Hacker News Reader

Comment by gleb | Hacker News Reader

Buy used. $50k used car is a better deal and a better car than $50k new car. Car is an asset, and its total cost of ownership has less to do with its price than where it is in its depreciation curve. $50k new car means $10-15k depreciation in the first year. You can buy just about anything used for less TCO.

Another thing to consider is having 2 cars. By buying a second car that depreciates less (it's cheaper, older, etc.) you actually save money. And with 2 cars you can go no-compromise on both ends of the spectrum.

Recommendations: E39 M5, E60 M5, C5 Z06, 996 911 GT3 or TT, Ferrari F550. Second car: Honda Odyssey, Honda Accord

View on HN

The "first cars" you've listed are (from experience, in some cases) expensive to maintain; the M's will also suck anywhere it gets cold, as will (heh) the Ferrari.

Expensive to maintain -- agreed except on the Vette. And you'd want winter tires in a cold place. But for all of them, the difference is less than depreciation on a new $50k car. Ferrari is different of course, but $25k of depreciation (new car for 3 years) may cover even that.

The point is not that GT3 is a frugal choice, but that buying a new car is an extravagance, and for the same cost you could be driving a vastly better car.

You don't want a rear-wheel drive car in a place where the roads get icey.

You don't want front-wheel drive, either. I drove a Taurus in New Hampshire for a couple of years, and it was downright unstable on snow. Geting out of a driveway turned into an adventure too often. A four-wheel drive car is wonderful in a place with some semblance of real winters. Subaru and Audi make great non-truck style cars with four-wheel drive.

BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Saab, Volvo, Chrysler/Dodge and Mazda also offer 4wd on various real cars - mostly performance models.

My parents (and later, me) have driven Sentras, Civics and Accords in suburban Boston with no major problems. We get about 3 times as much snow/slush/wintry-mix as the city itself, close to New Hampshire levels. If you're experienced driving in snow, it's not really a problem.

4WD is, of course, nicer. But I don't want people to think they have to have a 4WD vehicle if they live in a snowy place.

Like Zak said, the drive wheels don't have much to do with actual driving dynamics. That's all tires and differentials.

Four wheel drive is great for a lot of reasons, but in the winter it's only real benefit is acceleration - getting you unstuck or up hills. You're not less likely to crash while moving in an S4 as compared to an M3.

Well, I drive pretty regularly in an RWD M3, an AWD A6, and a FWD Volvo S40, and I'll tell you the M3 isn't my first choice on ice. Yes, tires are important. You still want AWD.

I'm in a similar boat, and as far as I can tell, ability > tires > drive wheels. It isn't that they aren't important, but people tend to place faaaaaaar too high a value on drive layout for winter driving.

Now, on the track, it makes a BIG difference. In the snow, however, your goal is safety... not competitive times.

You really ought to have winter tires on any car. People tend to think rear wheel drive cars need it more because it looks more dramatic when you loose control, but understeering head-first in to a guard rail is just as bad for you as spinning out.

Even four wheel drive won't do much for you if you enter a corner too fast, assuming you don't have a rally driver's skill set. Control requires traction. Traction comes from tires. Get appropriate tires for your driving conditions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com