What Do You Want from a €10,000 Car?

[Murcie_LP640]

Considering the fact that once a new car is bought, all the money it'll need poured into it for the next 3-5 years is basic service & gas, it is. A used car will require that & more.

That's a pretty extreme generalisation. And it's not correct, any extra expenses from even my car for an example is just stuff that I've wanted to put on it, not fixing it. And that's from a performance car. While the timing belt change was exxy on labour my services have also been cheaper. The one big thing though of course is the fuel consumption and the requirement for 98RON. However:

You can get things for literally any form of taste on the cheap.

Also, it's the money that will leak out of a new car within the next 3-5 years which gets you, not that which you have to put into it.

 

[Crispy]

I'd imagine something like a used Accord or Camry wouldn't be too bad for a used car. The smartest decision is to wait a year or two and buy the car (or a slightly higher up trim level) used. You don't get the major depreciation but you still get to have a completely reliable car. Depending on the terms of the warranty you have that too.

What should you expect? ABS definitely. If they plan to sell it in the south then they need AC too! Power windows are un-needed, power locks would be nice but again not needed. A stereo with aux jack minus a CD changer will have to be a part of the base model though. Five seats, folding rear seats and 5 doors including the hatchback. That is what I expect.

 

[niky]

A new $13k car will bleed about $6.5k in resale in five years. Maybe more, maybe less, depending on how reliable it is and whether there's a model change within those five years.

A secondhand $13k car will bleed between $5k - $7k in resale in five years... and if there's a model change for the new variant in there somewhere, it might drop an extra $1k as newer secondhand variants flood the market.

The cars that will hold onto that value, instead, are typically economical small cars. In which case, yes, you can argue that a two year old Fit is going to lose you less money over five years versus a brand new $13k car... but a five year old V6 Accord won't.

 

[McLaren]

That's a pretty extreme generalisation. And it's not correct, any extra expenses from even my car for an example is just stuff that I've wanted to put on it, not fixing it. And that's from a performance car. While the timing belt change was exxy on labour my services have also been cheaper. The one big thing though of course is the fuel consumption and the requirement for 98RON. However:

A used car will require extra expenses more than a new car in this price bracket. Just because you haven't dumped money into fixing your car hardly negates the fact the majority of used cars will need it much sooner than a new car with a warranty to cover that area.

Your services fall into that category. Pretty much any new car under $13K has an extremely thorough warranty service that will only require labor fees & the manufacturers that sell these cars definitely have low-tier rates. Trying to bring in a used car will require parts purchases alongside the labor, hence why the new car is still a generally smarter financial choice.

You can get things for literally any form of taste on the cheap.

And you can literally get a bucket load of problems ala the M5 that stupid article tried to argue as Used>New.
Also, it's the money that will leak out of a new car within the next 3-5 years which gets you, not that which you have to put into it.[/QUOTE]
And you don't think a used car won't leak money? More mileage, more tear, etc.

Fixed 👍

A used car will require that & more considering the fact that it's used.

A new & used car for under $13K with 0 miles & 75,000 miles respectively will not have the same chances of immediate service. The new car will likely go 95% of the way to 10,000 miles with oil & filter service. There's a strong chance the other will need or will soon need more immediate service within' that same distance.

 

[Jay.]

You do realize that a majority of medium sized cars engineered several years ago would absolutely, unequivocally fail the small overlap crash test? And that many current bigger cars still fail it?

This maybe the case, though it's not the value or costs that I would choose by. It's my choice to go for larger cars and one of the reasons is the following from several years ago...

Me = 1992 Vauxhall Cavalier @ 20mph'ish
Idiot = 2005/2006 Toyota Yaris @ 40mph'ish
In a 30mph area the idiot lost control on a bend and hit me head on. Combined speed of over 60mph.
Paramedics and firecrew spent nearly two hours cutting his crushed legs from the wrecked Yaris. His passenger also had a broken leg and several bloody wounds. I had a bruised elbow.

I don't really care so much about cost and depreciation as long I still get to walk away.

 

[niky]

An 06 Yaris is one-and-a-half generations behind the current small car class... which is much safer.

And one incident does not generalize to everything...

...otherwise, based on the Fifth Gear test, your incident never happened... ...lots of outside factors can affect how severely each car reacts to a crash.

Small cars can be dangerous. Or they can be good. Granted, the newest midsized car with the least extraneous mass will always be the safest, but aside from protection in that one-in-a-million chance of being involved in a severe accident, a secondhand midsizer is not a sounder investment.

 

[motortrend]

A) This argument could be applied to any price bracket.

B) With a $13,000 budget, a new car is always going to be a smarter financial choice given most cars under $10,000 have an issue of some sort you'll responsible for, esp if you're going after something "fun".

Plus If you're looking to finance you'll get much better interest rates.

