This is a good place to share this with geeks who may not be into cars: I drive a 1994 Mercedes (W124 chassis). One of the most reliable cars ever made. Simple to repair yourself. A TON of info available online for anything you could want to fix.
Pretty much (probably 100%) of all parts on the car are available super cheap as chinese replacements because the model was around for so long and so many of them are still on the road (I just replaced the car window regulator - normally a few hundred $$, got it on amazon delivered for $23).
Made to be serviced/repaired. Quite a bit of fun doing it too. You can pick one up for $2k and it will probably do another 200k miles no problem.
And the best bit? FAR FAR more environmentally friendly than a new Tesla. I'll leave that up to you to figure out ;)
30 minutes, that's impressive. Personally, I can't stand dealing with interior panels. I feel like every time I take apart a door panel I'm rolling the dice if I'm going to break any of the plastic pieces. I prefer to do work in these areas as infrequently as possible.
I have a motorcycle with a low-tension engine oil ring to keep the upper cylinder lubricated at 10-15k RPM. To stop oil burn-off I recommend slowly increasing oil weight over time and monitoring burn-off. Have you considered Rotella T6?
You should look up crash tests between cars considered safe in 1994 and modern cars.
I saw one for two Renault Espace models. The old one was so crumply compared to the new one, that the new one didn't even deploy airbags because there was no need. Both got top safety ratings when new.
Oh, and one more thing. Go walk around the yard of a tow company. Be prepared to feel sick.
You'll come away with the conclusion that the standard crash tests, which are well designed for common accidents, are still just a small minority of serious accidents.
And the most horrifying thing that I came away with is the number of wrecks where there is 'car' where the passengers should be. Even in trucks and SUVs.
The strongest cars ever built historically are still the strongest cars on the road, even though there have been some great innovations that they miss out on.
Volvos definitely have a well-deserved reputation; for many years, their slogan was "Drive Safely", and they took it seriously.
Here's another video where the Volvo's passenger compartment doesn't even change shape while the other car's is completely crushed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0oQsRvtWI
Although a downside is that, as the joke goes, "a Volvo doesn't need a crumple zone; it uses the other car." Not so good if the other car also happens to be a Volvo...
Great point. I have watched hundreds (not exaggerating). Sobering.
New in general is much better than old. But, it gets complicated.
The strength of the cage the passengers are in hasn't improved much, what has is how they behave in very specific crash tests. Go outside of that (go off a bank and roll down the hill over and over) and you'll find an old GL750 Volvo or '79 W116 merc will still have kept it's integrity in the passenger compartment (the doors will probably still open) where most modern cars would be crushed, passengers included.
Basically the bottom line is if you're going to buy an older car, get one that is still considered safe today. That leaves you with all mercs, volvos, most BMWs and Saabs from the post-airbag era. And get ABS - avoid the accident in the first place.
Volvo and Mercedes are known to be very safe and reliable ( and that for many decades). (Mercedes cars manufactured until 1999 last literally many decades) "Modern" safety features like airbags, ABS, security glass were first introduced by those companies many years ago. There is a reason why presidents, the pope, etc drive in such cars.
The common US and EU standard crash test don't cover all real world crash situations and it has been shown in various recent tests that many newer car that got a 5 star rating aren't that safe in the real world. They were specifically designed for the well known crash tests, if another car hits you in a different angel or overlap, you have bad luck. Watch old episodes of the Top Gears TV series where the drive in "christmas special episodes" through Africa, Asia, etc with old cars - old Mercs and Volvo's survived, other cars failed because of mechanic or electronic issues.
@20.8 mpg city when new that's 10,000 gallons of fuel for 200k miles or ~30,000$ while gas is cheap. A Tesla model 3 (To Be Unveiled March 31st) is 35,000$, costs far less (~1/10th) for fuel, and is not 22 years old.
10k gallons costs you $18,000 or less right now "while gas is cheap" - for a TCO of $20,000 in 20 years (plus cheap-ish repairs) - and you are driving a Merc.
The model 3 (once you can actually get hold of it) will cost you $35,000 up front, plus about $7,000 in electricity for 200k miles at prices of 13-15c/kWh, plus about two battery replacements - battery lifetime is 8 years or 125k miles - at $10,000ish a pop - for a TCO of $62,000 plus repairs.
And don't forget the 'cost of money'. Take the purchase price, $35k, minus an old car, say $5k, and you have $30k making money for you over the 20 years. Conservatively, even in a bank in some countries, the return from $30k in the bank is going to pay for your gas then you'll still have the principle left over at the end.
What 'jjawssd' was actually asking was an explanation of the math you used to come up with those particular numbers. He's doubting that you could pay for the gas using the interest on $30K. While you do have a point that one should pay attention to the 'cost of money', it also seems possible that you were neglecting to account for the withdrawals to purchase gas along the way.
