jaunty75

I would think so. The reason I'd be against a gold one is because it seems that about 50% of the ones I see are gold. Another 25% are white, and all the rest are all other colors.

Nice picture.

jaunty75

I have exactly the opposite attitude. I prefer new because then I know exactly how the car has been driven and how it's been maintained since day 1. There's just no substitute for that, especially when it's the wife and family car. I'll get a beater for me. If it breaks down on the side of the road, I don't get spooked. But for the family, the wheels under them need to be the last thing they're concerned about.

OLD SKL 69

I tried to get my wife a minivan when her lease was up on her last car but she did not want one. They are great for young families. So unfortunately, no brown one for us! Instead we bought a used Buick Rainier, which still works as a good family car. Which BTW, was made in Moraine Ohio with 86% domestic parts content.

aliensatemybuick

Well, I agree with you. Which is why the 88 was bought from a fanatic (he was the original owner, the car was garaged kept for almost its whole life, and had records of every maintenace, including oil changes; from day 1):

http://www.greghome.com/Greg's%20Gar...20Delta-88.htm

(seems I remembered the mileage when I bought it wrong)

And the Intrigue I bought from my father-in law, also the original owner, also kept in in the garage, and had it serviced regularly at the dealer he bought it from.

I knew exactly what I was getting in both cases. Each car was over 10 years old when I bought it, had documented regular maintenance, and was adult driven. Makes all the difference. Such cars are out there, not all that hard to find, and usually can be bought for a song (even if not from your father in law:).

jaunty75

The Rainier looks a nice, big SUV!

One thing though. The Moraine assembly plant closed at the end of 2008. Won't be any more Rainiers (which, I know, haven't been made since 2007), or anything else, made there. There was a good documentary about the closing on HBO a month or two ago. It's called "The Last Truck."

marcar1993

Let me start by saying I haven't read the whole thread, but I need to inform you on this one...

Baker Electric... They had electric cars at the turn of the century. All the prius did was take those vehicals and add a generator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

Red Delta

Aaaaand? Where is Baker these days?

OLD SKL 69

Yeah I did catch that on HBO. What a sad commentary right? I always see a lot of Trailblazers, Envoys, and even some Rainier's on the road and I think, "Those were such popular vehicles! Why didn't they just update them?" Instead they came out with the Traverse, Enclave, Acadia and make them in another plant in the US. Why the name changes and why lay off so many loyal hard working people in that town? I just don't get it.

jaunty75

Oh please. You've got to do better than this. I'm sure that Toyota did a little more than just simply add a generator to a 100+ year old idea. In the most basic sense, yes, adding a generator to a battery-powered car is all they did. But that's like saying that all you have to do is nail on a piece of plywood and you've turned a rowboat into an aircraft carrier. Yes, basically, that's what an aircraft carrier is. But there is actually more to it than that.

Besides, I asked what did Toyota take from AMERICAN manufacturers. That article you cite mentions many battery-powered cars at the beginning of the 1900s, some from America, and some not. In fact, the article says the that the first electric cars were made in England and France. So if Toyota stole its idea from anywhere, they stole it from manufacturers in those countries, not the U.S.

Anyway, to claim that this is actually a "stolen" idea is kind of silly. The concept of doing what Toyota did is fairly obvious and was and is available to anyone who wants to try it. What Toyota is "guilty" of is actually making it work. But from what I've read, all the Prius has really been for Toyota is good PR. They've not made money on a single one sold. If it weren't for the tax subsidy the U.S. government put into effect for the early ones sold, they likely wouldn't have sold as many as they did sell. When the price of gas was nearing $4.00 per gallon a year and a half ago, they were selling fast, but now that gas has fallen back in price, they're pretty easy to find on dealer lots, at least around here. Given the fact that they cost several thousand dollars more than a comparably-sized, gasoline-only sedan, they take a lot of miles to pay for themselves. You buy a Prius because you want to feel like you're being green. You don't buy it because it's economical.

Finally, in keeping with the true theme of this thread, the Prius is 100% foreign. It contains zero U.S. parts, and every single one sold here is imported from Japan.

Red Delta

The Ultimate Driving Machine...which one is it anyway?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk8kKZvBrUI

Or;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXzJhTXdOI

jaunty75

Yes it was. I especially liked how there was no narrator. The only sound was that of the voices of the people interviewed.

