My car died, needing a new engine, so I was forced to get one in October. I usually only buy used, but prices are so inflated it didn't seem worth the premium. Used 2017-2020 Toyota Rav4's with 30-60k miles were the same price as a new 2021 model, if you could get one.
I knew it was bad, but I was shocked of how bad it was. I went to multiple mega dealerships with 500-1000 cars that were all spoken for. Most had 0 new cars available.
I usually avoid buying new but used cars are nearly the same price as new (if you can find a dealer that hasn't done ridiculous 'market adjustments').
So we bought new. We had to buy a car that was just off the delivery truck before the dealership had it inspected. The one we'd looked at two days before was long gone and they expected the one we bought to be sold the next day.
My neighbor traded in his truck for more than he paid for it two years ago. It's bonkers.
The narrative earlier in the pandemic was that the reduction in driving was brutal for mechanics as it meant a reduction in need for auto maintenance and repair. Fewer of us are staying at home these days, but it looks like we're still not quite back to pre-pandemic levels of driving[0].
I'd imagine it's probably a bit of a mixed bag for mechanics, depending on what sort of vehicles they specialize in, where they're located, etc.
Might be anecdotal but on top of that, I've noticed that many car owners who previously only had services performed by a shop began doing their own maintenance. A friend who works as a service manager at CarMax had similar observations in conversations with some customers, including one DIY-er who forgot to torque their oil drain bolt correctly, lost the oil, and is now the recipient of a refurbished engine.
I had only done light maintenance/upgrade work on my cars prior to the pandemic. In the last year I've replaced a rear main seal, front + rear rotors + pads on all my cars, new control arms, shocks, and struts on a sedan, a ton of electrical work, cold air upgrades, every single fluid drained and filled, etc. DIY content on YouTube is getting to the point where a middle schooler can fab a car from scratch given enough time and motivation. YMMV (literally).
We had our oil changed recently and the shop forgot to put the cap back on from the fill port (Subaru). Figured that out after 15 miles and the smell of burning oil. Engine bay was covered.
No better feeling though! Especially when running the numbers post-fix (insert CS joke here) and comparing to shop quotes. I keep spreadsheets for two cars and an older jet ski and I've saved ~$12k this year alone by wrenching solo assuming $100/hr = standard labor rate. I've learned a TON of cross-functional skills, have full control over the parts and repair, and it's just a feel-good way to step away from my desk when things slow down at work.
I remind myself of the the 5-digit savings whenever I'm in line at Harbor Freight... which is often.
Can confirm. I did brakes and rotors on all four wheels on my 4WD 2012 Tundra a while back. Went smoothly and I knew that all bolts were properly torqued when I was done.
By a large margin, definitely. I was hesitant to attempt repairs on my daily before I picked up car #2 because it was my only mode of transportation. Being able to switch between the two now gives me a much wider time margin for potential errors and my feelings about DIY repairs have gone from "keeping this car alive is going to bankrupt me" to "this is a fun hobby."
When confidence in repairability is low and stakes are high, it probably makes sense to opt for a shop.
It has nothing to do with negativity. Maybe OP is accounting for an efficiency loss rate, but they didn't mention it, so I brought it up. What good are inaccurate calculations?
It matters if OP is multiplying the hours they spent times $100 rather than the time the mechanic would quote (usually from a flat rate manual) times $100/hr.
If a pro mechanic would charge me $100/hr times the book time of 1.3 hours to change pads on my car and I take 3 hours to do it, I saved $130, not $300.
For simple jobs, I can usually match or slightly beat the book rate. Because I don’t have a lift, a lot of undercar work takes me loads longer.
I've never gone as far as replacing suspension parts, mainly because the bolts tend to be very difficult to remove. Even brake rotors are hard to remove in some cases. The last time I changed the rotors, I had to use a sledgehammer and "lightly" tap on the rotor to get it to come off the hub.
As for fluids, I've done oil and automatic transmission changes. I haven't tried brake fluid or coolant though.
Those suspension bolts are no joke. The control arm bolts on my sedan took 25 minutes of the 'blow torch --> upside down canned air' cycle get them to budge with a breaker bar. And the first drive to the alignment shop is enough to induce cold sweats on occasion.
