Find Reviews by Make:
Hot on the heels of TTAC’s article on buying a used BMW, we have KBB (via AutoSpies) suggesting that some cars, like the Subaru Impreza, are actually cheaper to own if you buy them brand-new. The numbers are subject to debate but the concept is interesting…
94 Comments on “When Is It Cheaper To Buy A New Car?...”
Read all comments
I would agree. At least you have the warranty in the first few years. After that, you’re taking a big chance with Subaru.
I’ve owned a few Subarus since 1981, the last being a 1999 Outback wagon bought used with 84k on it. Here’s a summary of my problems with the ‘99, in just 30k miles:
Bad chassis vibration at 3000RPM.
A/C compressor fried, contaminating the whole system.
Transmission leaks, corrosion of filter/body, and in the end, poor shifting.
Rear wiper froze up.
Weird, snap oversteer at a certain steering input, like you crossed a fulcrum.
Aluminum wheels that leaked air.
Mileage drops 20% in cold weather.
Poor cold driveability.
Speedometer works intermittently.
Dash lights burned out.
Power window switches failed.
Seat bolster’s foam crumbled.
AWD system is simply FWD till the fronts spin enough, offering no directional stability in snow.
Rear liftgate handle corrodes and become inoperative.
Subaru, like VWs I’ve owned, seems to have hit-or-miss reliability. If the overall fleet-score is better than average, then that means there’s a lot of lemons being suffered out there. Too much risk for me; I’m done with Subaru. While the car was fun to drive, and had great steering feel, I’ll never suffer this Subaru-crap ever again. I’ve had it with them.
Many (though not all) of these sound like they are related to general maintenance items that were neglected before your purchase.
I bet if you had owned it since new, it would have had far fewer issues at this point.
What deferred maintenance? Did someone forget to top up the dash light fluid, or to lubricate the window switch bearings? Other than the transmission/AC issues and the fuel economy/drivability situation, these are not things that should be maintenance items at any time before 110K.
I too know many people who have been happy with their Subaru purchases, but none of them kept the car for more than 70K or so. I agree that his experience is just one data point, but if it happened to me, I wouldn’t be rushing back to the brand either.
These are all guesses from a non-scooby owner. I bet if you hit the forums all could be answered within 20 minutes.
Bad chassis vibration at 3000RPM. – Motor/tranny mounts need to be replaced and were not
Transmission leaks, corrosion of filter/body, and in the end, poor shifting. – driven in salt, not washed
Rear wiper froze up. – driven in salt, not washed
Aluminum wheels that leaked air. – driven in salt, not washed
Dash lights burned out. – change them
Power window switches failed. – windows left open in rain
Seat bolster’s foam crumbled. – previous owner, fat guy
Rear liftgate handle corrodes and become inoperative. – driven in salt, not washed.
I don’t agree. Subaru’s poor design culture transcends new or used (I’ve owned both). From the February 2011 Car and Driver: “Testing Subaru’s Legacy 2.5GT Limited has proven frustrating. And expensive. In its initial acceleration runs, our first GT sheared a half-shaft. Once repaired, the car made a second appearance, and a second half-shaft was bifurcated.”
I dont see $8000 worth of work in your list of issues. Most of them seem like nothing more than annoyances from the car not being taken very good care of. What did you do, run to the dealer and pay full price for them to fix everything?
Well, you’ve told us all this tragic tale many times before. Apparently it was a life-changing event, and you are unable to expunge your anger adequately for some reason or another.
My experience with Subaru has been exactly the opposite, and I mean diametrically opposite. I’m an extremely happy Subaru camper. The latest Consumer Reports lists Subaru as their top automaker. Check out True Delta as well. Face it, you bought a second-hand car that was a dud. Nothing more, nothing less.
– You are correct; it was a life-changing event. I think the memory of $8000 wasted in 30k miles does leave an emotional impression on any normal person (sans the most fervent Subaru-Failure Apologist). I understand used cars are a chance, but still, in my sizeable history of new/used/long-term/high-mileage ownership, this Subaru is the worst I’ve ever owned. Period.