10,000 gallons of gas in 20 years equates to about 40 gallons per month. At $2/gallon, this is $80 per month. If you plug these into a compound interest calculator (https://www.investor.gov/tools/calculators/compound-interest...) with -$80 for the monthly addition, you find that at a 3.25% APR you can pay for your gas and still have the principal remaining at the end.
3.25% is currently higher than you can find for any US bank account, but as you say, there are definitely places in the world where this is possible. At 1% (still high by US current standards), you'd have $15,000 of your principal left at the end --- a $5,000 difference from not receiving any interest. Worth considering, but not too likely to be a deciding factor.
3.25% is definitely pretty feasible. Interest rates on bank accs right now aren't a great reflection of supply and demand. But if you look at average returns on the market, say by looking at a decent first proxy for the market like the S&P 500, well that's one which has a 7% inflation-adjusted (i.e. real return) return in its history. In recent years it's been a bit higher as the market is rebounding. In general I'd assume its on the high end (century of cheap oil and all), but 4% is still a realistic long-term return figure, and so 3.25% is therefore quite doable with a moderate level of risk in a diversified portfolio. (oh and the above is not just inflation-adjusted, but also excluding dividend payouts which aren't insignificant).
Thanks for doing the math, I didn't take the time.
FWIW 3.25% happens to be exactly what a term deposit will pay here in mexico for 90 days+
I understand that banks in other countries wouldn't do that, however you don't have to take much more risk over a bank to get 3.25% in most of the world I would imagine
By the way, what's the price of gasoline currently in Mexico? My impression is that it's historically been a regulated price, but I read something a while ago that said it was moving toward deregulation. I wasn't clear if this meant the price was expected to go up or down.
If you read the article it points out that there a great many exemptions in the warranty. I wonder how many "owners" will be able to have their battery replaced under warranty?
The battery warranty covers nearly everything. The only exclusion is intentional damage. Even accidental damage is covered. I see nothing in the article that says otherwise.
$1.89 last week in NYC, where we have the highest gas taxes in the country (42.4 cents/gal[1]). So gas is probably around $1.60 across the river in NJ.
Interesting, I hadn't realized that NYC gasoline taxes were higher than California. Looking into it, there is some reason to argue that California higher is higher if you apply a broader definition of "tax".
$2.89 seems particularly high. Would it be right to guess that you are a non-price conscious buyer in California? Here's a map for the US: http://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPriceMap?z=4
As someone who owns both an E30 BMW and a Ford Escort, there is kind of a "myth" about cost of repair and reliability when it comes to luxury brands. I don't think any BMW or Merc is going to be more reliable or cheaper to repair than a comparable "cheap" car. It's just that people a). take better care of luxury cars and b). people are more likely to keep them running.
Note that this is true of any car in a car dealer lot. But it only matters as a comparison when a car is potentially at end-of-life, and whether it stays on the road or gets shoved in a junkyard and replaced with a new one is an open question.
If somebody decides to replace their 2013 model, it's basically 100% odds of staying on the road, and that car being on the road maybe represents one less new car that could have been made. But person who buys the used 2013 might be selling their 2001 to someone who takes it and then scraps their 1992 model. The net effect is one new car being manufactured, and one old car being scrapped. We can't take each transaction in the chain and say "This sale prevented a new car from needing to be made and saved a bunch of energy and material costs, and so did this one, and so did this one."
That's only with respect to the manufacturing side, or what we'd call "embodied energy". There are considerations from ongoing costs too, like how the gas mileage (probably fine, I've clocked my 1998 Civic at around 32 MPG) or emissions (I have no idea) compare against a newer car.
I would wager that 80% of cars that are crushed (which weren't in an accident) could be repaired (if broken) or 'fixed up' to operate better than the last owner thought possible for less than a days work and perhaps a few hundred dollars.
I do appreciate your point, but I think people are far too afraid of older cars and they are scrapped too soon.
I was hoping to convince some folk in this tech community that old cars can be a good idea. Save money, have fun, help the environment. Hell, buy an old Rolls Royce... why not?!
You may have luxury of feeling that way -- most people do not. The average age of the US auto fleet is significantly older than it once was. 10+ year old cars are like 5-7x more common than they were 10-15 year ago.
Hell, I drive a 2003 model year car that isn't going anywhere.
Mostly just wanted to point out that there are two numbers that drive how many new cars are sold:
1) Increase in total number of vehicles in use (relatively level 2008-2013, a quick google didn't find newer data)
2) Old vehicles taken off the road being replaced by new ones
The net effect of a particular person buying a slightly used car over a new one is basically nothing. The big picture only changes when people are choosing to keep an old car on the road for longer.
