Car Forum / Honda Cars / February 2006
buy new or used
|
|
Thread rating:  |
noreplysoccer@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2006 19:40 GMT my wife has a new job, will drive upwards of 600 miles/week local travel.
current car is not a honda :(
we know better now.
Considering a used civic or a new hybrid civic. Could anyone suggest which might be more economical
if we financed car, it would be for 3 years (or less). The hybrid we saw yesterday was around $25000k in cincinnati.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 31 Jan 2006 02:13 GMT > my wife has a new job, will drive upwards of 600 miles/week local > travel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Considering a used civic or a new hybrid civic. Could anyone suggest > which might be more economical Used Lexus. Cheap, and will hold up tremendously well. Will also be tremendously comfortable.
The important point is, the Lexus will depreciate faster than a Honda--which means either (a) you get a better car than a Honda for the same money, or (b) you'll get the same quality car as a Honda for less money.
Don't buy a new car for this kind of thing. The depreciation will kill you. It just doesn't make sense.
SoCalMike - 31 Jan 2006 05:19 GMT > Don't buy a new car for this kind of thing. The depreciation will kill > you. It just doesn't make sense. peace of mind. if youre starting out with a 0 mile car and taking care of it, youll know itll last. depreciation isnt really a factor if youre going to use the car up anyway.
jim beam - 31 Jan 2006 05:31 GMT >>my wife has a new job, will drive upwards of 600 miles/week local >>travel. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Don't buy a new car for this kind of thing. The depreciation will kill > you. It just doesn't make sense. depreciation on a civic is insanely low, or at least, it is here in the bay area. on the dealers lot, a used civic with 30k on the clock is often within $5k of a new sticker. that's nuts. in that case, buying new is the only way to go.
adding to that, i drive an 89 civic. depreciation on that in the last year has been negative - prices have gone /up/ due to it's economy with increasing gas prices!
SoCalMike - 31 Jan 2006 05:17 GMT > my wife has a new job, will drive upwards of 600 miles/week local > travel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Considering a used civic or a new hybrid civic. Could anyone suggest > which might be more economical hybrids arent worth it, especially on the highway. get one because you WANT one, not for the mileage you (likely wont) achieve. or for the carpool privileges :)
best bet would be something new, small, and gas-powered from honda or toyota. civic, matrix or corolla.
even better mileage wise would be a toyota yaris or honda jazz, neither of which is out yet. then theres the scion xA or xB...
the scions and yaris use a 1.5l w/VVTi, and get upwards of 40mpg on the highway.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 31 Jan 2006 11:55 GMT > even better mileage wise would be a toyota yaris or honda jazz, neither > of which is out yet. then theres the scion xA or xB... > > the scions and yaris use a 1.5l w/VVTi, and get upwards of 40mpg on the > highway. Mileage-wise there's the VW diesels, but that's all one can say about VWs.
(sigh) imagine if Honda sold a diesel engine car here...
G-man422 - 31 Jan 2006 12:35 GMT new honda> IMO.
 Signature G-man422
http://www.automotiveforums.com
bakechad - 31 Jan 2006 17:47 GMT I just traded in a 2003 Civic with 18,302 miles and the dealer is asking $14,000 for it. For not much more you could buy a new one. To save any real money on a Honda you need to go +5 years old.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 31 Jan 2006 21:50 GMT > To > save any real money on a Honda you need to go +5 years old. Yes--even with Accord.
Same goes for Toyota.
But for some reason, the Lexus ES--same size as Camry--depreciates FASTER.
So you buy used, get a *great* deal, AND you get a car that's built better than either Accord or Camry.
Alex Rodriguez - 01 Feb 2006 17:17 GMT >> To >> save any real money on a Honda you need to go +5 years old. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >But for some reason, the Lexus ES--same size as Camry--depreciates >FASTER. Camry = Lexus ES . Just take a peek at the chasis and engine and this is easy to see. The Lexus will have some more options, but that's about it.
