Are expensive cars worth it?

[Mike N]

I bought a rare car AND I drive it. The garage queen thing just never appealed to me.

My 68 SS396 ElCamino is one of 5208 built and I use it as a workhorse.

Better than that, my old neighbor used to have a 71 Hemi Cuda convertible.... one of 7 built. His was one of five with an automatic, the other two were 4 speeds. I used to see him banging potholes in our town going from cruise night to cruise night with it..... and the occasional stop at the grocery store. I asked him one time about driving such a rare car and he told me.... "Mike, I'm doing what this car was built to do..... be driven."

 

[MrLenny1]

Not really unless you want to spend morre money on transportation.
I drive Hondas. Quality and affordable. I realy like Porsche 911's
but not on my budget.

 

[Brad Johnson]

My 68 SS396 ElCamino is one of 5208 built and I use it as a workhorse.

Better than that, my old neighbor used to have a 71 Hemi Cuda convertible.... one of 7 built. His was one of five with an automatic, the other two were 4 speeds. I used to see him banging potholes in our town going from cruise night to cruise night with it..... and the occasional stop at the grocery store. I asked him one time about driving such a rare car and he told me.... "Mike, I'm doing what this car was built to do..... be driven."

Exactly. I have a fairly crude analogy... it's like being married to Margot Robbie and putting her on a pedestal and not touching her, just admiring her and saving her for a hopefully a smarter next person.


I drive my cars wherever and whenever the hell I want. That's why I bought them.

 

[Clark Dark]

One of the cars I'm thinking of is the new Civic. They are very popular and very well reviewed. They are around the $20K, but to loop that to my OP, is the Accord a worth while upgrade if my concerns are durability and a more pleasant ride for my 80 miles a day. Beyond that, are the Acuras that much better, or is it a matter of bells and whistles?

I haven't seen an Acura that premium fuel isn't required.

 

[saabfender]

Is there really such a thing as driving pleasure?
What am I missing?

If there wasn't, the VW ad campaign "Fahrvergnügen" wouldn't have worked.

Durability of cars is largely a function of maintenance performed.

 

[fdeck]

We're terrible at shopping for used cars, and it has also seemed that a used car are typically "fully loaded" and more expensive than a stripped down new car. So we've been following the method of "buy the cheapest new Toyota and drive it into the ground." Right now we're on a 2003 Sienna and 2006 Scion XA (the gig mobile). Both are in great shape.

Yup, @Pilgrim is right, people buy the cars they want. Marketing is all about making you want more. For me, a car is an appliance. Driving is about getting from A to B in one piece. If it was ever fun to drive, traffic congestion and pollution have put a end to that pleasure. I'd rather ride my bike.

 

[fdeck]

My 68 SS396 ElCamino is one of 5208 built and I use it as a workhorse.

Better than that, my old neighbor used to have a 71 Hemi Cuda convertible.... one of 7 built. His was one of five with an automatic, the other two were 4 speeds. I used to see him banging potholes in our town going from cruise night to cruise night with it..... and the occasional stop at the grocery store. I asked him one time about driving such a rare car and he told me.... "Mike, I'm doing what this car was built to do..... be driven."

If people can take Stradivarius violins to gigs, we can drive classic cars to the grocery store.

 

[socialleper]

Exactly. I have a fairly crude analogy... it's like being married to Margot Robbie and putting her on a pedestal and not touching her, just admiring her and saving her for a hopefully a smarter next person.


I drive my cars wherever and whenever the hell I want. That's why I bought them.

Here is where that analogy falls apart: If I was married to Margot Robbie I wouldn't be planning to hand her down to my grand children or sell her when I get old so I can retire. If you take your theoretical Margot out of the garage, she ages. If she stays in the garage except for rare occasions, she doesn't age.

To bring this more back to reality, I actually own a 1972 Chevy Nova that rarely sees the light of day. Here's why:

1. The insurance isn't worth squat. If I get into an accident, even if its a minor one, they will write it off as a loss for $5 because that is all a car that age is worth to them.
2. It is highly impractical. Even if it had a heater or AC (which is doesn't, because that doesn't make it go faster), it probably gets about 10 miles to the gallon. I drive around 80 miles a day, in an area that gets over 100 for months, but also occasionally gets snow. A 3 speed automatic transmission doesn't take kindly to those conditions at 75 mph for 35-40 minutes at a time.
3. Stealing old cars is ridiculously simple. The locks are easy to pop and the ignition is a breeze to hot wire.
4. Old cars are death traps. Both for the driver and the people they hit. It is a heavy, unforgiving battering ram with no crumple zones, no retracting tension on the two section belts, no air bags, and old school glass that will shatter into sharp edges. I'm already running a high risk of being killed in a car wreck with the distance and frequency I drive, adding a car that is practically designed to kill isn't a good idea.

So while I agree that these cars are fun to tool around town in on the weekends, driving them regularly is a little foolish.