Coolant is typically pretty easy and the intervals are longer, although I end up sticky with glycol every time I do a flush. If you ever decide to tackle the brakes, I picked up a $10 vacuum hand pump on Amazon that saved me from jury-rigging a 2liter bleeder bottle and finding someone to pump the brakes for me. Highly recommend.
> My neighbor traded in his truck for more than he paid for it two years ago.
Sold my 2018 Toyota Tacoma pickup to Carmax for over $32K. I probably paid more than that a few years ago when I bought it new, but I thought it would have depreciated much more than that.
If you're a mechanic and already have plenty of business, I imagine it's a tough call: do you jack up your hourly rates and take advantage of the windfall, at the risk of customer loyalty in the future? This insanity will pass, after all.
A friend owns a high line/niche used car dealership and his service shop, who has a legendary mechanic, has not increased rates at all but just got more selective about the service work they are doing. Also, effectively no new service customers as they are booked solid for months.
So basically they are taking their increased compensation not in the form of more money from customers, but by improving their working conditions.
It's very interesting, because this situation mirrors what economists predict about minimum wages:
Employees take their compensation as a mixed basket of wages and non-monetary perks (like nicer working conditions or opportunities for learning and advancement). Different people like different baskets. Minimum wage laws make some of these baskets illegal.
So orthodox economics predicts that increases in minimum wage leads, amongst other things, to deteriorating working conditions.
Now the situation here is reversed: there's effectively a wage ceiling when service shops are unwilling to raise prices. But they can still raise compensation, by improving working conditions.
Something similar-ish happens with very high marginal tax rates: eg the US used to have crazy high marginal tax rates after WW2 that essentially amounted to salary caps. Cue companies finding all kinds of fringe benefits that were taxed less, like health insurance.
> So orthodox economics predicts that increases in minimum wage leads, amongst other things, to deteriorating working conditions.
I've never heard that take before, but it's a fascinating idea.
Unfortunately, I think the problem we've run into in the U.S. is that minimum wage jobs have already hit rock bottom working conditions. Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in them.
> Unfortunately, I think the problem we've run into in the U.S. is that minimum wage jobs have already hit rock bottom working conditions.
Have you seen working conditions in poorer parts of world, or in previous decades when the US was comparatively poorer?
What makes you think 2021 US is 'rock bottom'?
> Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in them.
Well, here again orthodox economics suggest other avenues: decrease taxation on labour, support increased competition between employers for labour (eg by allowing easier access by foreign companies, by making formation of capital easier, etc).
A really big deal in the US would be to 'decriminalize' construction of new housing. That by itself would open up oodles of blue collar job opportunities to compete with existing employers, and it would also decrease what everyone (including workers) has to pay afford a place to stay.
If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses.
What I think would actually happen is (perhaps some job losses, but) more jobs being pushed underground and laws skirted.
I'm not against minimum wages or increasing it as such, but if the lowest paid workers are in such dire conditions, the fundamental problem seems to be that they have insufficient bargaining power. A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that. Absolutely staggering numbers in either case and being concentrated in the supply of low skill labor it hits the most disadvantaged Americans including minorities hardest unfortunately. I know it's verboten to speak about now, but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem before Trump sent everyone off the rails (and/or the corporatists completed their capture of the left-wing side of politics).
> If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses.
No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.
In practice, you would probably see some combination of outcomes.
> A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that.
The demand curve for labour seems to be nearly horizontal, ie in the longer run more or less labour supplied (almost) doesn't change its price.
> [...] but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem [...]
Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?
(I can very well believe that Sanders doesn't care about them, of course.)
> No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.
I was not replying to you. I asked the posted who claimed that benefits had already hit a floor. I was responding to his supposition.
> Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?
No I'm not suggesting that. Seems pretty accusatory and not really in good faith, unless you can explain how on earth I might have been reasonably misinterpreted as suggesting it.