One of the side effects of emissions controls introduced in the late 90s is that cars are way more reliable. Basically these days most cars can easily achieve 200k miles or more without heroic labor.
I can't find a free source of the data, but I know in my state 10+ year old auto registrations spiked from 2008 onwards.
I live in Mexico, and a few hundred dollars will get you a complete new exhaust system for both your car and your partners car. It won't be OEM, but it will work.
And tires, I see that as a consumable like gasoline, so wouldn't include that in the few hundred dollars.
I totally buy the environmental impact argument on keeping that Mercedes vs buying the Tesla.
That isn't the only concern though. In a high speed collision against a modern 5-Star vehicle the people in the Mercedes are pretty much toast.
I think it's possible you could upgrade the safety of an older vehicle in many ways, but realistically most owners never would beyond tires and modest braking improvements. And you'll probably not see "city stop" like systems or airbag cocoons become common aftermarket systems anytime soon.
If I could install aftermarket side airbags I would. It's the main advance missing from the older cars.
I don't agree with your statement about the high speed collision though. If it's front on, the strength of the passenger compartment and the weight of your vehicle vs the other car are the most important thing, in which case the Mercedes is likely to come out even or better.
There's others on YouTube. It doesn't look pretty. A low belt-line doesn't help either (or so I've read, I'm not an automotive engineer).
I get the old car love. A P1800 or Volvo Amazon would be so cool. But you have to accept that even vehicles that were at the top of their game a decade ago are going to get the bad end of the stick in a wreck with a new vehicle. There's a 5th Gear video of a last-gen vs new Espace out there as well. Both 5-star rated at release. The new one absolutely demolished the old one. And we're talking about a much smaller time gap in releases here.
The W124 has only gotten more attractive with age. It's reliable and easy to service. It's better environmentally than running out and buying a Tesla. That's all admirable. and adults are totally capable of those outweigh safety for themselves.
But motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among children and teens if you exclude suicide and cancer. If you could do something that would have a potentially large impact on that stat, as a parent, it's kind of hard to ignore.
(Which wow, that seems like a pretty stark class issue I've never considered before.)
I feel the same way. I drive a classic Range Rover, and it is a lot of fun. Yes, I spend around $2000 each year getting various components repaired or replaced, but that is enough to keep ahead of entropy, and between loan payments and the higher cost of insurance I'd be spending twice that or more on a newer vehicle. Plus, I have a relatively simple machine with no fancy DRM automation crap that won't report me to the FBI for crimethink.
Apparently you're 8 times more likely to die if your car is half the weight of the one you have a high speed collision with (sorry from memory no reference, could be bogus). Add to that the over-the-top strength of the Range Rover and even though it's a classic, I think you're going to be more likely to survive in a head on collision than 95% of other vehicles on the road.
That makes sense in a simple, back-of-the-envelope F=ma sort of way. I hadn't really thought about it from a safety perspective, though; it just suits my needs well. In general I'm happier to economize by buying really nice stuff that's cheaper because it's used, than by buying something newer that's just cheaper. It becomes an aesthetic thing - a feeling of shabby luxury suits me.
Emissions standards get more strict each year, so it's not arbitrary at all. As technology advances, emissions systems get more advanced and ten years makes a world of difference. A 1995 Honda might be legally allowed to spew 1000x the amount of NOx that a 2005 Tahoe can. So a newer car could be much cleaner than an old one, even with a 3x larger engine.
This is also completely ignoring the fact that older engines are more likely to have various parts of their engine and emission systems degrade over time, reducing their effectiveness.
I agree that the cutoff by year is somewhat arbitrary, though SUVs have never been popular around here, with gas being so expensive; right now, it's at ~1.36€/liter (aprox $5.67/gallon), while our median salary is less than $1600/month.
The world is going to make a lot more new cars over the next few decades, millions upon millions of them. They can either be new electric cars or new ICE cars. The former is better for the environment.
Yes, bikes, mopeds, taxis, busses and trains would be more efficient than cars in many places, and electric versions of those are better for the environment too. (Special addendum defending electric bikes: the assumption here is that they displace car journeys not non-electric bike journeys.
Pretty much (probably 100%) of all parts on the car are available super cheap as chinese replacements because the model was around for so long and so many of them are still on the road (I just replaced the car window regulator - normally a few hundred $$, got it on amazon delivered for $23).
Made to be serviced/repaired. Quite a bit of fun doing it too. You can pick one up for $2k and it will probably do another 200k miles no problem.
And the best bit? FAR FAR more environmentally friendly than a new Tesla. I'll leave that up to you to figure out ;)