Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: whitepine who wrote (33330)	7/4/2004 8:34:57 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 206099

I think this discussion has got a bit off track. My simple point was that on the cost of fuel alone, over 50,000 miles - the upfront savings in purchase price with current discounts more than pays for higher fuel costs. Where there would be a problem would be if there became a real shortage of fuel. Our families primary car is a Buick LeSaber. On summer trips with the car loaded and the AC on we get 30 mpg. It is a full sized car - plenty of power and comfort - reasonable mileage. The city mileage is not so good - but then the city mileage is low. Our second car has been smaller - Contour, Accord, etc. They are more for ease of use in that they are smaller than for economy. Bob

To: whitepine who wrote (33330)	7/4/2004 9:46:15 AM
From: profile_14	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206099

Whitepine, 1. True 2. True and False. Trucks used to be much cheaper, therefore having much less depreciation as you state. Today they are priced at more than twice what their prices were just 5-7 years ago, because of luxury items that dress them up as a car. Try buying a used SUV. I had a Lexus RX300 that I leased from SouthTrust Bank with a residual value of 69%. When the lease was up, the residual value was 50% in 3 years. After 3 more years, the residual value would have been 20% of the original price if I released it. My contract offered me the opportunity to buy it for 28.5k. The market said it was worth 22k. I offered the finance company 22k for kicks. They would not take it or the loss. I got an Acura MDX touring instead, with a residual of 58% after 4 years. My lease is up in April '06. I know the MDX models are not moving. My wife gets 15.5 mpg around town. And the newspaper is filled with MDXs with prices less than the residual value. 3. That is what everyone says, except you are talking about safety relative to a direct collision with another vehicle -- momentum. Statistics do show that collisions with vehicles that are larger than yours do put you at much greater risk of injury. Those same statistics also show that SUVs are not as safe as cars because they do not have the stability or the safety systems cars do have. The reason being is that they are classified as trucks (that includes minivans). Trucks do not have to adhere to those standards. Therefore, companies can raise price points without spending the money on safety systems. However the consumer is now demanding more safety and slowly you are seeing side airbags, curtain airbags, door beams, lower CGs, etc. 4. True, but come to FL where I live and look at all the SUVs. Florida is flat as a pancake and it has no snow. And by the way. Most boats are not towed around here because they are larger than lake boats in general. The SUVs are driven by moms, mostly, and they are the upscale models of all types -- not for necessity but for status and looks. 5. True 6. True. I still believe it does not make sense for most practical people. Ask yourself how the rest of the world gets around to living. Yes, it is nice to have an SUV, but it is not completely necessary.