Car Buying/Collecting Strategy

[Eunos_Cosmo]

https://jalopnik.com/stop-taking-car-buying-advice-from-professional-million-1832966618

I can't stand this article.

There are a few points I want to address from the article (these are the article's points, not mine):
1) It's a fallacy that cars are investments
2) The Toyota exception to the rule
3) Assuming a loan
4) Accounting for the irrational
5) Poor people don't have time to shop
6) Poor people don't have time to not have a warranty

Ok, let's start with number 1. Since regular joe doesn't have big bucks, he can't buy cars that are going up in value, his cars are not an investment. First of all, that's not true. Everything you buy is an investment, and a lot of it has a negative return. Your goal (if you read the first post in this thread) is to buy value, in the case of depreciating assets it's to buy something that's not going to tank in value quickly. You should be minimizing the negative rate of return. Ok so when you buy toilet paper you don't care about the negative rate of return, because you're going to use the entire thing up and have nothing left to sell. That is almost never the case with cars. But even if you do plan to drive the wheels off of it until it literally is headed for the junk yard, if you're buying value, you're looking at running a lightly used on into the ground, not a new one. So this whole "I don't have the money to think about cars this way" is completely bogus. You can think about cars that way when buying a $2000 used honda.

Number 2) but.. but... toyota pickup trucks! Yes, there are times when buying new makes sense. Certain Porsches, pickups, etc. That's a tiny fraction of all cars out there. It makes no sense to tell people that buying new is a good idea just because there are a few models that buck the trend. The general rule is that buying new is a bad idea financially. It's a luxury. Yes there are exceptions, no that does not change the message.

Number 3) Why do we assume that people need a car loan? You can buy an entire car for the down payment on a new car. If you can't buy the car outright, you probably (note that word probably), shouldn't buy it at all. There are very inexpensive reliable cars out there, buy one of those. If you can buy the car outright and you're offered a crazy low-interest loan, go for it. But the loan is a completely separate transaction that has nothing to do with the car and everything to do with getting the most out of your money.

Number 4) Yes, car buying can be irrational. People pick cars that they like even if the numbers don't add up. That's fine, that doesn't not mean that we should be recommending that people buy new. That means that some people will go against the rational reasons to buy used and that's ok. That's their prerogative. It doesn't change the message.

Number 5) Poor people and rich people and everyone in between are busy. You don't suddenly have gobs of free time once you get some money. If you can save thousands on a car, it's worth a few hours of your time (unless you're insanely wealthy).

Number 6) First of all, you can get a warranty on a used car. I just bought a used car with a warranty last year (certified pre-owned toyota). Second of all, you're going to spend at least as much time on each service call with or without a warranty, because someone actually has to spend the time working on it. Sure you get a loaner if you take it to the dealership, but of course you don't have to have a car under warranty to take it to the dealer for service and get a loaner. I've done that one as well. There's also uber.

Ok, let's take my real world example. And it happens to be a large toyota, which the article listed as a possible reason to buy new. My 2015 Toyota Sienna with 40k mi was $28,800. At the time, the 2018 Sienna with a similar package (same generation) was going for about $42,000. My savings for buying used was $13,200. But it doesn't stop there. Because in CO we have a 3% sales tax on car purchases and a 2% first year registration fee (0.75% registration fee on the 2015). So The $42,000 van costs $44,100. And the $28,800 van costs $29,880. For a difference of $14,220 initially (registration fees are higher each year thereafter for the new car for the next 10 years). I'm guessing insurance costs more too, but I can't be bothered to look that up. So $14,200 in savings in exchange for 2 fewer years of warranty, 40k mi taken off the life, and me putting up with some lack of customization (I wouldn't have picked black).

What's 40k mi worth on the life of the car? That's a tough call. Let's assume that you were going to own the car for 100k mi and then sell it. If you buy it at zero and put 100k on it, what do you sell it for vs. buying it at 40k and putting 100k on it? The difference between those sales numbers is what the mileage is worth. A quick glance at autotrader is telling me that the figure is probably about $6k. So we're down to $8,200 in savings.

