbage compared to a Toyota or Honda. That may
explain why they seem to be so cheap.

Take this discussion to the auto newsgroups. What's being
posted here is being swamped by folks who don't know cars.

The added initial cost of Hybrids does not make up for the
savings in gas, and won't until gas is over $3 a gallon or
so. (I am going from rough memory. I ran the numbers awhile
ago.) That's even taking into account certain tax breaks
that were and I think still are available, though they're
smaller now, IIRC. Google on the subject for details.

A new car will be about as economical as a used car if one
drives the new car into the ground. Plus, you get the few
years of warranty on the new car, and you will know its
service history.

Cars can stand having a lot of miles put on them in a short
period of time. It's putting both miles and years on a car
that does them in.

I would ask your question at the two Honda newsgroups
(rec.autos.makers.honda and alt.autos.honda). People there
tend to be economical minded. Many have run the numbers.
There are also still some questions about how comfortable a
ride you want. There is a new Honda model coming out this
year (the Honda Jazz or Honda Fit). It's supposed to get 50
mpg or so. It uses a 1.4 L or 1.3 L engine, hence the
tremendous fuel economy that competes well with hybrids.

"jIM" <noreplysoccer[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138581193.713895.35940[at]g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

While I'm a firm believer in keeping a car for a long time, the high
mileage, business use, reimbursement, and demand for reliability may justify
leasing. I've never leased a car and doubt I ever will, but it may behoove
you to analyze leasing from a cost/dependability perspective.

Be certain to have leases quoted with mileage allowances in the range you're
talking about. I think most leases allow something in the 20K range. You're
talking about 30K miles/year. If you exceed the allowance the over-mileage
fees at the tail end could be painful, and wipe out any financial
justification for the lease.
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL

In article
<G5gDf.310265$qk4.265629[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ,
"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- quote -

The tires still had good tread on them at 108,000. I could have run
them another 20,000 miles, or about 6 month of my driving. The
reason I put on new tires is that winter was coming, and I wanted
better tires for winter. Miles don't kill tires. Poor maintenance
kills them. Stuff like running under inflated, running over loaded,
and not rotating them. Other factors are UV light and age. In my
case, I never ran them with a heavy load, the vehicle was parked
indoors (so UV wasn't a factor), and they were less than 3 years
old (I drive about 40,000 miles a year).

I am not so sure that a single accident would raise insurance
rates. I was hit head on by a drunk driver who was going the
wrong way on the freeway. Totalled both vehicles, including
my beloved Ranger #2. My insurance premiums did not change,
and have gone down since then.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
- quote -

Depends on the tire. A search on Ford Ranger Reg 2wd (15" tires) comes
up with, among other tires:

General Tire Ameri*GS60 (80K mile warranty)
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Warran...e1=yes&place=3

Kumho Touring A/S 795 (70K mile warranty)
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Warran...e1=yes&place=5

Yokohama Avid Touring (80K mile warranty)
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Warran...e1=yes&place=8

Goodyear Regatta 2 (75K mile warranty)
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Warran...1=yes&place=24

To paraphrase an old GM commercial, these are not your father's tires.

I always get more wear than the manufacturer guarantees - much of my
driving is on highway (alas, not interstate grade). Type of use affects
wear. "If we were to assign wear ratings to several different road
surface materials, the differences would be significant. Dirt, for
example, would rate approximately 50 while hot mix asphalt would score
100. Higher numbers indicate treadwear mileage."
http://www.goodyear.com/truck/pdf/ra...tread_S7_V.pdf

- quote -

The greater risk came from Ford and Firestone:
http://www.caller2.com/2001/may/23/t...ional/877.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consum...s/mauto744.htm

--
Mark Freeland
nNeEwTs[at]sonic.net

"John A. Weeks III" <john[at]johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-4EBB74.19124229012006[at]sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
- quote -

Tires aren't designed to go that far, and yours undoubtedly should have been
replaced at least 40,000 miles sooner, maybe even after 40,000 max use. You
were endangering the other cars on the road allowing them to get that bald.
You were very lucky not to have had an accident, thus raising your insurance
premiums more than you saved by not buying tires.

Elizabeth Richardson

jIM wrote:
- quote -


Get a five year old used Buick, with the 3.8 litre engine. They get
good mileage, they are comfortable, and for reasons that I don't
understand they don't sell for very much. And no timing belt to break
unexpectedly and leave her stranded on the road with an expensive repair
bill.

Why do you think her Ford is gonna die? Is it because wimmen never
check the oil? (sorry, I couldn't resist that)

Bob

we've already poored $4000 into the focus and know the transmission is
about to go. I believe the $4000 was for clutch, gears, fulel pump and
few other semi major problems. It has received new tires once as well.
There is a reason Ford discontinued the car- it has known quality
issues.

The saturn has had $7k pumped into it. 1 new engine (engine went at
80,000, current engione had 40,000 when it was put in). New manual
transmission, new tires once, fuel pump. Plus it's a 2 door and I
bought it when I was younger and more nimble.

I agree TRUCKS should be able to go 200,000 miles. American cars were
a huge mistake and Honda will be the next car, whether new or used.

In article <1138581193.713895.35940[at]g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
"jIM" <noreplysoccer[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Yes, a used car makes sense. If you simply burn up miles, it
makes the most sense to burn them on the cheapest vehicle you
can. If you can run a car cheaper than the 41 cents per mile
that she is reimbursed, then you can turn a profit doing it.

105K shouldn't be the end of the road for a properly maintained
car these days. My current Ford Range (the 8th one I have had)
went 108,000 on the first set of tires. I didn't put a wrench
on it until 128,000, where I had to decide to junk it or do a
bunch of maintenance. I decided to have all the maintenance
done, including a tune up, brakes, bearings, seals, bushings,
fluids, control arms, etc. Anything that could wear I had
replaced. It cost $3200. What I got back was essentially
a new vehicle. It drove straight, held the road, and the
steering was tight. At 150K, it is still just like new. I
plan to get another 75K before I put the next wrench on it.

The car guys (Click & Clack from Car Talk) discuss this on
their web site. They make the claim that you will never
spend more fixing a used car than what payments are on a
new car. As a result, it always makes sense to fix a used
car, at least until the frame rusts out.

People often say that they want something new because it is
more reliable. In reality, age of the car doesn't imply
reliability. A new car can have problems or be a lemon just
as much as an older car. In fact, a properly maintained
older car could be more reliable since it gets regular attention
to head off problems, and it has a proven track record.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

My wife has started a new job which will include about 70% local travel
(read 600 miles per week). We each have our own car and our own jobs.

Both cars are currently paid for. (me-96 Saturn, 140,00 miles, her
2000? focus with 105,000)Her focus is probably going to die within 2-6
months. I dislike car payments, trying to decide if a used car makes
sense for this much travel.

We looked at a civic hybrid and it appears the car would cost around
$24000. I would expect to finance car for no more than 3 years. Her
company reimburses $.41/mile. Any tax deductions anyone could think of
to make the new car more appealing?

could anyone shed some outside the box ideas for if this makes sense
(new car). Common sense tells me to buy used, but the amount of travel
might suggest we would be in this situation again in 2 years when
another car needs to be replaced.