You can advocate for and advance your own interests or the interests of your voters and constituents first without being subject to these stupid witch hunts. Everybody does it, even you. I don't go around accusing you of not caring about poor people or refugees because you have failed to sell all your belongings and donate your wealth to the less fortunate as well as your income except that which you need to barely keep yourself alive.
We are talking about wages in the USA, and massive downward pressure on low skilled labor comes from illegal immigrant workers. If you can't cope with this or debate it rationally then that's your problem not mine.
In this case, it is a blend of more profitable, less challenging jobs such as brakes and LOF, as well as interesting cases requiring the lead mechanic's renowned diagnostic skills. I have often thought this mechanic should maintain a blog about some of the crazy and perplexing issues he has solved but, he just has no interest in writing them up. Besides, I am not sure he could write them up as some of the leaps in logic he makes are closer to magic than any sort of process.
Also, they have used this era to weed out the pain-in-the-ass customers.
I noticed a similar dynamic with general contractors / handymen a few years ago.
There was a multi-year period where the demand far exceeded supply, but they didn't seem to adjust their billing rates accordingly.
I never got a clear answer as to why. The one guy I talked to seemed scarred by a very demand-limited market some years prior, so maybe he was fearful of making any changes that might leave him under-employed.
I had the exact opposite occur. The missus wanted a patio installed (pavers or bluestone) and the quote we got from one guy was 10k over what others were bidding. He didn't even submit any drawings/diagrams, just told us the quote. Obviously didn't want the job.
Same thing happened with a flooring guy who could have done $30k worth of work. He kept claiming he'd send us a bid but eventually ghosted us.
Tradespeople can skip doing the hard/less-profitable jobs right now while the market is hot.
As you observed, a shrewd tradesperson never refuses work, they just give a terrible quote.
I had an aunt where the neighbour's son replaced a section of fence and just said to pay what they felt was reasonable and it was difficult for my aunt to come up with a number. Probably wasted a few hours coming up with that number, ugh.
My mechanic does this! He loves to work on classic cars as a passion project and has a bunch of classics in his lot that he's slowly working on, however if you call him now, his voicemail says, "Please note if you are calling to inquire work on a model over 20 years old the waiting list is 5-6 months."
He's a great guy- if anyone is in Bay Area and needs a good honest mechanic for foreign or domestic, shout out to Jack at Tom and Jacks in San Bruno!
I tried to get in for an alignment a couple of months ago. I'm used to making an appointment 1 or 2 days out for this sort of thing. All the local shops were booked out over a month. I eventually found a place that had an opening, which ended up being a chain... But I couldn't drive my car for 2 weeks with a bad alignment while I wait for the appointment.
That message does nice double duty as a PC way of saying poors need not bother shopping him for a quote to replace something on their '99 Grand Caravan.
IIUC, you're implying that that mechanic is disdainful of poor customers, and that this just provides convenient political cover.
If so, I'm not sure why you'd assume that. It seems more likely to me that the mechanic is simply choosing his work based on personal interest and perhaps profitability. I don't see why we'd ask anything more than that from him.
I'm not assuming. Everyone even remotely close to the industry knows that mechanics don't like the people who want to do the bare minimum amount of work all the time and that fairly strongly correlates to "poors". Of course given the choice a mechanic would rather do an oil change on a '15 4Runner owned by some yuppie he can upsell a cabin air filter to than do a timing set on a '03 Outback for someone who'll decline the water pump that they traditionally try and sell with it.
If you were even remotely close to the industry, you would know full well that the older a car is, the more of a pain in the ass is to repair. It only takes one rusty bolt snapping off to turn a 30 minute job into a 3 hour one. When that happens, the mechanic has to eat those extra hours. They don't get to crawl back to the customer and beg for triple the price. The shop owner certainly isn't going to pony up the difference. It (effectively) comes right out of their paycheck.
I feel that the instant knee-jerk accusation of discrimination against someone you never even met says quite a bit about you.
That's why "book time" is based on a newbie that has no idea what they're doing.
Fairly common for a job that gets charged out at X hours to only need X/2 hours. And then there's work that gets charged at shop mechanic rate but gets partly or completely done by an apprentice/assistant.