 

[socialleper]

I haven't seen an Acura that premium fuel isn't required.

Good point!

 

[socialleper]

I cannot fathom a lifestyle that involves spending over five hundred hours per year behind the wheel. Over an hour each way is at least 4% of your total life, 8% of your wake life just gone to a task.

That is something I am painfully aware of, but you work where the work is and live where you can afford it. I live in a suburb where their aren't a lot of offices anyway, let alone ones that need someone to build and manage networks. I don't live near where I work because Palmdale CA is a dung heap.

It'll just be uglier on the outside and prettier on the inside

I actually kinda like the look of the Lexus sedans. They may be trying too hard, but at least they look like something someone put some time into it. So many entry level sub-compact and mid size sedans look like they should have a blue strip on the side that says "car."
The Infinity sedans aren't too bad looking either.

 

[socialleper]

We're terrible at shopping for used cars, and it has also seemed that a used car are typically "fully loaded" and more expensive than a stripped down new car. So we've been following the method of "buy the cheapest new Toyota and drive it into the ground." Right now we're on a 2003 Sienna and 2006 Scion XA (the gig mobile). Both are in great shape.

Yup, @Pilgrim is right, people buy the cars they want. Marketing is all about making you want more. For me, a car is an appliance. Driving is about getting from A to B in one piece. If it was ever fun to drive, traffic congestion and pollution have put a end to that pleasure. I'd rather ride my bike.

I generally feel that cars are utility for getting from here to there. I was just genuinely curious if people felt that when they pay for an upgrade of some kind in a car, if there were tangible, objective improvements. Since I have never been around pickups, sports cars, or luxury cars, I don't know if its the sort of thing you don't notice until you try it. Or if equates to reliability over luxury. Kinda like someone that has only listened to 128bit MP3s through $10 earbuds doesn't know how much they are missing until they listen to a 24\96 WAV through a good DAC on a studio quality pair of headphones.

 

[Alkali Ike]

I haven't seen an Acura that premium fuel isn't required.

Good point!

Required? Or recommended? Some newer cars will generate more horsepower on premium, but you can run them on regular and the ECU will alter the ignition timing to prevent knocking, resulting in reduced power. My GTI requires minimum 87 octane, but it recommends 91 octane. If you feed it 87, it’ll run fine but you’ll sacrifice horsepower, because the ignition timing adapts to fuel octane. Retarding timing to prevent preignition reduces power output. And it can do this adjustment *per individual cylinder*.

 

[Downunderwonder]

I generally feel that cars are utility for getting from here to there. I was just genuinely curious if people felt that when they pay for an upgrade of some kind in a car, if there were tangible, objective improvements. Since I have never been around pickups, sports cars, or luxury cars, I don't know if its the sort of thing you don't notice until you try it. Or if equates to reliability over luxury. Kinda like someone that has only listened to 128bit MP3s through $10 earbuds doesn't know how much they are missing until they listen to a 24\96 WAV through a good DAC on a studio quality pair of headphones.

I used to drive all manner of cars day in day out, going on twenty years ago. I would guess the levels of refinement are similarly separated and everything is just a little better overall these days.

I drove a brand new Toyota Rav4 the other day. It still has the box on wheels feel of the old ones in spite of driving like a new vehicle should.

Back in the day the luxury German cars had a preciseness about the controls, door shuts, steering and suspension that everyday Japanese cars didn't match. I didn't think it warranted the pricetag.

I didn't come across any high end Honda or Lexus.

A proper sports car is something else. Either you ''get it'' and want it, or you don't. That's way less subtle than the econo~luxury shift.

The basic qualities have vastly improved in mass model Japanese and Korean cars in the last 20 years. But not to the level of the luxury stuff.

I think a three year old whatever suits is what you want. You can plot the depreciation off new on recent current models by looking at off lease auctions. There is almost no change in the rate from 2 to 4 years once adjusted for milage. In other words you get what you pay for.

After 4 years and about 60,000 miles you get a lot more variance in condition and milage and sometimes the price dips into ''better value''.

But if you check back with the 2 to 4 year low milage slope it can be revealing. The price becoming more affordable brings in more buyers that are bringing that price up actually uncomfortably close to the original straightline milage life after initial new to used depreciation. But you get an older more worn out one with more things needing fixing sooner.

Against that you have interest costs if you are financing it, plus insurance.

 

[BioDriver]

Cars depreciate by nature, so to me it makes very little sense to buy anything nicer than an Accord Touring, Toyota Avalon, etc. To me, reliability and ease of repair and access to parts are more important. Those are also reasons why Ms. Driver is looking at a CRV or Forester for her next car.

That being said, if I had the money yo boy would definitely cruise in an Aston Martin Vanquish.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Like a bass, house, meal, etc. you don't NEED the expensive one. Whether the expensive one is worth it is up to you.