$8,200 buys a lot of maintenance. A looooooot of maintenance. It also buys a lot of time shopping. The lower your wages, the more of your time it theoretically buys. Keep in mind this is a Toyota van, this vehicle does a pretty good job of retaining value.

Buying new is a luxury. You get to pick out just want you want, you want the tech package with the cornflower blue exterior with the charcoal interior and brushed nickle inserts. No problem sir, right away sir! It smells brand new, and you know that nobody has ever put their rear end on that seat before you. Lovely... it's gonna cost you.

Honestly, I cannot believe how much people are willing to spend on the luxury of buying new. But even worse, I cannot believe that it's sold to people who are "scraping by" as a responsible decision.

Yeah, that article triggered me a bit as well. There are only a handful of cars worth buying new. Jeep Wranglers, Toyota Tacomas, and Subaru WRXs. They are worth buying new because the used market for them is extremely competitive, and all three of these cars tend to be modified by the original owners almost immediately. Finding a good one, let alone a good one for a good price, could be an enormous waste of time.

That being said, a car like your Sienna would be an unbelievably poor choice to buy new. (Not as bad as somebody who bought an E60 M5 brand new for like $130k and is facing like 95% depreciation though...).

I'm currently trying to find a 2017+ Toyota 86, in white or silver, with under 30k miles, and with a manual, from a dealer, for under $22k. As it's a fairly expensive vehicle (well, to me), I don't want to "settle" for a color I don't want, or an automatic (so many of them!!) so it's kind of a bear. Makes me want to buy new just to eliminate the hassle. If I quantified the time I've spent searching, at my salary/billing rate, I would have easily paid the difference many times over....but I'm not nearly as economically productive outside of my office so I can't do that.

 

[Danoff]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about EVs recently and what they will ultimately do to the value of standout ICE cars. When trying to assess where the value is in ICE cars, I'm mostly focusing on what's different. What unique qualities do ICE cars have that EVs do not offer?

- Sound
- Vibration
- Mechanical steering
- Lightness
- Manual transmission

I've never seen someone going on about how they love the way their car shakes when the engine is running, so vibration is probably not motivating. Also lightness might be fleeting. Right now EVs are heavier than their ICE counterparts, but that is in no way guaranteed. When the batteries for these things end up being as light as a feather, we might have some ultralight EVs. I think it's probably safe to bank on cars getting heavier over time, but it's not the most safe bet.

So as ICE cars get left in the dust, I think we've got sound, mechanical steering, and manual transmission having very solid value, and maybe lightness. I guess I need a Beetle.

Power is obviously a loser. I wonder if there's something to turbos that will become interesting, as turbo lag becomes something completely foreign to the car experience.

Edit:

I wonder if weight distribution might also be a factor. EVs have a different distribution of mass than most ICEs.

 

[homeforsummer]

Power is obviously a loser. I wonder if there's something to turbos that will become interesting, as turbo lag becomes something completely foreign to the car experience.

Drove a bunch of 1980s turbo cars recently. It was huge fun. I've wondered in the past about manufacturers offering a button along with the usual driving modes that changes the boost curve of a modern turbo engine to replicate the wait... wait... whoooosh of an old-school turbo car.

I guess you could have something similar for an EV, as you can kinda play with the software to do virtually anything. But I'm not sure it's either appealing or worthwhile in that instance. It's not an authentic experience. Same with piping old V8 sounds and the like into EVs. For me EVs will be at their best when they're not attempting to replicate the way cars have been for the last half-century or more - making use of things like the weight distribution you mention.

I'd be interested to see how EVs change values of ICE cars though. I've heard the phrase that the last car ever made will be a sports car, but I reckon you could extend that and say the last car ever made will be a race car. I reckon in a market where traditional cars are seen as outdated/dangerous/polluting/whatever, the most valuable will be race cars first, and cars with racing pedigree (homologation specials etc) second.