>So you buy used, get a *great* deal, AND you get a car that's built >better than either Accord or Camry. Smart move. ----------- Alex
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 01 Feb 2006 23:20 GMT > Camry = Lexus ES . Just take a peek at the chasis and engine and this is > easy to see. The Lexus will have some more options, but that's about it. Not *quite*. Built in a different plant--built in Japan, in fact--and the quality control for the parts and materials is incredibly higher than that of Toyota.
While Toyota might allow a failure rate of 150 pieces per million, Lexus allows 15 per million. Or whatever. The point is, the parts *aren't* the same.
And yet it depreciates FASTER than the Camry.
Go figure.
Gordon McGrew - 02 Feb 2006 01:47 GMT >> Camry = Lexus ES . Just take a peek at the chasis and engine and this is >> easy to see. The Lexus will have some more options, but that's about it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Go figure. Consumer Reports Reliability records for 4 cyl. Camry and ES are different which indicates that CR decided not to just lump them together. The records are similar and both very good overall. The ES is much better on suspension, engine and cooling and somewhat better in a few other areas, The Camry has better transmission reliability and brakes. A clear quality difference but both cars are really at the top of the game.
Comparing ES with 4 cyl. Accord is a closer match than with the Camry. The ES is better on transmission, exhaust, and maybe slightly better in a few other areas. Accord is better on brakes, suspension and maybe electrical. In most areas, it's a toss-up.
jim beam - 02 Feb 2006 04:28 GMT >>Camry = Lexus ES . Just take a peek at the chasis and engine and this is >>easy to see. The Lexus will have some more options, but that's about it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And yet it depreciates FASTER than the Camry. perceived cost of maintenance is higher, thus a higher depreciation rate. whether or not it's true is irrelevant.
> Go figure. K Lam - 01 Feb 2006 20:49 GMT >>To >>save any real money on a Honda you need to go +5 years old. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So you buy used, get a *great* deal, AND you get a car that's built > better than either Accord or Camry. So does the same thing applies for Acuras? Do they have better build quality but yet faster depreciation?
Kevin
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 01 Feb 2006 23:18 GMT > > So you buy used, get a *great* deal, AND you get a car that's built > > better than either Accord or Camry. > > So does the same thing applies for Acuras? Do they have better build > quality but yet faster depreciation? Less so.
SoCalMike - 02 Feb 2006 03:14 GMT >>> So you buy used, get a *great* deal, AND you get a car that's built >>> better than either Accord or Camry. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Less so. in europe, even the acuras have honda namebadges.
Alex Rodriguez - 31 Jan 2006 18:59 GMT >my wife has a new job, will drive upwards of 600 miles/week local >travel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Considering a used civic or a new hybrid civic. Could anyone suggest >which might be more economical Used is always more economical. Just make sure you inspect the car carefully. --------------- Alex
noreplysoccer@hotmail.com - 01 Feb 2006 16:01 GMT I appreciate the opinions. I was referred here from misc.financial.planning
I'd like to see the numbers more than just read opinions.
I have priced the civic hybrid at $25,000 what does a gas civic cost new?
is their a mileage comparison based on experience?
if car is going to be used for lots of traveling, why would I want a Lexus or other car which depreciates quickly?
we do plan to drive car for YEARS. preferably 10-15.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 01 Feb 2006 16:10 GMT > I have priced the civic hybrid at $25,000 > what does a gas civic cost new? Which model?
> if car is going to be used for lots of traveling, why would I want a > Lexus or other car which depreciates quickly? If the car is going to be used for traveling, you don't want to pay the premium to get a hybrid. Hybrids do their thing in stop and go city driving. Highway traveling, the hybrid offers nothing.
If you're buying new, you're right--don't get a Lexus that depreciates quickly.
On the other hand, a 2 to 5 year old Lexus is a far, far better value than a new Honda or Toyota. Someone else has already taken that huge depreciation hit, but the car is still a superior piece of work than even its Toyota cousin.