 

[CatchaCuda]

I feel it mostly boils down to comfort. If you spend a lot of time in your vehicle, and your budget allows, by all means go for the plush lazy boy instead of the folding steel chair.

 

[Clark Dark]

Required? Or recommended? Some newer cars will generate more horsepower on premium, but you can run them on regular and the ECU will alter the ignition timing to prevent knocking, resulting in reduced power. My GTI requires minimum 87 octane, but it recommends 91 octane. If you feed it 87, it’ll run fine but you’ll sacrifice horsepower, because the ignition timing adapts to fuel octane. Retarding timing to prevent preignition reduces power output. And it can do this adjustment *per individual cylinder*.

required

 

[Mike N]

Required? Or recommended? Some newer cars will generate more horsepower on premium, but you can run them on regular and the ECU will alter the ignition timing to prevent knocking, resulting in reduced power. My GTI requires minimum 87 octane, but it recommends 91 octane. If you feed it 87, it’ll run fine but you’ll sacrifice horsepower, because the ignition timing adapts to fuel octane. Retarding timing to prevent preignition reduces power output. And it can do this adjustment *per individual cylinder*.

The PCM pulls timing back to prevent detonation, not pre ignition...... there's a difference between the two. Detonation is the uncontrolled burn of the fuel and pre ignition happens before the spark ever gets there. Lower octane fuels have a faster burn rate and one that is also harder to control. Higher octane fuels are more resistant to detonation, but also require higher cylinder pressure to burn effectively. An engine that's designed to run 87 octane isn't going to pick up a boatload of power by switching to 91, and if you were to try the 110 I run in my Camaro, you'd be lucky if the car even ran at all.

Beyond that, you're probably sacrificing gas mileage by running 87 in an engine that was designed for 91. The reduction in power is going to have you leaning on the throttle more to accelerate the car and keep it cruising at a given speed..... and the harder you lean on the throttle, the less mileage you're gong to get.

If it was mine and the manufacturer recommended 91, it's what I'd use.

 

[socialleper]

Like a bass, house, meal, etc. you don't NEED the expensive one. Whether the expensive one is worth it is up to you.

I don't know if it is, because like many basses, you can't really go try one out in a realistic way. Sure, you can drive one for 5 minutes at a dealership and spend the next 30 trying to get the salesman off your back, but that isn't really the same thing.

What I'm trying to is get info from people that know more about these things than I do. I think I spelled out that for me "worth it" would be objective, practical improvements in durability and reliability; would be technological advancements that make the vehicle more efficient since I drive a lot; and if there are any real changes that make the actual drive more comfortable or pleasant.
If a Corolla and a Camry have the exact same transmission, suspension, and engine, that means there won't be a substantial increase in reliability, and the efficiency might be less in the bigger car because of its size. So then that wouldn't be worth it, since size is a small factor for me; I'm alone in my car 90% of the time, I'm a class D\Barefaced kinda guy, I don't have toys that need hauling, and my wife has an SUV for big stuff.
Similarly, if a Lexus was to use the same tech, and they just have nicer interiors and a shinier badge, that isn't worth anything to me. However, if they have a more precision engine that will keep ticking longer, that does mean something to me. Horse Power is nice, but isn't worth a lot to me since my drive a straight shot of 75mph on the freeway for 35-40 minutes. I was able to get 80k out of my brakes because I don't sit in a lot of stop and go.
What I really want is to not have to think about my car anymore. I'm sort of jealous of the posters that say they've been able to get 200k out of cars that only needed gas and oil (tires and brakes are unavoidable as well.) I've only been driving for 23 years (I didn't get a car until I was 20) but it would be hard for me to add up the number of them that I've gone through. I'm over the revolving door. I would have held on to my Mazda 3, but the fates just weren't having it. My Focus has been one thing after another, although admittedly, and thankfully, nothing super serious.

 

[Alkali Ike]

The PCM pulls timing back to prevent detonation, not pre ignition...... there's a difference between the two. Detonation is the uncontrolled burn of the fuel and pre ignition happens before the spark ever gets there. Lower octane fuels have a faster burn rate and one that is also harder to control. Higher octane fuels are more resistant to detonation, but also require higher cylinder pressure to burn effectively. An engine that's designed to run 87 octane isn't going to pick up a boatload of power by switching to 91, and if you were to try the 110 I run in my Camaro, you'd be lucky if the car even ran at all.

Beyond that, you're probably sacrificing gas mileage by running 87 in an engine that was designed for 91. The reduction in power is going to have you leaning on the throttle more to accelerate the car and keep it cruising at a given speed..... and the harder you lean on the throttle, the less mileage you're gong to get.

If it was mine and the manufacturer recommended 91, it's what I'd use.

As noted, 91 is Recommended in the GTI, though 87 is the minimum acceptable. I run it on Top Tier 92 exclusively (no such thing as 91 here). The cars runs perfectly no matter how hard I flog it.