– Since Subaru seems to attract a notable share of the “gosh it broke, it’s okay, just fix it crowd,” I’m not surprised that Subaru keeps an undeserved halo (my opinion) in a cult book like CR. Disagreeing with that, is the JD Power’s dependability study, where Subaru does no better than hovering around middle of the pack, and is currently below average.
– In person, by random encounter, I like to ask other’s opinions on their older Subarus. For those vehicles out of warranty, the results are about 40% horror stories like mine. Next at 30% are those with dismay and resignation about the Subaru (lack of) durability. Like… “Oh, the car’s okay, now that they’ve replaced the blown engine,” which a nice San Francisco hotel patron said to me a couple years ago about their late 90s Outback.
– I was a Subaru fan until my ’99 Subaru Outcash lemon, one owner, purchased less than three years old in pristine condition, by the way. I’m not in the camp of being a Subaru-Failure Apologist , but am I too harsh or unfair? I’m judging my lemon ’99 Subaru Outcash based on my significant personal history of both used and new purchases, long-term ownership with either, for both Subaru and nonSubaru brands, knowing how to maintain cars better than 90% of the population.
@wmba:
Give the guy a break. I had a similar series of problems with a 2001 Volkswagen Jetta, and sour grapes really are warranted. Spending $7k on one car over one year is a reason to:
a) Swear off everything from that manufacturer (VAG in my case).
b) Sell the car in the most ethical way available.
c) Complain about the specific technical/service issues publicly, so that the manufacturer will get the feedback (most manufacturers don’t want to hear from owners directly).
d) Dissuade others from buying similar cars.
Yes, when there are millions of a car in the world, there will be a long tail containing a few lemons. But how bad are the lemons, and what percentage of cars end up in those long tails? Even Toyota turns out a lemon now and then, but not nearly as many as Volkswagen.
I’ve owned a number of cars, and most of them haven’t been exceptionally reliable, and I enjoy the act of maintenance. The Honda Accord and Toyota Prius have defined “exceptionally reliable” to me. The Ford Ranger that I owned defined “average reliability” and “great maintainability”. The Ford Tempo and the Volkswagen Jetta that I’ve owned defined “crap reliability” and “crappier maintainability”.
If you want to saw condescending things these experiences you’re welcome to. But, my response will continue to be “yeah, sour grapes *are* warranted when you get screwed this badly.”
Seriously, the driving experience in my Jetta was great, but the ownership experience was not one that I will ever repeat voluntarily. Contrast that with the Prius: blah driving experience, WONDERFUL ownership experience. The Prius has been a reliable car that is backed by good service on those rare occasions when need it. A check over tdiclub.com and priuschat.com suggests that my experiences aren’t too far from the norm. Guess which car we’ll consider owning again? Sour grapes, indeed. Rational, repeatable, responsible sour grapes.
Reliability on our 8 year old Subaru wagon (bought new) has been quite average, despite almost pure city driving and bad luck with minor accidents. It’s certainly not a match for a Corolla of similar age.
We’d probably buy another, though I’d either give the CVT a few more years to see how reliability shakes out or buy a manual.
Stop me when you’ve heard this one. Oh wait, I have heard this one about 10 times before. Do you just have this pasted to your clipboard and paste it into any kind of Subaru related article you can find?
I bought a similar vintage Subaru to yours, but it’s a ’96 LSi wagon with nearly 200k on the clock and it had gone through quite a bit of neglect and abuse, which I was fully aware of as I picked it up for a grand and proceeded to fix its known issues.
I broke the A/C condenser pulling the engine to replace the headgaskets and do a reseal kit, so that was my own doing, but other than that, working on it was a breeze. I did replace a front CV joint, because the boot tore when the car was jacked up for about two weeks with the wheels turned to the right to gain access to some fasteners to loosen the transmission to remove the engine.
