Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-11-2006, 05:47 AM   #31
Monsta
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by oplease19
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong....
You got lucky with your low powered, less stressed Celica. What if he buys a Supra from someone else and he isn't so lucky? Then what? Worth the risk? No.

Rental coverage covers a wrecked car, not a broken one. $19 a day adds up when they have to ship your rare Supra parts in then fit you into their repair schedule. Toyota or not, there is a good chance that a 10+ year old car will break.

You using Edmunds to get an idea of the cost to purchase a used Supra? Edmunds and other vehicle price estimators are not in touch with classic type vehicles. Find 2 low mileage Supras for under $19,000. I'll king you if you can.
...................
What do you consider to be low mileage.
Monsta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 06:00 AM   #32
oplease19
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monsta
You got lucky with your low powered, less stressed Celica. What if he buys a Supra from someone else and he isn't so lucky? Then what? Worth the risk? No.

Rental coverage covers a wrecked car, not a broken one. $19 a day adds up when they have to ship your rare Supra parts in then fit you into their repair schedule. Toyota or not, there is a good chance that a 10+ year old car will break.

You using Edmunds to get an idea of the cost to purchase a used Supra? Edmunds and other vehicle price estimators are not in touch with classic type vehicles. Find 2 low mileage Supras for under $19,000. I'll king you if you can.
...................
What do you consider to be low mileage.
You're probably right about rental coverage only applying to wrecks, not repairs.

I checked out a 1995 in rockport, MA last year that had 37,000 miles on it. He wanted $16,000. Another guy had a 1994 turbo with 40,000 that I offered him $19,000 for, but he insisted he was doing me a favor at $22,500. I didn't really want a turbo anyway, so passed (but refrained from the obvious, "don't do me any favors..."). There's a 1998 with 80,000 advertised for $18,500 or BO. I've seen several on AutoTrader with under 70,000 for under $18000, but I still think they're too much. There's a 1997 with 86,000 for $17,000 with a warranty from Herb Chambers Honda. Oh, and if my Celica GT-S was low-powered, then it was more stressed - lots of high-revving to get decent acceleration from the 2.0 liter engine. Meanwhile, the Supra engine is legendary for being bullet-proof, and able to handle way more horsepower than stock.

Last edited by oplease19 : 10-11-2006 at 06:06 AM.
oplease19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 03:05 PM   #33
Bronxie
Dont know crap about cars
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Westchester Co., NY
Posts: 1,386
Nah, I just checked cars.com and other sites. Supras must be in high demand, because they're all about 30-60k. They might be "worth" less, but that's only dependent upon the consumers.

I didn't even know what a supra was until now. They look nice.
__________________


Driving a lotus is more thrilling than sex.
Bronxie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 03:19 PM   #34
jaydez
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by oplease19
You're probably right about rental coverage only applying to wrecks, not repairs.

I checked out a 1995 in rockport, MA last year that had 37,000 miles on it. He wanted $16,000. Another guy had a 1994 turbo with 40,000 that I offered him $19,000 for, but he insisted he was doing me a favor at $22,500. I didn't really want a turbo anyway, so passed (but refrained from the obvious, "don't do me any favors..."). There's a 1998 with 80,000 advertised for $18,500 or BO. I've seen several on AutoTrader with under 70,000 for under $18000, but I still think they're too much. There's a 1997 with 86,000 for $17,000 with a warranty from Herb Chambers Honda. Oh, and if my Celica GT-S was low-powered, then it was more stressed - lots of high-revving to get decent acceleration from the 2.0 liter engine. Meanwhile, the Supra engine is legendary for being bullet-proof, and able to handle way more horsepower than stock.

I have yet to see an MKIII or MKIV Supra that hasnt popped the headgasket by 100k miles. I know alot of people who have them from stock NT to built Turbos and they all pop eventually.
jaydez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 04:12 PM   #35
Bronxie
Dont know crap about cars
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Westchester Co., NY
Posts: 1,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydez
I have yet to see an MKIII or MKIV Supra that hasnt popped the headgasket by 100k miles. I know alot of people who have them from stock NT to built Turbos and they all pop eventually.

Is popping a gasket bad? They seem like cheap, easy-to-replace parts.
__________________


Driving a lotus is more thrilling than sex.
Bronxie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 09:24 PM   #36
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by oplease19
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about more things if you were Donald Rumsfeld.
Ohhh...Swing and a miss.

Quote:
For whatever performance level you want, I think you're better off buying a used car with that performance and saving the $10,000. The yearly interest alone that $10,000 will earn will probably be more than the yearly repairs on the car. Plus you will have also saved on sales tax, yearly insurance, and yearly excise tax. Or, if you're set on spending X amount of dollars on a car, you're better off getting the much higher quality used car those dollars will get, than the lower-quality new car. $15,000 will get you a Yaris or Scion xB, or a low-mileage Supra or Jaguar XK or Acura TL or whatever.
$10,000 @ 3% interest = $300 in interest. Seeing as how he isn't mechanically inclined, I'm sure any repair work would be done at a shop. Part markup + ~$70 an hr. service. Yeah, a ten y/o car that was probably beat on by a kid will surely have less than $300 in repairs a year. One window motor will put him well over that mark. I'm not even going to get into what the repairs on an XK that he could afford would be. That is just ridiculous.