 

[Danoff]

Drove a bunch of 1980s turbo cars recently. It was huge fun. I've wondered in the past about manufacturers offering a button along with the usual driving modes that changes the boost curve of a modern turbo engine to replicate the wait... wait... whoooosh of an old-school turbo car.

I guess you could have something similar for an EV, as you can kinda play with the software to do virtually anything. But I'm not sure it's either appealing or worthwhile in that instance. It's not an authentic experience. Same with piping old V8 sounds and the like into EVs. For me EVs will be at their best when they're not attempting to replicate the way cars have been for the last half-century or more - making use of things like the weight distribution you mention.

I'd be interested to see how EVs change values of ICE cars though. I've heard the phrase that the last car ever made will be a sports car, but I reckon you could extend that and say the last car ever made will be a race car. I reckon in a market where traditional cars are seen as outdated/dangerous/polluting/whatever, the most valuable will be race cars first, and cars with racing pedigree (homologation specials etc) second.

I don't know a lot about the world of vintage race cars. I know that some of them do well, but it seems like a mixed bag depending on so many factors about the car's history. Regardless, I don't think I'm the guy to start buying up vintage racers. I'm really more of a road car enthusiast than a track day enthusiast.

I think an old school turbo could be neat for stepping back in time, but I'm not sure it offers a real stand-alone driving experience. It's a bit like a cassette or 8-track player. It's a novelty that reminds you of the past, and isn't really about the experience today. It is a really cool novelty though, especially a noisy turbo.

But I think that the cream of the ICE crop can continue to offer stand-alone driving experiences even in a world of highly refined EVs that are capable of out performing the old cars in every way. Something like an E30 M3, or an elise, or an old 911 I think will always have a certain analog tin-can type of appeal for a more visceral, connected driving experience.

This is one of the reasons I'm not so hot on the current generation of corvette (or 911 or whatever). Because it's post EV to a certain extent. People will look back on it as something that was already being eclipsed by the future, rather than the quintessential ICE experience.

 

[Grand Prix]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about EVs recently and what they will ultimately do to the value of standout ICE cars. When trying to assess where the value is in ICE cars, I'm mostly focusing on what's different. What unique qualities do ICE cars have that EVs do not offer?

- Sound
- Vibration
- Mechanical steering
- Lightness
- Manual transmission

I've never seen someone going on about how they love the way their car shakes when the engine is running, so vibration is probably not motivating. Also lightness might be fleeting. Right now EVs are heavier than their ICE counterparts, but that is in no way guaranteed. When the batteries for these things end up being as light as a feather, we might have some ultralight EVs. I think it's probably safe to bank on cars getting heavier over time, but it's not the most safe bet.

So as ICE cars get left in the dust, I think we've got sound, mechanical steering, and manual transmission having very solid value, and maybe lightness. I guess I need a Beetle.

Power is obviously a loser. I wonder if there's something to turbos that will become interesting, as turbo lag becomes something completely foreign to the car experience.

Edit:

I wonder if weight distribution might also be a factor. EVs have a different distribution of mass than most ICEs.

People in the future will be fascinated with ICE cars simply because they are powered by combustion. There are people today that still use black powder firearms, or obsess over steam trains, because they are cool. There are also people that collect and use swords, spears, warhammers, maces, flails, etc. Film cameras that use actual film seem to have an appeal as well. An object doesn't need to be logical or efficient to be cool. So the vibrations you noted as not being that desirable to us, might just be part of the experience in the future. Just as soldiers didn't like the puffs of smoke from black powder giving their position away, the smoke is cool/funny now of course.

