The Real Cost of Owning a Car

Not a good article at all.

a) Nobody has ever confused a car with an investment.

b) "Assuming a modest 10% return". 10% after taxes and inflation is not a modest return by any stretch of the imagination and I'd be thrilled if I could achieve that consistently. If he hasn't factored inflation and taxes in then all his sums are wrong.

c) "Here, look, my $4000 student car costs more than $4000 in running costs and depreciation over three years" is not a useful example in the context of luxury vehicles. With luxury vehicles your running costs will be a much smaller fraction of the original outlay. (Although I admit depreciation will still be a big factor. Probably best to get one second hand that's a couple of years old.)

d) It's just a generalization of the general truism that millionaires have often become millionaires because they're frugal.

e) If you've got, say, five million dollars, you can cheerfully drop a hundred grand on a car and it's only a small fraction of your wealth. Not a sensible idea, but not fatal either.

f) In the second paragraph he essentially says "Millionaires often drive cheap cars except when the drive luxury cars". This is not a particularly impressive insight.

I really, really recommend reading The Millionaire Next Door (I have no affiliation with it. It's kinda old-school, but in no way out of date.).

Almost the entire book is about how luxury goods are NOT consumed by rich people, but by semi-struggling middle class people. (BMW's, Rolex, premium liquor, etc.) (Or at least people who have to go in to debt to consume these things.)

(It's also about how rich people DO live, choose to buy stuff, negotiate, etc.)

Everybody in this thread who's saying, "duh, cars aren't supposed to be an investment," are technically right. And everybody should indulge in things that really make them happy. If cars are your thing, go on, do your thing. It's all good.

But in the Millionaire Next Door, it goes over how cars are an especially precarious purchase for most people, as they just really eat up a lot of money over time. For most people, even non-luxury car purchases require a loan.

Cars might be more dangerous for us than say Rolexes, because most of us think "well either way I have to have a car, might as well get a _____."

Anyway, maybe this article wasn't the most persuasive case, but it is true. Most rich people don't have fancy cars, or probably fancy anything.

(In the Millionaire Next Door, it says we get confused by this because there are a famous outliers who show off their wealth, so we incorrectly associate wealth with luxury, when they're rarely related.)

Yes cars are extremely expensive. But for many the ability to live within driving distance of work is worth it. I know people who don't have cars. They really miss them. I can drive 250 miles to see my family on a whim. It takes 4-5 hours. Taking public transit requires 7-8 hours, and only gets me within 25 miles of my parents' house (which is pretty good compared to much of the US).

And something like reliability is difficult to quantify. The difference between a $20,000 car and a $4,000 car is often that the $4,000 car is more likely to fail on you unexpectedly. You'll wake up one morning to find the battery dead, or you'll be halfway to work and your brake lines will rupture, or maybe it's just that the door sticks and is a minor subconscious annoyance. Eventually the amount of money you have to sink into a clunker to keep it running will be as much as it would have cost to buy the newer car.

But yeah, anything more than that, unless you need the car to impress clients, is pure luxury. If I had to blow $50,000 on a luxury, it would not be a car.

quick notify ferrari, lamborghini, porsche, maserati, aston martin, jaguar, bentley, audi, cadillac, morgan, rolls-royce, bugatti, TVR, volvo, spyker, saab, land rover, lotus, bmw, mercedes, lexus, lincoln, maybach, pagani, gumpert, koenigsegg, acura, infiniti, weismann, mosler, ascari, mclaren, ssc aero,..that they are in the wrong business.

First of all a luxury car is not an investment. A person doesn't buy a Ferrari, thinking it'll appreciate, they buy it to show off their wealth, and at a certain point, the 200K for a Ferrari is only a small portion of someone's income. And since high end cars tend to hold their value really well, they don't depreciate as much as regular ones.

Second of all, the lost opportunity cost is just the cost of owning a car. Live a little, you don't get to take the money with you when you die.

Finally, there are only a few types of millionaires who don't own a nice car. 1. those who lease the luxury car with their companies. 2. those who are always traveling for business, and who pay the $30K/yr to belong to those super car rental clubs. 3. those who see a car as just something to take you from point a to b.

Owning an expensive car is actually not as bad as the author suggests. Once you get beyond around $80K cars depreciate at a much slower rate than other cheaper cars. One reason for this is that the more exotic a car is the lower the mileage it is likely to carry becomes. Another strong factor is that when you are paying more than $80K for a car you are paying a lot for the brand of the car and this is likely to be evaluated later at an emotional rather than mechanical level. A 5 year old Aston Martin is still an Aston Martin, whereas a 5 year old Honda is basically a commodity to be evaluated on its mechanical merits.

In terms of this argument the worst car to buy would be something like a BMW 5 Series - its not expensive or rare enough to ensure it would be evaluated on its emotional appeal when you are selling it - but it is still pretty expensive.

> How much would I have after three years? Assuming a modest 10% return per year

Is 10% really a modest return?

I find it difficult to believe that a Ferrari would consume 100x on all of fuel, fines, insurance and licensing costs.

But I would rather consider your choice of car beyond basic requirements as consumption, much like food. I'm sure one wouldn't consider fine cuisine a good investment either under these circumstances, but that doesn't justify living off ramen your whole life.

