Hacker News Reader

Comment by ngngngng | Hacker News Reader

My dad and I tried to run a blog investigating things like this and giving advice. We've both been able to keep our car costs remarkably low. He's currently driving the most expensive car he's ever owned which cost him 10k (high mileage truck) and I'm still driving a 1993 Nissan SUV I bought a few years back for $900. Even when factoring in cost of repairs for both cars and bad gas mileage, we've saved thousands and thousands versus driving new[er] cars.

I don't think we were being condescending, but all of the posts were met with outrage that we dare suggest such things. People would say things like "I need a reliable car to get to work, and if it's not new, it's not reliable."

View on HN

If you actually want to save money, don’t drive an SUV.

The cheapest new car in the US by the same company is 13,255$ and does 31 city / 39 highway. That cheap SUV gets at best 15 city / 19 highway, so assuming nothing is wrong it’s using twice the fuel.

Assuming 15k annual miles and zero mechanical issues you save money with the new car in ~10 years. Though a more through analysis is likely going to make that time shorter as keeping an old car on the road gets more expensive.

If your keep a car for 10 years it doesn't matter what you pay for it. People who buy new every 3 years are the ones lighting money on fire.

It does matter.

As someone who bought a 7 year old car used and has had it for 10, I disagree.

Buying such an old car takes some knowledge and skill. You can certainly find one that will be reliable. But can the average person actually count on being able to do that?

Beyond that, this may be a good financial decision on a personal level but it doesn’t scale to society as a whole. Used cars are cheap because few people want them. If everybody tried your scheme, the prices would go way up.

The average person can find a pick-your-brand Japanese car or crossover that’s 5-8 years old, if possible pay cash and get liability insurance only and motor for half the typical costs and basically the same reliability.

We bought my wife’s 2005 CR-V in 2011 for $8500 cash. In 8 years, it’s needed less than $750 in parts and we farmed out only one job (a clutch job which involves a good half-day of labor with a lift or a strenuous weekend without one). Total maintenance expenses have been under $2000 over 8 years and if the clutch job hadn’t been needed would have been under $1000. (Was a bearing failure not clutch wear.)

We’re under $11K into this thing, excluding gas, so $110/mo or so and still totally reliable.

You’re right on the market; it’s great that not everyone wants them: makes them cheap for those who know how smoking a deal they tend to be.

> and we farmed out only one job

That speaks of expertise and therefore is poor measure of TCO for the average person. That said, buying a 3-6 year old used car is frequent advice.

Where people fall down is not buying a used car. It's buying a used car they could not afford as a new car. If your buying a used vehicle that was 30+k new, your not actually getting a cheap vehicle, just an old one.

By far the cheapest car I ever owned was a Mercedes E300D turbodiesel. Was a $55K car in 1998 and a $6500 car in 2009. Mercedes in general but diesels in particular are built to last and are quite inexpensive to maintain if you DIY or use an independent mechanic.

A $6500 Jaguar is probably not a good budget recommendation though... :)

88% off on a 12 year old car is a serious discount. But, if it’s actually lasting 10 years as your daily driver without needing serious repairs you may just want to be buying lotto tickets :)

PS: A friend owned a used car for 3 years then sold it for a net profit without doing any repairs. But, good luck retreating that without spending a lot of time looking for great deals.

I suspect the biggest win is getting over the mostly mental hurdle of “I deserve a new car because reasons...”, deciding to buy used, and then just not picking absolute maintenance hogs. Most cars are quite reliable now and can easily go 150-200K miles without major drama. 10 Audis owned for 10 years will likely cost more than 20 Toyotas owned for 10 years. Even “over paying” at a place like CarMax (who makes it “easy” to shop for a late model used car) is better than getting fleeced at the new car dealer.

People love buying new cars though... It’d be a lot more amusing if it weren’t so financially harmful. (I confess to buying a new electric LEAF but only because it came with $10K in government money in the trunk. Even with you guys buying 1/3rd of it for us and Nissan financing it at 0% interest, it’s noticeably more expensive than our other cars. Good car though. Has needed wiper blades and washer fluid in 55 months of ownership.)

> Buying such an old car takes some knowledge and skill.

That was part of the point of the blog, transferring that knowledge.

> it doesn’t scale to society as a whole.

I dislike this argument, something doesn't have to scale to society as a whole to be a good idea. Tons of people that are rich or unwise can keep buying new cars and thousands of my readers can start buying used cars without throwing the whole world market off.

It’s not an argument, just a plain statement of fact. Remember, the context here is an article about the reasons why a huge number of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. It’s quite relevant to mention that having everyone buy old cars can’t solve this problem.

A new car is usually a bad financial decision, especially if you're at your first job.

I admittedly paid too much for my first car. Bought new in 1998 at way too high of an interest rate. I did keep that car for 18 years though, so it worked out in the end.

How do you calculate the cost of the risk associated with not having the latest safety tech? Especially subtle things like generous crumple zones which make a car less durable but pay off in the worst case?

I think people forgot that a 10 year old car means 2009. Newer cars are still safer, sure, but that's easily recent enough for good crumple zones, strong pillars and plenty of air bags, all for under 10k.

In his post he says his car is from 1993, which is 26 years old, not 10.

Cars are being built for 100 years; there are improvements, but not that big to say a 26 year old car is not safe enough. My 6 year old motorcycle has the almost the same technology like my 1993 bike I had 15 years ago, the only difference is fuel injection and nothing else. It is not even more reliable, but the manufacturer is the same.

That's why motorcycles are becoming comparatively less safe; none of the many advances in automobile safety can apply to them. People on the front lines of highway accidents have noticed the changes in cars due to crumple zones and the like:

> I have been in the emergency services for a little over 20 years now. Back in the late 90's we were cutting people, out of cars almost daily, and they where almost all dead or very close to it. Fast forward 20 years, and at the same speed collisions, when we stop on scene, people are standing next to the cars swapping insurance info. It is truly amazing to see a car that has disintegrated, and the people are fine.

> It also smells different. Back in the day you could smell all the stuff that was in the car...batteries would rupture, fuel lines would leak, oil all over the road. Drinking and driving was also more common, so you could smell blood and booze. Those smells are all but gone -- only very high speed accidents smell like that now. --https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/brg6uy/cop_car_didnt_s...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com