If you plan to keep the car for 10 to 15 years, depreciation isn't an issue. You want build quality, period. Lexus is it--but not far behind are the Toyotas and even the Hondas.
My nephew is driving my 92 Civic Si. It now has 140K on the clock, it's on its original clutch, and it drives great. Looks great, too.
On the other hand, you might look very closely at the Hyundai. 10 year warranty and, frankly, they're the new Honda. They've done over the past 15 years what Honda did over the previous 15 years--came from nowhere, got a lot of snickers, and now are pushing the big boys around a bit with respectable cars.
GM and Ford snickered at Honda once, and look at them. Honda and Toyota had better not snicker at Hyundai, lest they be forced to eat crow.
Timothy J. Lee - 01 Feb 2006 22:52 GMT >On the other hand, a 2 to 5 year old Lexus is a far, far better value >than a new Honda or Toyota. Someone else has already taken that huge >depreciation hit, Be careful about "new car depreciation". Much of the "new car depreciation" is the difference between dealer retail and trade-in values, so the amount you save by buying used is less than the amount you lose by buying new and then trading in.
>but the car is still a superior piece of work than >even its Toyota cousin. Why would it be superior in any way other than added luxury features?
 Signature ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 01 Feb 2006 23:21 GMT > >but the car is still a superior piece of work than > >even its Toyota cousin. > > Why would it be superior in any way other than added luxury features? Different plant and different parts being managed differently with different acceptable failure rates.
The supplier can't afford to peddle prone-to-fail components to the Lexus side of the house.
Timothy J. Lee - 01 Feb 2006 22:46 GMT >I have priced the civic hybrid at $25,000 >what does a gas civic cost new? Try carsdirect.com and edmunds.com if you are in the US.
>if car is going to be used for lots of traveling, why would I want a >Lexus or other car which depreciates quickly? If you are buying a used car, fast depreciating cars tend to be cheaper than slow depreciating cars. Though Lexus models might not be that economical fuel wise, which may be a concern if you drive a lot.
 Signature ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Elle - 02 Feb 2006 05:20 GMT I echo Timothy Lee's comment: Use www.edmunds.com , for one, especially to appraise used cars based on mileage, condition, and features. It will also at least generate relative price differences between new models and IIRC cost per mile of operation.
Hybrids are so new that their longevity isn't established. There is chatter on the net about the battery packs and how much they'll cost to replace. I'd wager at best hybrids last as long as strictly gasoline engine Hondas, but possibly at a higher maintenance cost, because of the battery packs. Sorry; I don't see much concrete info beyond this right now.
I still think the April "car buying" issue of Consumer Reports is very much a worthwhile read, to build confidence in what you're buying. Understand that it reviews several years of /each/ model of car for reliability in specific areas and presents it in easy-to-read format. I believe it also gives new car prices. Lastly, it may have some good info on the Hybrids' reliability, at least for young hybrids.
>I appreciate the opinions. I was referred here from > misc.financial.planning [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > we do plan to drive car for YEARS. preferably 10-15. SoCalMike - 03 Feb 2006 02:36 GMT > Hybrids are so new that their longevity isn't established. There is chatter > on the net about the battery packs and how much they'll cost to replace. I'd > wager at best hybrids last as long as strictly gasoline engine Hondas, but > possibly at a higher maintenance cost, because of the battery packs. Sorry; > I don't see much concrete info beyond this right now. i like em, but i like 4 door hatches, and the prius has all the gizmos. only way it would be worthwhile would be IF it was "carpool lane exempt".
pars - 02 Feb 2006 01:59 GMT > my wife has a new job, will drive upwards of 600 miles/week local > travel. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > if we financed car, it would be for 3 years (or less). The hybrid we > saw yesterday was around $25000k in cincinnati. Another car that goes for about 25K is the A3. If I were doing a lot of highway, I'd go for the turbo engine instead of the Hybrid.
Pars
|
|
|