There's many forces at work here. You allude to one of them in your comment. Too many models for the size of GMs market share. Did we really need the Traverse AND the Enclave AND the Acadia? Wouldn't any two of them have been enough?

The basic answer to your question is that GM was losing money. Can't pay people if you don't make money. Second, these cars, as good as they were, just weren't selling. In the year leading up to the closure of this plant, the price of gas rose to over $4.00 per gallon, and the bottom dropped right out of the SUV/pickup truck market. I remember our local Ford dealer practically giving his F-150s away. A friend at work took advantage of the situation and bought one.

You can be making the nicest product in the world, but if no one buys it, you're not staying in business. GM just didn't sell enough of those vehicles to justify its production capacity for them. As sad as it was for the Moraine workers, I'm sure the situation and attitude was quite the reverse at the plant that stayed open to keep making them.

wolfman98

If you offered me a choice of a brand new GTO with less than 100 miles and looking brand new or the BMW brand new I would take the GTO every time. Though I would also take a 67 - 442 convertible

citcapp

First off I never buy a new car, well at least not since the 1969 Datsun 510 coup $1900.00 out the door that was a great car. Rally raced it on weekends but thats another story. I usually by rental cars around 6000 miles on the clock have full warranties and get them for about 30 to 50 percent off. Alway pay cash never have payments. I start saving for the next one right away and turn them in when the fix it costs start to equal car payments usually about 5 years or so. I bought my wife a Hyundai Sonata delivered to my door with 6k for 12,000. 100000 mile warranty great little car and I don't have to worry about her when she is out late at night. I could not find anything made in america that was equal to this car at this price. When GM builds one I will buy it until then......... My other daily driver is a cad sts same deal bought it when it was 3 years old for 1/3 third the cost of a new one. Still going strong and hasn't cost me a dime other the oil changes.

jaunty75

I'll second the rental car idea with my one data point. My sister bought a 2000 Pontiac Grand Am in 2002 from Enterprise Rent-a-car. It had about 25,000 miles on it. She kept it for two years and then sold it to me for my son to use while at college. At that point, it had about 50,000 miles on it. Now, 5 years after that transaction, the car has about 150,000 miles on it, and my son, now 2+ years out of college, is still driving it. Other than a failed power steering pump at about 75,000 miles, it hasn't really needed much other than routine maintenance.

jaunty75

In my opinion, what you "never buy a new car" types are missing out on is that new car smell. There's nothing like it. That's worth a few bucks.

Nilsson

Not really, do you realize how much new car smell air freshner you can buy with 10,000.00?

jaunty75

I KNEW someone would try this argument! I've smelled some of those "new car smell" air fresheners, and they're a poor substitute for the real thing. You have to realize that the chemicals actually being released from the materials in a new car that give it that smell are probably hazardous to your health, so no one would legally be able to put them in a can designed to be sprayed where people will be.

Nope. There's no substitute for the real thing. Give me that $10,000 new car smell any time!

Nilsson

So true the carcinogen's do have a little more edge.

delmontcrusier

Ehh dealerships have stuff they put on the seats etc to give that new smell.the fam has bought used or off lease and they smell just like new.I have been in plenty of new vehicles.I just can't afford to buy new or basicly new due financial and health probs that are now over just fun tryen to get a job.

Nilsson

I don't buy new anymore, I let the other stiff take the initial hit on depreciation. Then I will take their otherwise brand new car (except for the smell) for thousands less and drive it until the wheels fall off. I Would rather plow the extra dough into my classic prized possessions.

A new car is only new for a couple years then it is just another car.

All imho.

wolfman98

New cars kind of scare me in that there is so much that can go wrong. Unless you have a bumper to bumper everything included warrenty for at least 5 years you are bound to run into problems. just way too much technology we don't really need in a car but I guess some folks like all the bells and whistles. I have had the 2007 colorado for a few months and it only has 17,000 km on it. It goes in for servicing every 6 months and should go for oil changes sooner but I never put the milage on it to match the little sticker in the window. as it is I have to pay for the service and brake disc rotation( whatever that is)annually. To keep the warrenty basically costs about 300 a year. So what was a warrenty like back 40 years ago. Anybody buy a new car with full warrenty back then?