 

[Legro]

This maybe the case, though it's not the value or costs that I would choose by. It's my choice to go for larger cars and one of the reasons is the following from several years ago...

Me = 1992 Vauxhall Cavalier @ 20mph'ish
Idiot = 2005/2006 Toyota Yaris @ 40mph'ish
In a 30mph area the idiot lost control on a bend and hit me head on. Combined speed of over 60mph.
Paramedics and firecrew spent nearly two hours cutting his crushed legs from the wrecked Yaris. His passenger also had a broken leg and several bloody wounds. I had a bruised elbow.

I don't really care so much about cost and depreciation as long I still get to walk away.

Every crash is different. It's really hard to say how many different ways that could have gone if even with slightest difference.

 

[Famine]

This maybe the case, though it's not the value or costs that I would choose by. It's my choice to go for larger cars and one of the reasons is the following from several years ago...

Me = 1992 Vauxhall Cavalier @ 20mph'ish
Idiot = 2005/2006 Toyota Yaris @ 40mph'ish
In a 30mph area the idiot lost control on a bend and hit me head on. Combined speed of over 60mph.
Paramedics and firecrew spent nearly two hours cutting his crushed legs from the wrecked Yaris. His passenger also had a broken leg and several bloody wounds. I had a bruised elbow.

I don't really care so much about cost and depreciation as long I still get to walk away.

Physics. Assuming your two cars weigh the same (and that's not an unsafe assumption), the Yaris had four times as much energy to dissipate.

 

[YSSMAN]

Personally... I wouldn't mind something like this:

Yeah, yeah... but consider... if you can get a naturally aspirated car for $7k... then a factory turbocharged one should be well under $13k... if they ever release one. With just 100 hp, something this small and aerodynamic would fly.

Its starting to show up on some of the American outlets, and I'm reasonably convinced that its a halfway decent option for some people. I mean, it ticks a lot of the boxes that a lot of us seem to want without any extra costs. I had been under the impression that, for the $6800 MSRP they're suggesting, you'd miss out on a lot of features.

I mean, they've already got 34,000 reservations. Its probably going to happen, right?

I'd totally consider one. I mean, its usually just me in the car. Even if it'd look a little dorky going through McDonalds, I'd save a lot of money on gas, and I'd have a brand-new car.

 

[McLaren]

Plus If you're looking to finance you'll get much better interest rates.

Very true as well. It's near impossible to get a bank to go in on a used car past a certain point without taking out a hefty loan.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

A used car will require extra expenses more than a new car in this price bracket. Just because you haven't dumped money into fixing your car hardly negates the fact the majority of used cars will need it much sooner than a new car with a warranty to cover that area.

What could possibly need replacing on a 2011-2013 model vehicle? Even a 5 year old vehicle can be kept up easily with just keeping to the servicing schedule. Not every used vehicle is an M5 or insert-highly-strung-performance-vehicle-here.

Your services fall into that category. Pretty much any new car under $13K has an extremely thorough warranty service that will only require labor fees & the manufacturers that sell these cars definitely have low-tier rates. Trying to bring in a used car will require parts purchases alongside the labor, hence why the new car is still a generally smarter financial choice.

Dealerships and "low-tier rates" is a pairing that I've never heard of in my life, unless you're going with a manufacturer that has a well-sorted capped-price servicing plan (Kia/Hyundai as an example). Servicing on the same vehicle in prior experience has been significantly cheaper with a skilled independent than the dealer of the respective vehicles, including the cost of consumables and scheduled replacement parts, which by the way are still part of the bill for a service. Especially Honda and Subaru, they charge you through the nose.

And you can literally get a bucket load of problems ala the M5 that stupid article tried to argue as Used>New.

Yes, that is incredibly stupid. Very easy to rectify though: use your damn brain when you are looking to purchase a vehicle!

 

[McLaren]

What could possibly need replacing on a 2011-2013 model vehicle? Even a 5 year old vehicle can be kept up easily with just keeping to the servicing schedule. Not every used vehicle is an M5 or insert-highly-strung-performance-vehicle-here.

A car within 2011-2013 is still fairly new. You & I both know full well most people in this thread aren't considering anything that new when they hear the term "used".

Dealerships and "low-tier rates" is a pairing that I've never heard of in my life, unless you're going with a manufacturer that has a well-sorted capped-price servicing plan (Kia/Hyundai as an example).

Uh, those are the exact manufacturers who like to target this price range.

Servicing on the same vehicle in prior experience has been significantly cheaper with a skilled independent than the dealer of the respective vehicles, including the cost of consumables and scheduled replacement parts, which by the way are still part of the bill for a service. Especially Honda and Subaru, they charge you through the nose.

Sorry, but if you want to play the independent service card, then it applies to new vehicles as well. And again, in this price bracket, the new cars aren't going to run you anymore in parts than the typical used car since they are at that price for a reason.