But being from the rust belt, I know what you mean about corrosion.
I still won't even buy a car with GPS. Seems I'm in a vanishing minority. It won't pass, because people born after 1990 have spent their adult lives in a world with surveillance machines in their pockets at all times. Their cars are just big phones. By 2040 you probably won't even be allowed to drive your own vehicle.
GPS is a one-way communication. It's really no different from radio in that regard (a signal sent from far away and you have an antenna to read the signal). Unless there's also a cellular modem in your car (which pretty much every modern car has today so I'm not pretending this is unusual) it's impossible for others to monitor your location. You can simply disable the cellular modem and enjoy using GPS without anyone else knowing where you are.
Also, those cellular modems in cars tend to use older technology (this is fairly standard for the auto industry in general since there is such a long regulatory approval process for anything). My 2018 model year car will no longer be able to communicate remotely in January 2022 because the cellular network is being deprecated.
I understand this. To be clear, I'm willing to use GPS. I'm willing to carry a cellphone. I'm even willing to use those things in conjunction when I choose to put a battery in and turn mobile data on and location on. If there were a car with a built-in GPS that didn't have cellular reception, I would get it. (I used to use a TomTom).
But I won't buy a car where those things are integrated and can't be turned off. Several people here seem to assume that I don't understand that almost all cars from the past decade have this capability.
It's one reason I drive a car from 1980, with basically no electronics whatsoever. (Other reasons being: it's more fun, it's simple to repair, and it will still run after an EMP).
I'm saying it's really easy to just kill the cellular modem in pretty much any car. Just short it with solder if you want to. Now you can enjoy almost any car with none of the privacy concerns.
If you prefer older cars that's fine, but there's an easy workaround if the issue really is whether or not there's a cellular modem. I've done this before on multiple vehicles and it won't void the warranty for anything other than parts you want to disable already.
Hm. Interesting. The newer navigation systems are based on Android I think - right?
My GF has a 2008 Lexus with a GPS/nav that is definitely not Android. All the maps are onboard on a drive. She actually can't update her maps anymore because the physical ROMs or whatever stopped being produced a few years ago. I'm assuming that newer cars just download their maps from (somewhere? Is this connectivity part of what's sold as a "navigation package"?)
There are other reasons I'm not a fan of newer cars (auto-braking, too much fly-by-wire stability/antilock/nonsense pushing your pedals when you don't want them pushed, and "hill hold"). But disabling the tracking stuff would make it more palatable.
Ironically, my radar detector knows exactly where I am and communicates with a network all the time when it's plugged in. But that's for my own joy =D
Seems like a futile effort to avoid cars with GPS if you carry a device around that is connected to a mobile network. Is there anyone that does not carry around a dumb phone, if not a smartphone?
Presumably you are the only person with the password to your phone unless you use biometrics, with which you can be forced to unlock it. The car's black box, on the other hand, can be dumped by warrant (at the most).
I am referring to the mobile network operators in the country having knowledge of your location at all times if you have a connected and powered on mobile device, which is then available to the government.
Road traffic crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54
More than half of those killed are pedestrians, motorcyclists, or cyclists.
Drivers risk other people's lives, hence, other people have a right to demand safety from drivers' actions. Supposing computers do get better than humans in the future, why not just stop humans from doing this dangerous activity?
If someone wants to do some old school driving in 2040, go have fun on a private racetrack or whatever. You can even ignore speed limits.
It does wrestle a lot of control from the individual though. It's not hard to imagine possible abuses of power. Tracking everyone's movements is just the start. What if some government decided to deny service to someone? Or not let certain groups travel to certain places. Imagine opportunities for havoc due to hacking
I'd still like driverless cars, but privacy and freedom of movement rights protections need to be thought about.
There are 2 separate aspects here: Driverless, and governement controlled. A driverless car might be a car like today's, except with a computer on board. Governement doesn't connect with your car at an individual level, even if they might adapt the road code a bit to make it more easy on the cars.
The problems you mention are real, but a driverless car doesn't change much. Havoc due to hacking is already possible today, with OTA software updates for cars. Tracking is also possible with cell phones. Driverless car software could be like GPS updates today: Some corporation provides a yearly update and that's it.
