Time to buy a little car?

[Badbeams3]

With gas holding over $3 I`m wondering if waiting till my Mazda 626 V6 completly bites the dust is a smart thing to do. I`m afraid dealers might demand top dollar for their little cars.

Gas went way up around 1980...I bought a little car for a way high price only to see gas drop way down. Don`t want to hurry if history will repeat...whats your thinking? :thinking:

 

[Illum]

I'm still waiting for the smart car to come into the US

 

[turbodog]

I'm thinking to go ahead and close this thread before it degrades into the large car vs small car, suv bashing, etc that's so common now.

 

[Jarl]

Don`t want to hurry if history will repeat...whats your thinking? :thinking:

lol, the only way fuel is going to become cheaper is if everyone stops buying it. I can hardly see that happening....

 

[meuge]

I'm thinking to go ahead and close this thread before it degrades into the large car vs small car, suv bashing, etc that's so common now.

SUV bashing?

I don't think this is the right forum for that. I think a number of really overzealous hippies have given "true" environmentalism a bad name... to the extent that we now have "eco-terrorists"... what the hell? One only needs to be conscious of one's choices to be a real environmentalist - no ridiculousness needed. Actually, the most effective way to protect the environment is to convince people that we can do it without impacting their life negatively... which is totally NOT the message that an organization such as Greenpeace sends.

Instead of threatening everybody that we'll all die if we don't drive a Prius, we should lobby the car companies to ensure that our SUVs and trucks are the vehicles that utilize the latest technologies. After all - adding a hybrid drive to an SUV will both save more gas AND give you more torque AND a faster 0-30. Who wouldn't want that?

Anyway, getting back on topic, the gas prices have nowhere to go but up... so if gas prices are such a huge concern, you should consider a car that uses less. However, make sure that when you make your purchasing decision, you consider both the total cost of ownership, the utilitarian requirements you must meet, AND your own desires... because spending tens of thousands of a car that won't meet your needs and one that you'll be unhappy about, is not going to be mitigated by spending 30% less on gas.

 

[Marduke]

Small car? Hell, now's the time to talk your wife into getting that fuel efficient motorcycle!!

Go ahead, you know you want one. You're saving money by getting one

 

[electromage]

Why base your decision on the $/gal cost of gasoline at the pump alone? The environmental impact isn't going to go down. It's probably a good idea to get a small car anyway, if you want one, and it fits your needs. Even if gasoline dropped to $1/gal, you'd still be saving some money, and reducing your impact.

I've noticed a trend in the country, when gas prices go up, people start to care about the "environment" more, and go crazy over hybrids and biofuel. Then the next year when prices drop $.50/gal they start going out and buying SUVs again. It's really a sign that people care for the wrong reasons. (This is just a trend that I've noticed, based on news, advertisements, and the new cars that I see on the road around Seattle. It is in no way scientific.)

 

[warlord]

The Toyota Prius is silly. You don't break even on the cost of the Prius vs a Corolla (or any other sub compact) unless you own the car for well over 15years. If you include the cost for maintinence I doubt you'd ever break even. I don't know how much $$$ it takes to change all those batteries but I'm sure it's a fair amount. So IMHO, Priuses are purely for making political statements.

When my Chevrolet Blazer threw a rod at 130,000miles gas was $2.50 +/- (a high fluctuation around mid '06). I decided since I generally drive alone, don't haul anything, and commute 15miles both ways a more economical car would make sense.

I picked up a used '03 5 speed Corolla S ($8,500) from the in-laws. I was going to buy new but they wouldn't have it. :shrug:My best fuel economy was 39mpg driving from N. Illinois to the U.P. of Michigan and back. I got 420miles before refilling.

125hp wasn't enough so i bought a used TRD supercharger ($1,200) and installed it. My current average fuel economy is still 30-32mpg depending on my driving and I fill up every 2 weeks. I get V6 performance and I4 economy, it makes sense to me. It's also good to note that the '03+ Corolla's have the same interior space as the 90's Camry's. :twothumbs

BTW, my car before the Blazer was an '89 Ford Probe GT 5sp. I4 Turbo (Mazda MX6) which also got pretty good fuel economy and performance.

 

[jtr1962]

Don't want to hurry if history will repeat...whats your thinking?

Small cars are not the answer here, nor the panacea they seem. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, the real answer is to set things up so "car" is just one of many transportation options available to a good part of the population, not the only one. While people complain about the price of gas, the fact is that purchase price, insurance, and repairs can often cost more than fuel over the life of the car. Cars are black holes for money any way you look at it. As the total cost of car ownership continues to rise, America will become less and less competitive. We pay more money per capita for transportation here than any other country, yet outside of a few large metropolitan areas our transportation network is decidedly third world. The reason is simple-mechanized private transportation results in enormous duplication plus poor utilization of capital assets. In many areas every adult is essentially their own transportation company whether they want to be or not. We should return to Americans the freedom to be able to travel without owning a car. I already see it starting to happen but a lot more needs to be done.