Bluevista

I love the smell of outgassing vinyl in the morning, I shove my face in the seat and snort it.

What don't kill you makes you stronger and it's worth it in any case.
Who wants to live forever anyway?

My Vista Cruiser smells brand new, SMS made most of the vinyl the trim shop used for the seats and cargo area side covers and it is odorous. In fact my garage smells brand new if I leave the car windows open.

wolfman98

So I just heard that there are problems with the Lexus ES350 and other Toyota sedans. It is the gas pedal sticking and getting caught up in poor fitting carpet mats. A recent crash cost 4 people their lives in CA. and the driver even called 911 while going over 100mph. They are now looking at recalling tens of thousands of cars.

OLD SKL 69

Yeah its true. I think it is even more recalled than that figure.

I usually don't buy new either, but they were giving away pickup trucks last October and I got a phenomenal deal on a new 08 Silverado Extended Cab. I paid only 4k more for a new one over a used 3 yr old pickup with over 50k on it. Can't beat that deal!

jaunty75

What you might call "bells and whistles" I might call the latest in safety technology including such things as lower-energy airbags, side airbags, traction control, and more.

Everyone on here is ragging on new cars. Fine. I've had far more problems with the used cars I've bought over the years than with the new. Plus, the new car comes with at least a three-year warranty, so anything goes wrong in that time, and you take it in. Yes, any number of things can go wrong with a new car. Any number of things can also go wrong with a used car.


Speaking as one of those "stiffs," depreciation is only an issue if you sell the car relatively quickly after buying it. If you keep it for a half-dozen years or so, which is typically how long we keep our car purchased new before trading it on another new car, the depreciation curve has pretty much leveled out.

Plus, dollars are not the only issue. There's, as I've said before, peace of mind that comes with having a reliable set of wheels under my family. To me that's worth a few extra dollars.

Nilsson

"Plus, dollars are not the only issue. There's, as I've said before, peace of mind that comes with having a reliable set of wheels under my family. To me that's worth a few extra dollars"


If you have it spend it, no problem here.


That is why my kids and I own Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans all fresh off lease cars. I saved over 30-38,000.00 over buying new.

These cars all with around 35,000 miles and all factory certified with 4 year 100,000 mile warranties whichever come first.

cutlassgal

I love to get in the Cutlass and smell that Old Car smell!!! There's just somethin about it.... ok, I ain't right either! LOL

84 rocket

not buyining a japanese car because of ww2 is like not buying a cotton shirt because of slavery!!!!! its amazing the grudges people hold ...edit I want a vw for a daily but it might ofend some jews because hittler helped designed them !!!

84 rocket

they have time to call 911 but not turn the key off!!!!

Jamesbo

I knew a guy who bought a VW after WW II and drove it til he died in 1999. Yes, he had the engine replaced a few times and replaced clutches.

Do the math and see what he "saved" buy not buying a new car every few years [and/or financed it] for 50 years. It will amaze you.

The compound effect of incremental increases of present value of future dolllars saved and not spent is interesting

Of course he paid the price of living in "The Red Neck Riviera" [Florida pan handle] w/o A/C and didn't burn much rubber. [correction ANY rubber]

wmachine

A long way indeed! Red touched on it here. I won't quote anyone else's comments about where the profit are going as I don't want to assault their sensitivities.
There are more "profits" and economic influx to consider here that than the corporate profit on the selling price of car.
Maybe one doesn't like final profit going to a foreign company (can't say I do, either). But who gets the *most* economic benefit if the car is produced here? What about the *profit* from all of the domestic parts? The *profit* from all of the support industries? Right down to the *profit* from the local bar frequented by the (foreign) automakers here? And taxes? etc.
There is a *lot* more to the equation.

jaunty75

Again, this kind of thinking is assuming that the ONLY consideration in owning a car is cost. He may have driven the same car for 50 years, but at what risk to his own safety every time he got behind the wheel?