But it's still legal to buy and drive a car from the 80s that can't be hacked.
Looking ahead, my concern is that we'll begin to see laws that restrict human controlled vehicles from autonomous lanes and eventually whole roads. This would take a lot of burden off the manufacturers. If cars can use a common protocol to communicate across brands, you don't even need traffic lights or turn signals; you don't even need to stop at intersections. Cars can just slow down or speed up by a tiny bit in coordination with other traffic. At that point it will be impossible for a human to drive at all.
It's impossible to separate increasing vehicle autonomy from increased government control. Once there's an ability to make any car pull over to the side remotely, knowing who is in it and where it's going, all freedom of movement and therefore all human autonomy exists completely at the whim of government. That level of control will be abused sooner rather than later, if not in America then certainly in authoritarian states.
You could still have crosswalk lights without having traffic signals. Cars on the network would slow, reroute or stop if the pedestrian crossing lights were active. But if there were no pedestrians they could run through intersections at full speed at 90deg angles to each other, as long as they were all timed with the cross-traffic.
To me this is an extremely dystopian outcome, but it's inexorably where we're going once we have full self-driving. And the Tesla fans, not to mention people who are like "oh humans shouldn't even be allowed to drive! Too dangerous!" will be living in this and looking back wistfully at the days when you could make eye contact with a driver and know whether it was safe to cross the street.
What's missing in this analysis is everything not a car or pedestrian. Bikes, scooters, ... So this vision can't become truth. Now I understand these are rare in the US, so maybe you're from over there?
My guess is we'll establish a maximum speed allowed to drive for humans, say 30km/h up to 50km/h. Speeds above this are reserved for robotic drivers, outside inhabited zones. Some of these roads are vehicle only, like we have E- routes in the EU or I-routes in the US. Here, non human traffic is forbidden. Then there are the secondary routes, where high speed should be robot-only and robots have to take care for other traffic. Roads can have markings adapted for easy optical recognition, but driverless cars are required to drive safely without them.
Eye contact with a driver does not at all make it safe to cross a street, as current death toll proves.
er. I don't cross in front of a car unless I make eye ccontact and know they see me. This has so far kept me alive, although it's certainly not foolproof.
You're right, the bicyclists will likely ruin the possibility of total automation for the self-driving fans. I hadn't thought about that. Two clashing visions of a testicle-less utopia. Both entirely devoted to their vision of different worlds in which no one dares take a big machine themselves and drive it down a road without permission.
If it comes to the point where you cannot drive your own car on the highway without computers in it, then you have no freedom of mobility. Your most basic right as a human is gone and your children will grow up in a world where they don't know they have a natural right to go places without asking permission. The only people who will go wherever they please without asking permission will be the people who sold you that technology and who captured the regulatory process to make it required by law.
>> If someone wants to do some old school driving in 2040, go have fun on a private racetrack or whatever
This reminds me of how only rich people could afford to fly places in the 1940s; then the upper-middle class could afford airline vacations in the 60s-80s; then by the 2000s, it was available to everyone so everyone had to be treated like scum/cattle, and once again if you wanted to take a nice vacation you had to be rich and buy first class tickets, or rent a jet.
So your ideal vision for 2040 is that everyone is herded everywhere and no one gets to experience even a fleeting sense of freedom on the road, except the extremely rich who can afford cars that aren't road-legal and can only go to racetracks? Or maybe large private land holdings?
Because currently, we still live in a society where the average person can experience a modicum of freedom - mobility, autonomy, and privacy - by getting in their car and driving it without help from a computer or monitoring from the government. I think that's worth preserving. A generation that grows up without ever feeling that freedom will be way too easy to control.
Maybe driving your own car will seem anachronistic like, say, writing in full sentences without emojis. But if you think about what we'd be losing, as a personal experience of having the privilege to take yourself anywhere on your own recognizance, it seems like a massive step backwards to deprive humans of that. And it sounds like imprisonment.