My aluminum wheels leaked too, and you wanna know why? Because nobody bothered to clean the bead off when changing tires. I had a set of winter tires mounted on them and had the beads polished and bead sealant applied, no more leaky wheels.
My rear wiper didn’t freeze up, but the spring rusted out, so I yanked a wiper assembly off of an Outback at a pick ‘n pull. Problem solved.
The dash light behind my HVAC burnt out. I drive with the lights on a lot, so I wonder how many hours that bulb behind there had before it burnt out. I have the switched memorized now. Big whoop.
Mileage drops quite a bit on lots of cars, and Subaru’s are no exception. Drivetrain drag can be worsened by colder temperatures, but it’s the payoff for being able to drive sideways around corners at full opposite lock after it snows. I have no idea what kind of FWD bias issue you were experiencing or why, but it sounds unusual and it sounds like you have really weird driving habits of you have snap oversteer that often.
I have an 09 legacy and I find the handling to be unpredictable sometimes. It has tons of grip but when it lets go it does so suddenly. Also, getting back to the original article, it was purchased new for $18,500 out the door. And the mileage is terrible, ~27-28 with 100% highway driving. And the motor ate itself at 30k.
In his defense, lift-off snap oversteer is a known Subaru handling trait/fault. Consumer Reports noted it on several examples of both the Legacy & Outback including the current generation. It still occurs until stability control kicks in to keep it in check, but not before the tail starts to wander.
Throttle liftoff oversteer happens with any kind of full time AWD vehicle. If you lift off as the vehicle begins to lose traction, you have to put your foot in it to keep the car going straight.
That goes against just about every kind of natural instinct you have when driving, but pinning it to win it when the back end comes around will bring the car out of it.
Maybe Subaru designed too many rally racing traits into the car, because it feels perfect to me.
The lift-off over steer issue seems more prevalent with Subaru’s system and I am not sure why. I would say it is a flaw for a DD because a laypersons natural reaction to an emergency is to stop adding speed and cover and/or apply the brakes. That is why I hate when my fellow Subaru owners repeat the “AWD=safety” market speak.
Weird driving habits? Mr. Corners At Full Opposite Lock After It Snows?
Thanks for the paste-able list of “normal” failures.
Just wanted to say you’re not the only one with a host of issues with a ’99 Outback. Mine was higher mileage (150k) than yours but my issues were both less numerous but more critical.
The first one was the headgasket blew on the drive home from the purchase. That was fun. Also seems to be a very common issue on the 2.5 DOHC engine, but no official recall/TSB has ever come forth from Subaru. Instead they’ve revised the head gasket design eleven times and now require the use of a “coolant conditioner” every 30k. Per the forums (take it or leave it) this coolant conditioner is little more than Subaru-branded stop leak. Awesome. Normally I’d attribute HG issues with previous-owner maintenance but this appears to be a design flaw that Subaru wishes to broom under the rug. They still have HG issues, and I not that the new 2.5 in the Impreza and Forester now has seperate coolant circuits for the head and the block. I guess the fix was to just avoid the issue entirely.
I had other issues that were due to previous owner neglect so I won’t get into them here. The head gasket blew again a year later and I couldn’t get rid of that car fast enough.
It made me sad, really. I love the idea of a boxer, AWD station wagon but the execution left me wary. I understand the gamble of buying used cars but my experiences at the Subaru dealership (ordering incorrect parts 3x despite me giving them the part number, them mocking me for wanting to fix my car myself instead of paying them over $3000 for the head gasket fix, throwing a fit when I pointed out their parts are listed cheaper on their own website for order and customer pickup than ordering over the phone, etc) combined with Subaru’s general lack of concern or care to fix the experience issues has made me extremely wary of buying a new one.
I always thought trailing throttle oversteer was only available in Porsche rear drive 911s. How can a AWD car have TTOS?
Purely anecdotal, but a friend of mine just bought an outback, about 5 years old. She had it about a week before it was in the shop for a new head gasket.