That 1949 VW has none, zero, zilch, nada of the safety features found on a 1999 car. No seat belts. No padded dash. No collapsible steering column. No disc brakes. No antilock brakes. No dual brake system. No airbags. No reinforced door beams. No bumpers to speak of. No shatterproof glass. The list goes on. Sure, I could drive that car for pennies, too, but what about the next time I'm in an accident? Cost isn't just measured in dollars. It's also measured in lives.

Jamesbo

I agree.

I just thought it was interesting.

Life is a series of choices, isn't it.

wolfman98

I don't consider the new safety innovations as "bells and whistles". There are a lot of other things in cars that we don't really need like GPS as one example. It's nice but everyone has been doing without it for a long time, just something else to take your attention off the road. As for the guy who crashed because of a stuck gas pedal I could not understand why he did not just put the car in neutral and pull over. I think that you can not shut the key off while it's in gear and he probably tried to , then panicked.
I really do like my mom's 2003 Lincoln it's a lot of fun to drive , goes like a bat outta h*ll and handles like any small sports car. it had a 6 year warrenty which is now ended so she is thinking of trading it in for a new one
I can see her point cause repairs now would be costly but she is 81 and don't know how much longer she will be driving. She is still a pretty good driver and does the speed limit but never over , something I cannot say

jaunty75

Yes, it is. We all have old cars or we wouldn't be on this board. Our '55 or '65 or whatever Oldsmobiles don't have the same safety features that modern cars do, so in a sense we take a greater risk every time we get behind the wheel and go for a spin than we would if we drove only a modern car. That's why some of us update the safety features by adding seat belts or converting to dual brake systems or converting front drum brakes to discs. This guy with the '49 VW might have done some of these things, too. But we can't add airbags, antilock brakes, and many other modern advancements.

But one difference is that we don't use our old Oldsmobiles as daily transportation, so our total time exposed to the "danger" of driving them is less. Perhaps using the word "danger" here is a bit extreme. There is nonetheless a slightly increased risk when you drive a car with fewer safety features than when you drive one with more. But we get enjoyment out of driving the old cars, and we're willing to take that risk, however minor, in doing so.

After all, we could die falling down our cellar stairs. What fun would that be?

jaunty75

GPS is not standard equipment (yet) in most cars. Can you think of another example?

"Bells and whistles" is an easy phrase to toss off in conversation. It implies equipment that is superfluous, frilly, and/or unneeded. Can you give an example of a frilly, unneeded piece of equipment that we are forced to pay extra for in a modern car?

wolfman98

I did not say something that we are forced to pay for as an extra feature. Like in the Lincoln how about a 4 zone climate control system? It's cool but do we need it?

jaunty75

Is this standard equipment, or an extra-cost option? This is a luxury car, anyway, and these cars by definition include lots of luxury and convenience items. When you buy a car like this, you're CHOOSING to pay for the bells and whistles. It's not being forced on you. It's no different than 40 years ago and getting, for example, the "Comfortron" air-conditioning system on a 98. That was as much a bell and whistle then as the four-zone feature is on that Lincoln today.

Today's cars don't have any more unnecessary features as cars of any era did. I'd argue that they don't have any unnecessary features. These things are extra-cost options that you can choose not to buy or you can choose to buy a lower model line vehicle (a Ford instead of a Lincoln) if there are features you don't want.

Car prices goes up because of inflation, which affects the prices of all things. Taking out the effect of inflation, today's cars cost about as much in terms of percentage of the average yearly take-home pay as cars of the past did. They may be a little more, but the level of reliability and degree of routine maintenance required on a 2009 car compared to one from 1989 or 1969 is just not comparable. Cars are much better in this regard today.

wolfman98

Being a Lincoln I am sure it would be standard equipment. The biggest thing about todays cars is that 25 years from now how easy will it be to restore? The average joe backyard mechanic may find them more difficult to work out all the electronics?Here on the east coast with all the salt it takes a toll on wiring as well as body panels , it may be more costly when you have to replace all the wiring, computer components , chips and safety innovations that these new cars have. Even though they come as standard equipment on many of todays cars how expensive will major rebuilds be? I guess you will not know til that day comes, as well as the availability of parts. I just know that fixing a new car is way out of my league. I don't have anything to plug it into to figure out what's wrong with it.

wolfman98

Gotta go cover up some s**t , literally. Around 120 yards , 6 tarps and about 250 tires Aarghh!