I certainly don't buy that your car is freedom trope sold to our parents to buy the latest car back in the sixties. Most cars are dailies and only ever drive between home, work, store ad nauseum. So the rosy tinted idea that cars are freedom just means more traffic, complaining about fuel, complaining about tires, complaining about insurance, and the forgetful fact that humans are driving around a metal and plastic box with several dozen litres of flammable fuel at 100km/h - while listening to shitty breakfast show radio.
No thanks.
I'd rather we do away with the car is freedom trope. Most cars arent even useful, just signals to your nieghbours and friends that you are, in fact, balling. No thanks. Uber had the right idea. Don't own it, go where you want and pay up. Should be cheap when it's automated. Don't like that then take public transport...and if you can - just walk. What happened to just walking?
Right...you can't because our spaces are designed for car travel, not people. Do you see my point?
Cars were my freedom. People live different lives, you know?
Did you drive 100+ miles, one way, for epic parties when you were in high school? I did. That's how rural Arkansas works.
My first tech job required me to go 130 miles one way for months before I could afford my own place and move closer. How would I have done that with your rules?!
I have the opposite view: driving doesn't feel like freedom to me. It feels like a necessary evil forced upon my by prior generations. Using a self driving car to get around sounds a lot more free to me as I'd be free to do something other than stare at the road and listen to podcasts.
I am sure it would work great with the upcoming quarantine of 2038. Fellow citizen, for your own good, your car has been geofenced to your local grocery shop
This is my cubicle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Projecting 6 different insta feeds on the walls and floor and ceiling will be so freeing for our kids. They can save up for a Meta subscription with GTA GFE. Just like driving in a real car with a real girlfriend, but better.
You're never going to see Elon Musk assume liability for one of his exploding deathtraps. It will always come with the disclaimer that you're responsible for driving it.
This brings up an interesting point which is why I recently bought a used car. The late 90s, 00s are probably the last road-legal vehicles that won’t spy on you. I wouldn’t put it past lawmakers to make phoning home mandatory like they did with backup cameras. I’m guessing this will also cause prices to skyrocket since there is a sizable minority of people like us who will refuse to buy a car that’s plugged into the Internet.
Worse yet, they'll make you pay for a subscription to the spy service! I've had my new car for exactly a year now, and I got multiple warnings that they were going to turn off the connection that they use for roadside assistance etc. unless I ponied up $8 a month.
I have news for you: not getting a car with navigation doesn't mean squat.
Any vehicle sold with telematics available not only has GPS, but that telematics system is feeding the manufacturer data from the vehicle, including your location.
This happens whether you're subscribing to the telematics service or not. It's always on. Some vehicles do it multiple times an hour or more.
Being spied on is always a safety feature. That's why North Korea is the safest country in the world. No one ever dies there. Not a single case of covid!
Believe it or not, trying to tell people they don't want someone else just a voice command or push button away in the case of an accident, is actually a hard sell. It might be seen as a privacy invasion to some (whether it's used as such in practice is another story), but to others it might actually save their life.
For me it's the touchscreen tablet-like control consoles. The Tesla controls are essentially a laptop in the middle of the car. Given what we know about texting while driving, it is absolutely ludicrous to me that those things are even legal, let alone common.
> I usually avoid buying new but used cars are nearly the same price as new (if you can find a dealer that hasn't done ridiculous 'market adjustments').
It seems like the dealers who didn't make these 'adjustments' are leaving money on the table?
> Mechanics are about to make a killing.
Well, we often hear exhortations to reduce-reuse-recycle. Here, the market is sending a price signal exactly along these lines, and people react appropriately.
>> I usually avoid buying new but used cars are nearly the same price as new (if you can find a dealer that hasn't done ridiculous 'market adjustments').
>It seems like the dealers who didn't make these 'adjustments' are leaving money on the table?
I believe their behavior is somewhat constrained by the manufacturers, who have slightly different sales goals in mind. They take a longer view, where new car sales are more than a sale, it represents a chance to upgrade the customer in a couple of years.
Dealerships, on the other hand, often take a very short-sighted view of customers.