This is all assuming that cars aren't just outright banned at some point, because governments think humans can't be trusted with them.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think an old school turbo could be neat for stepping back in time, but I'm not sure it offers a real stand-alone driving experience. It's a bit like a cassette or 8-track player. It's a novelty that reminds you of the past, and isn't really about the experience today. It is a really cool novelty though, especially a noisy turbo.

The parallel I'd draw is a bit like that of a VTEC Honda. It's not for everyone, but the characteristic of the power delivery becomes part of the driving experience, even if it needs working with in order to get the best from the car.

Put it this way, before I'd driven them I'd not really have considered something like that as a weekend car to have fun with, but now I think I'd give it a try. Turbo cars are now so ubiquitous the actual turbocharging aspect has completely lost its uniqueness - beyond big power it doesn't bring anything to the driving experience. The cars are technically better these days, but my interest in a car that feels like a naturally-aspirated engine that doesn't really rev high isn't that fun for me.

This is one of the reasons I'm not so hot on the current generation of corvette (or 911 or whatever). Because it's post EV to a certain extent. People will look back on it as something that was already being eclipsed by the future, rather than the quintessential ICE experience.

Yeah, I'm with you on this.

The way I've been thinking about it recently is what realistic car (i.e. one you could feasibly own) would you use to demonstrate to your grandkids why people loved cars? I.e. the sounds, the smell, the mechanical aspects, the tactile interaction?

I don't think you'd choose something from 2019. Cars today are already clouded in computer technology. They don't really smell of anything - beyond brakes, after a quick drive. Their mechanical parts are more or less completely hidden. They can be noisy, but the car itself is such a good insulator when you're inside it that what you hear tends to be electronically piped in, or maybe just a noisy valved exhaust.

Predictably I'd be tempted to suggest something from the 1990s. Your NSX would do the trick. On my budget, maybe a Miata - with the added bonus of wind in the hair, which seems to be less and less a thing these days as fun cars make way for crossovers. I did consider something like an old Citroen 2CV as an answer to the question, but I reckon you'd want to choose a car that at least felt fast, to cover the excitement aspect of why people love cars.

That said, I do think cars like 2CVs will be collectable even after we're all in autonomous electric pods, just because it'll be about as different a form of transportation to a driverless pod as a 2CV is to a horse. In a world of the intangible, something purely mechanical will still have merit (and it has the bonus of not representing gratuitous consumption by its mere existence).

 

[Danoff]

People in the future will be fascinated with ICE cars simply because they are powered by combustion. There are people today that still use black powder firearms, or obsess over steam trains, because they are cool. There are also people that collect and use swords, spears, warhammers, maces, flails, etc. Film cameras that use actual film seem to have an appeal as well. An object doesn't need to be logical or efficient to be cool. So the vibrations you noted as not being that desirable to us, might just be part of the experience in the future. Just as soldiers didn't like the puffs of smoke from black powder giving their position away, the smoke is cool/funny now of course.

This is all assuming that cars aren't just outright banned at some point, because governments think humans can't be trusted with them.

I think that's true. But I also think there's more. With a black powder firearm I imagine that you'd be hard pressed to care about the difference between a "good" one, and a not so good one. But there is a big difference between a 1964 Ferrari GTO and a 1964 Beetle. So while both might always have some level of fascination, I think that the characteristics of the Beetle will generate more fascination (just kidding, obviously it's the other way around).

I know this seems like a safe thing to say, that the Ferrari will be worth more than the Beetle. But I'm trying to capture why I'm interested in differentiating characteristics of old cars that will endure in a world of EVs.

The parallel I'd draw is a bit like that of a VTEC Honda. It's not for everyone, but the characteristic of the power delivery becomes part of the driving experience, even if it needs working with in order to get the best from the car.

Put it this way, before I'd driven them I'd not really have considered something like that as a weekend car to have fun with, but now I think I'd give it a try. Turbo cars are now so ubiquitous the actual turbocharging aspect has completely lost its uniqueness - beyond big power it doesn't bring anything to the driving experience. The cars are technically better these days, but my interest in a car that feels like a naturally-aspirated engine that doesn't really rev high isn't that fun for me.

