Last post on Sep 27, 2013 at 10:51 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#141 of 162 Re: Comparing Civic Coupe to G5 Coupe [british_rover]
Jul 10, 2007 (11:16 am)
Those are good points, Rover.
In the 1980's, Honda was producing very good cars but people bought GM cars because they were loyal to that manufacturer.
Now GM and Ford may be making great cars, but many of us have developed loyalty to the Japanese cars and that is what we intend to keep buying. The American manufacturers have lost a whole generation of car buyers.
#142 of 162 Re: Comparing Civic Coupe to G5 Coupe [dave8697]
Oct 11, 2007 (7:50 am)
Fallacy no 4: In year 5, when only the G5 is still under warranty, the G5 maint and repair expenses are $29 per month more than those of the Civic, which is out of warranty and needs a new rubber timing belt (and water pump while your in there), typically to the tune of $7-800?
So would Fallacy over original Fallacy 4 be Fallacy 4² ?
Civic has not had the timing belt since the 2002 Civic Si. It has a timing chain.
#144 of 162 Re: A Discrepancy [fwatson]
Nov 19, 2007 (7:36 am)
In response to your message, if that is the case, the buyer can add or subtract the actual figure paid by most new car buyers from the TCO calculated price.
#145 of 162 Lowest True Cost of Ownership
Jun 04, 2008 (4:12 pm)
The best car to buy in order to keep TCO down is a Honda Fit.
Jul 30, 2008 (1:15 am)
I think that these $299 /mo lease ads you see are a scam.
It can't cost less than $600/mo realistically for an A4.
#147 of 162 Re: Lowest True Cost of Ownership [wisemoney]
Jul 30, 2008 (1:17 am)
I agree with you here. I was considering purchasing this care just so I didn't have to carry a car-note. But there is something to be said for a little bit of luxury.
The fit is the modern Honda CRX. There is something to be said for the pleasure of driving.
Jul 30, 2008 (7:22 am)
Most of the $299/mo. advertised deals require a substantial upfront payment... amortized over the length of the lease, most of those deals average out to $450/mo.+ tax.. for a relatively low mileage allowance..
So, maybe not $600/mo., but much closer to $500, in reality, than $299
Aug 25, 2008 (10:52 am)
TCO needs to also take things into account like what tires come on the vehicle. If you live in the snowbelt for example and you buy a new Civic Si, you'll need to purchase a good set of snow tires for $400-$500. On my last car, it cost me $100 per year to swap out all seasons vs. snows twice a year. So, over the course of 5 years that is ~$1,000 in additional costs.
Also, you could factor in things like gas tank size since a small gas tank makes you fill up more frequently. Might seem nit-picky but we just took a trip to Reno where gas prices varied by nearly one dollar in a span of 100 miles. We saved $15-$20 one one tank because we were able to choose where we filled up since we had a large tank.
Overall I do think that TCO is very useful even if it just points out some hidden costs that one might not think about everyday. For example, my Subaru required nearly $1,500 worth of scheduled tune-ups before 100k, while my new Toyota requires $0 worth of scheduled tune-ups before 100k (tune-ups, not oil changes). That is quite a difference, and now I will always take these factors into account when purchasing.