On a used car, they do as you describe. On a new car, the sticker generally starts with something like “manufacturer’s suggested base price” then various options, then local adjustments. You can’t just claim that the manufacturer’s suggested base price is $2K higher than it actually is.
I mean you _could_. MSRP is not unique to cars. Graphics cards are sold in online stores for higher than MSRP. It's just not something that dealers are likely to do, because they gravitate towards fees over changing the price.
My claim was simpler. If Ford’s MSRP is $35K and you write up a window sticker representing that Ford MSRP is actually $37K, you’re committing fraud and of a type that will be easily discovered and proven.
So you instead write it as $35K and tack on “market adjustment” or “additional dealer profit” or whatever else of $2K.
It's completely fair to raise the price due to supply and demand, just as its fair to lower it. I don't think you are objecting to that, in either direction. But your complaint that it should just be called the price is a bit puzzling. Honestly, what do you (anyone) care what it's called? It's not a random addon, it's a carefully calculated (and continually tested) clearing price.
Normal market car pricing: "This car costs $26k. Oh also, we are giving $2k off because man we have so many of these. And so does the dealer in the next county over. Please buy from us. Today."
This is normal because discounts motivate buying behaviors, not because car manufacturers are laughably bad at setting MSRP. But also, it's critical for prices to be flexible regionally, and faster than the manufacturer can declare what the fair price should be.
Saturn famously tried non negotiable national sticker pricing. Just like Sears tried having no sales whatsoever. Both had to revert to standard pricing behavior.
My point? In a normal market, the sticker price is not the price.
It's regional. I got one some months ago "barely used" with 12 miles on it, delivered within a month. A friend's Model 3 got flooded and insurance paid for a new one, he was able to get a Model 3 Performance within two weeks, brand new. This was one month ago in the Northeast. A friend in Denver, CO, was not so lucky: casually looking to buy in September, a delivery timeframe of Jan-Feb 2022 presented itself.
However...I did end up going to another dealership that didn't do the adjustments. Since I tend to stick with vendors, especially for large ticket items, I suspect the total lifetime value the first dealership missed out on by tacking on the market adjustment (that they didn't tell us about until we asked -- it wasn't on the sticker), eclipses the extra profit they would have made on that sale, even when adjusting for the time value of money.
I bought a new car about a year and a half ago. With 3 years 0% interest, I put the entire amount in an index fund and have been paying installments. At this point I’ve paid ~18,000 but because of market profits and taxes it has only been around $8000 I’ve really ended up paying.
You’re saying you invested the equivalent of the car’s sticker price into an index fund upon purchasing, and draw from that to pay the installments on the loan used to purchase the car? How is this different than just investing all your spare cash? Mindset shift reserving the capital to cover the cars value, like the envelope budgeting approach?
It’s not really different except it’s better than paying for a car outright during this market and you’ve already put the money aside so you don’t have to worry about coming up with it each month.
I bought a RAV4 over the summer. There was no inventory (hint: dealer web sites will lie to you about what's actually available to purchase), I ended up reserving one that hadn't been shipped to the dealer yet and waiting for around a month for it to arrive. Autotrader shows zero of the same trim for sale used within 500 miles so not even sure what it would sell for.
Bought a new Subaru Impreza this spring. We had been saving for a couple years for my (close enough) dream car (wanted the WRX STI, but that maintenance is a real bitch).
We have now had 4 calls from the dealership where we bought it offering to buy it back for thousands of dollars more than we paid this spring. So far their best offer was $6500 more than what we paid.
Funny how Americans want to be able to buy cars directly from the forecourt of a particular dealer then and there. When I buy a new car in the UK I order from the manufacturer.
In America how do you get the spec and colour you want if they've already made the car?
And don't you object to buying something that's been sitting around outside for a while with lots of people getting in and out of it?
I’m not sure what Americans actually want, but direct automaker-to-consumer sales have been prohibited in almost every US state by franchise laws requiring that new cars be sold only by licensed, independently owned dealerships. This has been the case for about 80 years or so.
If you have the desire for a specific color/options and it’s not on the lot, the dealer will either get one from another dealer or order you one from the automaker.