Well I do think it might be collectible. Old school turbos were visceral in terms of sound and power. I'd never have expected to say that, but there it is.

Yeah, I'm with you on this.

The way I've been thinking about it recently is what realistic car (i.e. one you could feasibly own) would you use to demonstrate to your grandkids why people loved cars? I.e. the sounds, the smell, the mechanical aspects, the tactile interaction?

I don't think you'd choose something from 2019. Cars today are already clouded in computer technology. They don't really smell of anything - beyond brakes, after a quick drive. Their mechanical parts are more or less completely hidden. They can be noisy, but the car itself is such a good insulator when you're inside it that what you hear tends to be electronically piped in, or maybe just a noisy valved exhaust.

Predictably I'd be tempted to suggest something from the 1990s. Your NSX would do the trick. On my budget, maybe a Miata - with the added bonus of wind in the hair, which seems to be less and less a thing these days as fun cars make way for crossovers. I did consider something like an old Citroen 2CV as an answer to the question, but I reckon you'd want to choose a car that at least felt fast, to cover the excitement aspect of why people love cars.

That said, I do think cars like 2CVs will be collectable even after we're all in autonomous electric pods, just because it'll be about as different a form of transportation to a driverless pod as a 2CV is to a horse. In a world of the intangible, something purely mechanical will still have merit (and it has the bonus of not representing gratuitous consumption by its mere existence).

Yea I'm not selling the NSX. But I am trying to figure out what other cars might do well. I can't see myself owning the 2CV, even though you're probably right. Air cooled 911s are a cliche choice, but also such a hassle. I had expected to be picking up an E46 M3 about now, but honestly I think that the E30 might have more staying power, simply because it delivers better on the mechanical analog experience. I'd totally go FD RX-7 except that from all accounts they're impossible to maintain, maybe even worse than the 911. The BMW Z8 seems like a good candidate. I was told to pick up a fairlady Z, but I'm not sure I can stomach a carburetor. Actually that brings up a bit of a point, about whether fuel injector or carburetor is more interesting from a collection standpoint.

People like muscle cars, old school and new, but I have to wonder about that one. I've never been a muscle car type, although I could be convinced to own one if I felt that it would hold its value well. But the muscle car experience seems like it's something that's mostly eclipsed by EVs. The only thing they really lack is the noise. It seems like the muscle car loses something when it's surrounded by EVs with endless torque that can out pull it with 4 carseats and a load of groceries. And maybe the noise sounds stupid at that point.

I'm sorta toying with whether or not to buy another car, and if so which one, and the field is overwhelming me.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think where muscle cars currently benefit is in their ubiquity. They were such a big part of the landscape for so long, that plenty survive, and parts supply both old and new is vast. Simply keeping cars running will be a big part of future collectability, at least at the more attainable end of the market.

The turbocharged stuff is pretty funny, but I guess the human mind is an odd thing. Spend years wishing for things like turbo lag and boosty deliveries to go away, then when they do, pine for the days when turbos were more laggy and boosty. I'd never driven any older turbo cars until fairly recently so I didn't really know what I was missing.

Carb vs injection is interesting too. I guess the answer to that one is "whatever works", with a side-order of "can I fix it?". We're already seeing that EFI is actually a fairly simple thing to implement on older cars (whether replacing carbs or older, crappier EFI setups), and at the same time, there's still a big aftermarket for carbs. Plus you really can fix carbs yourself, even if they're generally more troublesome and less reliable than injection.

I was having a similar discussion with a colleague just yesterday, after musing what I enjoyed most about my Peugeot. The Peugeot is in some ways fairly modern - it's a 1990s car so it generally does most of what a modern car does, it has EFI etc. And in some ways quite old-school - no electric windows, no AC, no power steering, manual gearbox.