It depends on where you live. In the States or outside a fair-sized town, there's (so far) no alternative to owning your own car out of sheer necessity. In the city, especially here in Europe, it's a different story. The usual rule of thumb is the cheapest car costs you _at least_ 300 €/month (taxes, depreciation, not counting gas money)!

When my son was born this made it easy for me to decide to buy an Xtracycle (http://www.xtracycle.com) for my bike instead of a car. The Xtracycle covers 95% of my transportation needs and 300 € buys a lot of trips by taxi whenever that's necessary.

Still, the point of the article as I see it is that most people underestimate the cost of their car. That's a small problem. The big problem is that our societies underestimate the external cost of private car ownership. When you figure in loss of life and health through accidents, noise, and pollution, loss of usable space in inner cities through car-only streets and on-street parking, and general loss of quality of life - the private car becomes the most expensive mode of transportation ever invented.

Found this very interesting, and especially so since I've been evaluating the financial efficacy of owning a car a lot as of late.

I own a Green 98 Subaru Forrester with about 150k on it that my father gave me on my college graduation. It's been a heap of problems, due mostly to its age, but I've come to realize that owning it is actually not a bad value (it is of course not an investment, but a consumable product). The problem is one of cash flow.

My Forrester recently had a wheel bearing go out on the rear passenger side, and it was going to cost several hundred in parts and labor to get it fixed. Since the car is so old and I'm tired of fixing it, I decided to just let it sit for a while and try out not having a car.

I started using a car sharing program (CityWheels), which requires you to pay for each time you use one of their cars. Although the cost of operating a rental car is higher and the use case is less flexible, it's not a terrible deal.

What it has made me realize though, is that for the cost, owning a car isn't a bad deal if (like me) you live outside of a huge city, there isn't a lot of public transit, and you want to get around. As I mentioned above, it's cash flow that gets in the way of realizing the value.

When you own a car, you pay for gas, insurance, incidentals and repairs, and it's the last category that really gets you. Figuring up the cost of ownership, I pay about $.27/mi to drive the Subaru compared to ~$.40 for the City Wheels car, but the CityWheels car feels like a better deal because I pay everything up front. If I need to drive 30 miles, I have to pay the $12 now. If I drive my car 30 miles, I sometimes don't have to pay at all (if I don't need to put gas in it). But then, about 2-3 times a year, I have to pay $400 or $600 all at once, and it makes me resent the thing.

I've heard it said that more millionaires own Toyota Camrys than any other model, and it makes sense: as some of the commenters above mentioned, paying for reliability and quality is worthwhile, but paying for an Aston Martin should not be viewed as an investment, but as a consumable.

The one thing worse than car ownership? Taking a loan out to buy the car: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634&pagenu... . I'm shocked at how we allow people to take 5 year loans for cars that depreciate 30+% over that time.

I live in Texas where a car is required, and bought a "new-to-me" year old used subaru a year after graduating college, with a couple years of warranty left on it. It was mentally better than paying to maintain my previous car, which needed thousands of dollars in repairs. I do all the easy maintenance (oil/coolant/filter changes) myself, and hope to have the car overall for 10 years.

The author makes a good point, similar to those made in the excellent book "The Millionaires Next Door." My wife and I have make it a habit of saving for new big ticket items like cars to avoid debt payments and it makes a difference: both in saved interest payments and fewer purchases. I have worked just part time my whole life making a good but modest living while my brother owns two optometry offices, has lots of income, but not so great investments and buys a lot of "toys." It seems really strange to me that I am ending up with more assets than he has when I took it easy in my career and had fun.

Technically, owning anything that is depreciating is a bad investment and that includes cars.

I think the real title should be "why millionaires don't have great cars while they are becoming millionaires." When they are rich, they can and do by nice cars.

"If it flies, floats or fornicates, always rent it.. it’s cheaper in the long run." - Felix Dennis

It's hard to put a value on the freedom to, at a moment's notice, get up and go wherever you please, without having to rely on anyone or anything. It's what continues to attract people to individual transport.

I have a fairly nice car. Have owned it for 7 years now. While there have been minor problems like scrapes on the rims, trim peeling, etc., the engine, transmission and all the real guts of the car have performed flawlessly the entire time. The car has been paid off for 4 years.

I feel I could drive this car for another 5 years at least. That would be at least 12 years without purchasing a car and 8 years without making a car payment.

My car was expensive, but I feel it was engineered so well that it can last. Quality cars last a long time.

I dont understand the comparison of cars with investment. Car is a utility which makes life better, hence expenditure. You invest to make money to spend on utilities which make your life better. :)

This is complete bull. Owning anything that depreciates in value is not a smart investment idea. Most wealthy people don't go around in a Prius. Even if they own one, they will always get a "safer" car for their family (at least) such as a Volvo, Benz or Range Rover.

Sometimes it's a good idea to own a "desirable" item rather than go with the masses with a commodity. When it's time to sell your old convertible, you'll find a buyer. The old sedan is basically scrap metal.

One thing this argument ignores is social signals.

If you're in sales, as one example, you may want an expensive car. This lets clients subtly know that you are doing very well, and can serve as a form of trust for some people.

If you have a small penis and no significant other...

Most of the wealthier people I know have reasonably nice cars. Maybe not Zonda/Lambo nice, but Audi, BMW, MB, Infiniti, Lexus and Cadillac are the norm.