Oh, and to whoever asked about the headgasket: It is a cheap part, but the labor is going to be very costly.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society

giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 10:42 PM   #37
oplease19
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
Ohhh...Swing and a miss.


$10,000 @ 3% interest = $300 in interest. Seeing as how he isn't mechanically inclined, I'm sure any repair work would be done at a shop. Part markup + ~$70 an hr. service. Yeah, a ten y/o car that was probably beat on by a kid will surely have less than $300 in repairs a year. One window motor will put him well over that mark. I'm not even going to get into what the repairs on an XK that he could afford would be. That is just ridiculous.

Oh, and to whoever asked about the headgasket: It is a cheap part, but the labor is going to be very costly.
You seem to like to just hear yourself talk (metaphorically). Did you read my other posts? I made clear I was talking about Hondas and Toyotas, well-made, reliable cars that require FEW repairs, if any. I detailed my personal 17-year experience with a Toyota, in which I averaged well below $300/year in repairs over the last 10 years, and zilch in the first 7. Maybe you should bother to actually gather some facts before opining. If you looked into the XK, you would know that they absolutely plummeted in value. Most were leased, and there isn't a lot of used demand. You can get well-maintained, 70,000 mile or so cars that cost $70,000 new for $15,000 to $18,000. And, just as with the Supra, you will find people looking for a sucker to pay much more than that. They're gorgeous, and that's why I listed it for comparisons sake. I didn't say it was in the reliability class of Toyotas or Hondas.
Also, what makes you think that the poster is poverty-stricken, that any repair will mean he'll be homeless? If he can spend $18,000 on a car, then spending $8,000 on a quality used car and then a $300 repair isn't going to leave him penniless. Further, by the time I posted that, we were talking in more general terms, not just about doughboy's sporty compact choice. Your lack of current or accurate information extends to interest rates as well. Banks are paying 4.65% on CDs now, so the investment would generate $465/year in interest. I never spent that much in any year for repairs and maintainance on my Celica GT-S. I didn't spend anything in the 14 months I drove a Camry with 160,000 miles on it. And I don't expect to spend anything on the 1998 Prelude I now have.

Last edited by oplease19 : 10-11-2006 at 10:53 PM.
oplease19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 07:25 PM   #38
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by oplease19
You seem to like to just hear yourself talk (metaphorically). Did you read my other posts? I made clear I was talking about Hondas and Toyotas, well-made, reliable cars that require FEW repairs, if any. I detailed my personal 17-year experience with a Toyota, in which I averaged well below $300/year in repairs over the last 10 years, and zilch in the first 7. Maybe you should bother to actually gather some facts before opining.
I haven't seen you spit too many facts. You gave your personal experience and opinions. You got lucky with your car, even though it was a completely different model. I know a kid down the street that had a mid 90's Celica that was nothing but trouble for him. Am I saying all Celica's are trash? No, that's only a single instance. You can't base your current opinion of a car company on a single car you bought 18 years ago.
Quote:
If you looked into the XK, you would know that they absolutely plummeted in value. Most were leased, and there isn't a lot of used demand. You can get well-maintained, 70,000 mile or so cars that cost $70,000 new for $15,000 to $18,000. And, just as with the Supra, you will find people looking for a sucker to pay much more than that. They're gorgeous, and that's why I listed it for comparisons sake. I didn't say it was in the reliability class of Toyotas or Hondas.
He was looking at brand new, small(ish), FWD cars with warranties. You know...practical cars. Something that he doesn't have to worry about breaking down. Do you know why the Jag's value plummeted? They were never really worth 70K. It WILL need work. Since you want facts so badly, why don't you call up your local Jag dealership and ask them what an oil change costs. How about a 75K tune up (don't actually know the intervals for jag tuneups, but you get the idea). How about some brake work, or a new clutch? Jags are not know for their reliability, and the parts are more expensive than average. Recommending a Jag to somebody who's looking at the vehicles he was makes no sense.[/quote]

Quote:
Also, what makes you think that the poster is poverty-stricken, that any repair will mean he'll be homeless?
I was able to figure he wanted a reliable car. I didn't say it would be the end of the world if something broke, but it appears reliability is much more important to him than performance. You seem to be saying that it would be more practical for him to buy a sports car because it'll depreciate less, but you don't factor in the insurance, repairs (cost and pain in the ass), gas, the fact that he may live in a place where it snows, and the fact that HE DOESN'T WANT A PERFORMANCE CAR.

Quote:
Further, by the time I posted that, we were talking in more general terms, not just about doughboy's sporty compact choice.
Wrong. You may have been, while I've been trying to at least stay on topic.

Quote:
Your lack of current or accurate information extends to interest rates as well. Banks are paying 4.65% on CDs now, so the investment would generate $465/year in interest.
What other lack of current accurate information have I shown? And since you were pushing me for facts, I'll do the same to you. I realize where our opinions differ, but show me one other fact that I got wrong. Please. Oh, and for the record, when you said interest I assumed (and roughly estimated the interest for) a regular bank account, you never specified a CD.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society

giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.