My SO's Subaru Outback's engine died recently. It would be $5000 to replace it. Not being able to justify the cost when it had an engine replacement 2 years ago, was already 9 years old, had 160k miles on it, and us not needing a second car, we decided to just sell it. A dealer bought it for $6500 knowing that the engine was shot. I was expecting like half of that with an optimistic estimate.
It was likely replaced with another used engine. No mechanic is gonna warranty that for 2 years, and I doubt they'd even warranty a new engine for 2 years unless they rebuilt it themselves. You'd have to take that up with the engine manufacturer / refurbisher or the person who sold it.
It's a Subaru, they blow through engines. A relative had a 2014 Forester and it had two engines replaced under warranty. This is apparently a known problem with a certain recent version of their 4 cyl. boxer engines.
For sure. If you want a Subaru that lasts forever, get the 3.6R - it's a bulletproof 6-cylinder paired with a heavy-duty transmission. They stopped making them about 2 or 3 years ago.
Isn't that just market economics? Supply and demand? Isn't the greatness of the USA supposed to be predicated on the market being king, and the freedom of people to do what they like?
Until there's a shortage of something you want, which in turn drives up the price - then it's a scam?
Yes, but it's deceptive how they will market the car as one price, then when you show up be like oh yeah theres this added fee we're going to sneak in.
I'm in a similar situation my old truck will cost more to repair than it's worth. I thought I'd go EV but two year old used EVs cost the same as new EVs. Used EVs get $5K rebate and new $10K rebate so new it is! But as you say zero new vehicles. I've never seen car lots so empty or new or used.
$7,000 to put a new engine in a 2011 GMC Terrain that was worth maybe $8000. The engine was recalled by GM for excess oil consumption, my engine had the fixed installed and still died 30k miles later.
I went with a new one because that particular vehicle ended up costing me more monthly than a car payment.
I think OP's advice is good, that's what I would do, but I think for this particular vehicle it's not a good idea to replace the engine with a used one from a junkyard, because they have a lot of engine problems and the replacement engine wouldn't last long either. A friend of mine found out the hard way. Other vehicles though, I think it would be worth it replacing the engine with a used one in good condition.
Stop buying shitty GM's. I learned my lesson back in in the late 90's when I couldn't keep a GMC Sonoma running long enough to sell it (was like 3 years old). In 2000 I became part of the Toyota family (worked for FORD at the time) and never bought anything else since.
The 2 Toyota and 1 Lexus we own are between 14-11 years old and look and run like they came off the assembly line yesterday (all 3 were bought used). I figure I am still good for another 5 years minimum on all of them.
Eh... my anecdote is that I know multiple people with GM vehicles with over 200,000 miles that run fine. And my 2007 GMC Sierra is still like new, and should have way more than 5 years of life left in it.
Your Toyotas probably have well more than 5 years left in them too. Unless you're someone who replaces cars at 100,000 miles, which a lot of people do.
If you bought a Bubble Taurus in '99 and fed it a new transmission every 100k you'd probably come out the same after adjusting for inflation between then and now.
I deal exclusively in shitboxes that are about 10yr beyond what the demographics most represented. Anyone peddling a "just buy a particular brand and you'll be all set" narrative is just wrong. If you said "be rich enough to do maintenance on the book schedule and not abuse your vehicles" you'd be on to something. There's a reason everyone wants a used grandma car.
That depends on how much you value your time. I have had Hondas for the past 25 years that have not required major repairs for anything. Worst was having to get the automatic transmission solenoid replaced on a Pilot with 240k+ miles on it. In your world that would be 6 transmissions over three cars over 25 years; there's no way I would make that trade, since those 6 transmission failures represent significant lost time (opportunity and time costs when the car breaks down, getting it back and forth to the repair shop, etc., etc.)
I had to pay $2k over MSRP to basically get a contract signed to wait for my Corolla not even built yet by end of month. Dealers don't even try to get you to stay for cars. They know someone else will walk in and buy it if you don't. It's that insane.
I knew it was bad, but I was shocked of how bad it was. I went to multiple mega dealerships with 500-1000 cars that were all spoken for. Most had 0 new cars available.