I've been wondering what I might eventually replace it with. Early Cayman, FD RX-7, Integra Type R. All proper "driver's cars", all quicker, all more sophisticated. But I'm wondering whether I want them for any more than to just say I've owned one. Don't get me wrong, all would be great fun, and I'd get a kick from them, and I could take them on trackdays and the like.

But I don't do the sort of driving I like to think I do nearly as often as I like, so most of their potential would be wasted. What I enjoy the most are the basic, mechanical aspects of driving (honestly, I get my speed kick from my job), and increasingly I think I'll only get that from older cars. And by older I don't mean 1990s, but more like 60s and 70s, maybe 80s. No assistance, few electronics. It's currently a battle playing off in my head - newer, faster and more usable, or older, more involving, but potentially with frustrating reliability blips now and then? I really don't know.

 

[Danoff]

But I don't do the sort of driving I like to think I do nearly as often as I like, so most of their potential would be wasted.

Well you know my solution... cram all of the utility and usefulness into one car, and then all of the rest of the cars can be just fun.

In terms of wasted potential, you kinda put me on train of thought. I had a buddy of mine tell me that he didn't want to "save the car for someone else". It sounded wrong, and it took me a little while to suss out exactly what I didn't like about that.

Saving the car for someone else

When you buy a car, in theory, neither party profits. The car is worth X dollars, so when the car and money changes hands, neither party walks away any richer or poorer than they came to the exchange. One person converted dollars into car, and the other person converted car into dollars. Neither party is stuck either, presumably either of them could turn around and convert that same car back into dollars, or those same dollars back into an almost identical car (if the car was not truly rare).

Your consumption of the car (driving it, etc.) can therefore be measured in a consumption of dollars. For each mile you put on your car, it is worth some fraction less. If you were to exchange it after putting that mile on the car, you'd presumably exchange it for less money. So as you use the car, you consume value. It's basically "spending" the car on your enjoyment of it.

So if you buy a car and don't use it, and then sell it to someone else for the same amount, did you save it for them? No. You saved it for you. You didn't "spend" it on yourself, ie: you saved it. And the beneficiary of that was you who got all of the value back out of it. So what this notion of "saving the car for someone else" comes down to, is basically ignoring the purchase and sale price of the car entirely, and pretending that you were given the car for free, and gave it away at the end for free. If you didn't use it in the interim, you saved it for the person you gave it to. Once you factor money into it, you've done nothing of the sort. You've saved you own resources for you.

Ok, so back around to wasted potential.

If you're driving your Cayman or Integra Type R in rush hour traffic on roads with potholes that go straight for long distances, yes you're wasting its potential. You're spending it on something that isn't netting you much value. But if you save it (for yourself) in your garage, and take it out when you're going to get the most out of it, you've wasted nothing.

 

[TheCracker]

Saving the car for someone else

So if you buy a car and don't use it, and then sell it to someone else for the same amount, did you save it for them? No. You saved it for you. You didn't "spend" it on yourself, ie: you saved it. And the beneficiary of that was you who got all of the value back out of it. So what this notion of "saving the car for someone else" comes down to, is basically ignoring the purchase and sale price of the car entirely, and pretending that you were given the car for free, and gave it away at the end for free. If you didn't use it in the interim, you saved it for the person you gave it to. Once you factor money into it, you've done nothing of the sort. You've saved you own resources for you.

I can see the train of thought behind your friends statement of 'saving the car for someone else'. If you don't use a car and squirrel it away in a garage instead, for say a period of five years, before you decide to sell it on to someone else, then you are saving it from wear and tear. You are largely protecting it from the ravages of time. Five years of road time.

Now it's not quite as simple as that as vehicles don't like not being used. If it literally just sat there collecting dust, not having been fired up since the day it was parked, then whoever buys the car will have to go through a recommissioning process. Rubber parts, including tyres will likely require replacing, and all the fluids will need flushing etc. Could end being quite an outlay, but would essentially end up being in exactly the same state as it had been five years previous. Five years of even infrequent road use would put wear on components much more as well as exposing the body to the elements and the interior materials to wear through habitation.