So my thinking is the future looks a lot like the past-an interconnected, comprehensive system mostly based on rail, with cars or scooters or bikes to get to the stations. Just the changing demographics dictates a move away from private and towards public transit. Many older people means fewer people able to drive. Higher costs of food and housing mean fewer dollars to spend on transportation. Add to that the enormous economic impact of 43,000 deaths and 2 million injuries per year on the roads. Here-to-stay higher fuel costs mean a move towards modes of transit which don't require fuel. Increasing medical costs due to air pollution will also continue to drive the move away from fossil fuels. Fact is the status quo is unsustainable for many reasons. None of our leaders have had the courage to tell this to their consituents.

There, two long paragraphs without mentioning large car versus small car, or SUV bashing.

 

[FILIPPO]

With gas holding over $3 I`m wondering if waiting till my Mazda 626 V6 completly bites the dust is a smart thing to do. I`m afraid dealers might demand top dollar for their little cars.

Gas went way up around 1980...I bought a little car for a way high price only to see gas drop way down. Don`t want to hurry if history will repeat...whats your thinking? :thinking:

where are you? hope not in USA!

I have always thought that in USA the smallest car you can see is a dodge ram 5,7L.... but anyway gas is very expensive now...you are right

maybe the solution is in a car that doesn't use gas...

(you can build a car with a 12V electrical motor and ask Luxluthor to make for you a special battery pack! LOL )

 

[BIGIRON]

Consider your personal values, needs and wants and go from there. It's highly unlikely gasoline prices will reduce significantly but that is only one factor, and not that great a one, in a decision such as you're discussing.

And remember, internet opinions and advice, including mine, are worth what you pay for them.

 

[Tempest UK]

In the UK, a lot of people wouldn't even consider anything other than a "small" car due to the cost of petrol here

Regards,
Tempest

 

[nerdgineer]

A simple question with a complicated answer. Many tradeoffs, including:

- it is a good idea to live "below your means" in general, so: yes, only as large (and as high performance) a car as you really need, independent of gas price...

- big cars are more survivable in car-on-car crashes (unless you roll your SUV) so: no, independent of gas price...

- unless everyone else gets small cars, which won't happen until gas gets really painful (more so than now), in which case you'll have been ahead of the curve (so: yes, to get ahead of the curve)...

- but sudden changes in gas prices (which happens when people don't look ahead, where we in general are encouraged to not look ahead by advertisers, marketers, and next quarter focused pundits...) can create economic dislocation affecting your income, so: maybe keep your current car and don't spend a bunch of coin on a new car, big or little...

If the rise in gas costs were slow, then industry and behavior would have time to adjust more smoothly: people will relocate so they need to drive less, cars will get naturally smaller, food will get more expensive (but we'll learn new recipes to do OK with whatever it becomes in the US), everyone will groan, but no one will scream. However, that usually is not the case and I don't know how to fix it.

I have over time migrated to smaller cars, but most importantly, I long ago chose to live close to where I (luckily still) work, which is the biggest part of the equation.

 

[Probedude]

I'm still waiting for the smart car to come into the US

They're already here in Calif. 2 seater, only gets 40 MPG and requires premium fuel (don't know if it has a knock sensor to allow burning regular unleaded).

Might as well get a Toyota Yaris - more cabin space and gets as good MPG using regular unleaded.

I've been driving a 1992 Geo Metro since 1998 when I bought it used with 108K miles on the odometer and a $2K price tag. I'm up to 324,000 miles on the original engine, still get 48MPG while commuting 100miles a day at 75-80MPH on the freeway, totally reliable. Try getting that MPG in a Prius at those speeds. It's not slow either, actually pretty zippy. Of course ~1600 pound curb weight sure helps performance.

Metros have been around since 1985 (I think). Many owners are getting 50MPG but they probably don't have a lead foot like I do.

Dave

 

[mdocod]

Those old metro/swifts are amazing, I own one of the newer incarnations (2001) with the 1.3L 16 valve coupled to a 3 speed auto. Bought it for $2500 like 3 years ago with ~50K miles on it at that time. It's not a performance car, but it will accelerate to any speed limit in the states in a reasonable manner. I've found that driving it "easy" gets 35mpg, and driving like I normally do (delivering pizzas) I get 32mpg. The combination of the heavier weight (2000lbs instead of the older 1600lbs models) and the auto tranny with no converter lock results in a lot less milage than it is capable of. A manual version of the same car gets 40mpg routinely. pulling out some weight and it'll do even better, and there are some simple modifications that could be done under the hood to force higher economy if one were so inclined.

The point I'm making here (directed at OP), is that you can find low milage "small" used cars for dirt cheap if you look around. At the time I bought that swift, blue book was supposedly $4k.

My other vehicle? A 1995 Isuzu rodeo V6 4WD with a 3 inch lift and 33 inch tires. I don't care what happens to gas prices, I'm not giving it up. Sometimes deep snow happens and a swift isn't going to do me any good

Conclusion: own both, if you can.