Honda charging through the nose is a laugh. I'm assuming you've never been a higher tier manufacturer for service? I would gladly pay Honda labor rates over the BMW or Acura.

Yes, that is incredibly stupid. Very easy to rectify though: use your damn brain when you are looking to purchase a vehicle!

This unfortunately holds no water. You can be as smart as you want, but financially for $13,000, a new car is going to be a sounder decision; the lack of any prior use & typically, a 100,000 mile warranty is an immediate perk.

A smart person looking at used cars will still be spending time & money searching and inspecting for the right example of whatever model he's looking at.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

A car within 2011-2013 is still fairly new. You & I both know full well most people in this thread aren't considering anything that new when they hear the term "used".

Right. Consider it Used Vehicle Buying Lesson #1 then: "used" isn't specific to older vehicles.

Uh, those are the exact manufacturers who like to target this price range.

And?

Sorry, but if you want to play the independent service card, then it applies to new vehicles as well. And again, in this price bracket, the new cars aren't going to run you anymore in parts than the typical used car since they are at that price for a reason.

Of course it applies to new vehicles as well. So logically, if it's not going to be any more or a negligible difference....paying less money for a used vehicle in the first place means you're still saving money over the same time period.

Honda charging through the nose is a laugh. I'm assuming you've never been a higher tier manufacturer for service? I would gladly pay Honda labor rates over the BMW or Acura.

Well the Honda in question is actually an Acura in the US of A but from other users' experience yes, Honda Australia charges through the nose, actually rivalling the likes of Audi/Volkswagen for servicing charges, and so does Subaru.

This unfortunately holds no water. You can be as smart as you want, but financially for $13,000, a new car is going to be a sounder decision; the lack of any prior use & typically, a 100,000 mile warranty is an immediate perk.

Buying a used vehicle that still has a warranty and has taken a hit in depreciation is "smarter", as @Crispy said. You can opt for a higher trim level, you still have the peace of mind.

But of course, everyone's experience is different.

 

[McLaren]

Right. Consider it Used Vehicle Buying Lesson #1 then: "used" isn't specific to older vehicles.

It ignores 1 important fact: they are still closer to the next service than the a new car. A car 1 year old can still has wear and tear. Typically not big, but use none the less that varies from owner to owner. There's no guarantee your 1 year old car sits in condition that of a new one.

And?

You listed them as the only ones you've heard of that would have capped rates & fall under low-tier. They just so happen to be the marques who sell cars in this range as well.

Of course it applies to new vehicles as well. So logically, if it's not going to be any more or a negligible difference....paying less money for a used vehicle in the first place means you're still saving money over the same time period.

The difference here is most people don't take new cars to an independent because warranty work covers them. And again, on cars these cheap, warranty work is going to cover near everything that will ever go wrong for a long period of time.

Well the Honda in question is actually an Acura in the US of A but from other users' experience yes, Honda Australia charges through the nose, actually rivalling the likes of Audi/Volkswagen for servicing charges, and so does Subaru.

Then it sounds like a regional issue. Then again, I have yet to hear of anything cheap when it comes to buying cars in Australia. Your tax is insane.

Buying a used vehicle that still has a warranty and has taken a hit in depreciation is "smarter", as @Crispy said. You can opt for a higher trim level, you still have the peace of mind.

But of course, everyone's experience is different.

It again ignores use and age. A 2-3 year old car with 20-30,000 miles is also 2-3 years/20-30,000 miles closer to an expired warranty & no guarantee the previous owner treated it right. They become no different from a CPO that is factory - certified, though these are arguably the safest deals. Problem is not everyone honors them and not everyone agrees on the terms when you buy a used car still within warranty.

Both have their pros and cons and require a smart approach, but from my experience with both, buying used has always been more of a hassle mentally and financially because I have to spend the time searching through numerous more dealers that range from manufacturer to shady con men & have PPIs done to ensure I don't buy a money pit. Buying new has always been straight forward because I know what I'm paying up front with no surprises.

That's why I say it's a more financially sound decision to go new. Just like letting your money build interest in a bank compared to laying it out on a poker table.

 

[niky]

I mean, they've already got 34,000 reservations. Its probably going to happen, right?

Maybe, maybe not. Some of those reservations will be of the low-risk $100 type... money people won't mind losing (well... they won't mind too much) if the company goes belly up.

There's also the question of whether building your own motor is a wise decision. There are several options for off-the-shelf motors, from companies that would gladly provide them, that could fit instead... and which would only need a little bit of ECU and cam tweaking to meet their MPG target (hell... several production one liter motors will meet the target... the tweaking and cam regrinding would simply help them beat it).

There are a lot of "what-ifs" in the Elio scenario... and the money-savvy are understandably very cautious on it... but if it makes it... as Tesla did, I will very gladly eat my hat when (if) I finally get to drive one.