I'd wager that more degradation and therefore 'value' lost would occur in a car that has been well looked after but used, over one that had just been parked/stored for that period of time. So from a certain point of view a parked car is a saved car for the next owner.

 

[Danoff]

So from a certain point of view a parked car is a saved car for the next owner.

From a misguided point of view.

Let's say you're saving your money for a car. You've got $10k in the bank, and you're going to add another $10k to it over the next year to buy a car. Instead of spending that $10k on something you'd enjoy, some sort of experience, you're going to leave it preserved in your bank account for another year. Unused, just sitting there. At the end of the year, you have enough money to buy the car so you give the seller the $10k (plus the additional savings) and buy the car.

Did you save that money for someone else? After all, you didn't use it, you saved it. It just sat there. And then you handed it to someone else.

No, you saved it for you. You used it the way you wanted to use it and got value out of it by buying a car.

It is exactly the same the other way around. Let's say you wanted $10k in a year, and you owned a car worth $10k. During the year you preserved the car, and left it unused, just sitting there. At the end of the year you sold it, and the buyer gave you $10k for it.

Did you save that car for someone else? After all, you didn't use it, you saved it. I just sat there. And then you handed it to someone else.

No, you saved it for you. You used it the way you wanted to use it and got value out of it by selling it.

Savings are stored value. When you spend your savings, you spend it how you see fit, on you, your purposes. Whether the savings are stored in a car or in cash or stock, or a house, it makes no difference. It's not for someone else unless you give them the value without compensation.

Edit:

Look at it from the perspective of the buyer. You go to buy a car and the seller says "I saved this car for you". You say... thanks, so I don't have to pay for it right? They say "no, of course you have to pay for it".

"It's not really for me then is it?"

 

[homeforsummer]

If you're driving your Cayman or Integra Type R in rush hour traffic on roads with potholes that go straight for long distances, yes you're wasting its potential. You're spending it on something that isn't netting you much value. But if you save it (for yourself) in your garage, and take it out when you're going to get the most out of it, you've wasted nothing.

That's an interesting point. I've certainly never given the "saving it for someone else" thought much brainpower, at least in part because my budget is typically pretty low and in my current position, I can own a car pretty much exclusively for having fun with.

However, the kind of fun I can easily have in a car, on the road, at fairly short notice (i.e. I wake up one morning and fancy going for a drive) and fairly locally, might not do justice to certain cars I'm interested in. I could reel off a dozen roads from the top of my head that I'd want to take an Integra or Cayman down, but none are within maybe four hours of me, and realistically the ones I'd enjoy them on most aren't even in the same country.

With the Peugeot, I can have a pretty good drive within 15 minutes of me, so that seems like it's closer to the "ideal" mark in my current situation. With something older, slower and simpler, I could exercise its potential pretty much from the moment I pull out of my garage.

I've thought many times about building something a bit more serious aimed mainly at trackdays. But then I don't do many of those either. Heck, the magazine runs its own - most are local, and for me they're completely free to turn up to - yet looking at my calendar for this year, I might have done two out of the six total by the time they end in September. If I can't even attend local, free trackdays, what point is a track car for me?

I think the crux of all of this though is that whatever you buy for whatever price, you've at least got to get a kick out of the ownership aspect alone, so it's not quite so difficult when you either a) don't get to use it often or b) you sink money into it you'll never get back. I still think one of the best cars I ever owned was my Honda Insight. I lost money when I eventually sold it, but probably no more than I'd saved on fuel in the two-ish years I owned it compared to a "normal" car, and I got a kick just from owning it - from the technology, the kooky styling, the futuristic feel, and the fact I'd wanted one ever since seeing it in a magazine in 1999. No regrets at all over that car.

 

[Danoff]

Make savings visible.