Eric

 

[Fallingwater]

I'm about to sell my car (Mazda 3 turbodiesel). I was originally planning to get another, smaller one to decrease insurance cost (which is my main expense; I don't use the car enough that fuel is a significant threat to my wallet), but it turns out even a tiny city car wouldn't cause the insurance price to go down significantly.

Hence, my new plan: I'm not buying another car at all.
I have a motorbike for myself, and I can always rent a car for the extremely rare occasions when I need one. It's bound to cost me less than owning one, and having one less thing to worry about can only be a good thing.

Should I need, in time, to buy another car, I'll get the smallest, tiniest, cheapest four-seater I can find.

 

[270winchester]

a smart move would be to modify our existing emission laws to allow clean diesel cars to be more viable to the consumers, such as more VW Golf sized TDIs. I believe you can't get those in California because it's a diesel(at least that's what the VW people told me).

I know some people who live in other states who own them and they get scary good milage without sacrificing size or cargo capacity. But seems like "clean air" hybrids are all the rage in the bay area, I doubt the intelligensia will embrace lowly diesels now that if it's not hybrid, it's not green to a lot of people who haven't bothered to get updated on auto technology in decades.

The other car that is a viable heir to the Geo, which is also discontinued, is the Toyota Echo. A friend of the family owns one, does long commute on it, when outfitted with long-lasting tires it gets close to 40mpg at freeway speeds, which is better than what most hybrids get at those speeds. Four adults can sit comfortably in it with the trunk for storage. They look ugly as heck but gets the job done.

Now that we have 5000 lb "hybrid" SUVs, the comical value has turned from silly to down right strange.

I drive a wagon that gets me 32 on the freeway, I'm doing my part, plus we have owned that car in the family for 11 years now with 195k miles on it,

 

[NeonLights]

I'm still waiting for the smart car to come into the US

They are already here. We had one show up at an autocross on Sunday, and if they have made it to Ohio, they should be available about anywhere. I really don't see why people in the US like these tiny things though, unless you are really attracted to its appearance. We don't get the great little diesel engine here, and its mpg numbers are bad for a car of its size and power. My Mini Cooper gets similar numbers and can comfortably hold my family of four (two small children) for a 5 hour trip down to Grandmas. There are a lot of other small cars that can hold 4 or 5 people and a lot more luggage than a Smart car that get similar mpg for the same or less money.

Too bad all the advances in automotive technology haven't improved mpg over the years. My first car was a 1980 VW Rabbit diesel which regularly returned 40-50 mpg. Why have automakers been so slow to improve efficiency in the last 25+ years? I do realize that many of the cars we get more efficient (and smaller) gas or diesel engines overseas, but there is no good reason why 50+ mpg subcompact cars aren't readily available in the US. There are reasons, just none of them good IMO.

In answer to the original question, you're likely to be better off driving your car into the ground vs buying a smaller more efficient car right now (unless your mpg is terrible, and you're paying a lot every month for repair bils). The prices of small efficient used cars aren't likely to climb, unless something catastrophic happens with oil prices. It is easy enough to do the math based on fuel prices and how much you drive and what mpg you get vs the purchase price of a newer small car and how long it would take in gas savings to make up for the purchase price of another car.

 

[jtr1962]

Too bad all the advances in automotive technology haven't improved mpg over the years.

The problem in a word is aerodynamics. See here for an interesting discussion. Somewhere along the line car makers suddenly decided to make boxes. Mentioned in the article was someone who put some aerodynamic add-ons to a Honda Civic EX, boosting the mileage from 40 mpg to 70 mpg in the process.

With all we know about aerodynamics getting in excess of 100 mpg @ 100 mph would be trivial if we wanted to. I'm not sure why car makers suddenly adopted boxes and had commercials to make them seem appealing. Perhaps because boxes cost less to manufacture? Whatever the reason it was a collossal mistake. Even if a highly aerodynamic vehicle cost $10K more, the savings in operating costs would easily pay for this over the life of the vehicle. Let's say an average sedan these days gets 20 mpg. If aerodynamics can boost that to 100 mpg, you save 4000 gallons of fuel for every 100,000 miles of driving (not to mention less wear on the powertrain). Even at $1 a gallon, the fuel savings pay for the extra manufacturing cost. As a bonus, top speeds go into the stratosphere. An EV1 with minor addons managed in excess of 180 mph on a 65 HP electric motor.

I'll also add that aerodynamics are nothing new. The Tatra had a Cd of 0.21 in 1935. Nowadays I think it's an insult to call a car with a Cd of 0.3 "aerodynamic". And 0.3 is good by today's standards. A lot of vehicles are over 0.4. The Hummer is 0.57. By comparison the fastest human powered vehicles are around 0.01. If you can make a vehicle which a 400 watt human motor can propel at 80 mph, then you can certainly make much more efficient cars. This isn't just an issue for gas cars, either. An aerodynamic electric will be able to get far more range out of its batteries than a box.

 

[Nitroz]

Then I guess this would not be the place to tell you that I just bought this econimizer. Luckily, my daily driver is a 1997 maxima.