That’s interesting that your ’99 Outback was so unreliable. I bought a ’98 Outback in 2005 with 147k from the original owner. I had the following issues within the first year of owning it:
– The clutch slave cylinder went out ($400 in parts & labor to fix)
– A knock sensor needed to be replaced ($200).
Otherwise, the car needed nothing but normal maintenance (by the book, done at the dealer or independent Subaru-only repair shops) and consumables. The interior held up really well in the 4.5 years and 66,000 miles I drove in it, and I never had a dash light burn out – coming from Volvo & Saab, this was a revelation that stuff like that simply didn’t have to happen with cars.
Also, my car had a 5-speed manual, with a 50/50 default torque split so that explains why the AWD in my car never felt like it was on hiatus.
Snap oversteer? I’d throw my car around corners with the tires howling in protest and at the limit, it would just understeer in a controlled manner. Maybe there was something seriously screwed up with your car’s alignment or chassis.
Also, my wife owned a 2000 Outback sedan with the automatic and cold weather package from 2007 to 2011, which did even better in the snow than my car (thanks rear limited slip diff) and never felt directionally unstable with Michelin all-seasons. That car was super reliable too; nothing broke and it was only traded for a new Mini because my wife grew to dislike the lousy turning radius and numb handling.
Sam P, thank you for an intelligent, counterpoint response. For Subaru to maintain the, ahem, “glow” that it does, not to mention sales to fill one whole assembly plant in the US, I am sure that some are very (unusually?) reliable. But to repeat myself (again), I think a lot of Subaru lemons are suffered to bring the brand to just average in JD Power.
On the snap-oversteer, a clarification: this is not the same as lift-throttle oversteer. The snap-oversteer was in steady-state cornering on new tires on damp roads. And if I was to point to anything, it was when the inertia of the vehicle had fully been affected by taking the corner. Dangerous as heck, speaking from the ex-autocrosser I am. Of course, I must have done something wrong by driving it…
This doesn’t make sense. One lemon with an unknown history is a more reliable sample than thousands of Subaru owners surveyed in multiple surveys (not just Consumer Reports, but also TrueDelta)?
Also, JD Power has several “quality” surveys, one of which is “initial quality” and merely measures satisfaction immediately after the purchase, not long-term reliability. Be careful.
I read that LONG BMW article, and I think your friend made the correct decision.
I don’t think the costs between an used BMW and a new Impreza/Corolla/Focus/Cruze/Civic/Elantra/lo-que-sea are remotely comparable. The BMW is a much more complex vehicle and being from a prestige brand will surely command higher prices, just for the parts.
I don’t think you can compare a 5 series with a mainstream C segment car. I may be wrong.
I had bought a new 2008 WRX STI, and I doubt that I will ever own another Subaru. Gas mileage was terrible. Maintenance was high, and its performance did not begin to approximate the true cost of owning it. If it had had 500 whp, it might have been worth the cost. It didn’t, and it wasn’t.
If you own an STI, you probably drive it like an STI, meaning you will absolutely shatter (downward) the epa gas mileage. What did you expect?
Second, Suburu has been nailing reliability for the last several years, coming in second behind Honda for non-luxury marks (lexus) if I’m not mistaken
Wrong. Trying to get acceptable mileage, I drove it moderately at first. Realizing that that wasn’t enough, I then hyper-miled it. Twice it got better than the predicted highway mileage, but every other time it was way below predicted highway mileage. By hyper-miling it, I mean that I accelerated so slowly that people passed me (even passing on the road shoulder) honking, shaking a fist, swearing, and flashing their lights. Doing all that and attaining a top speed of 45-50 mph, I might if lucky get 20 mpg. Anything over 55 mph, and I’d get 16 mpg (and this is with 14,000+ miles on it). In town it was good for 13 mpg when driven as if by a ninety year old. I traded it just short of 15,000 miles.
What did I expect? Well, my 2007 MS3 was good for 31 mpg with moderate highway driving, and it had a hyper-mile best of 37 mpg (at 60 mph for round trip of 360 miles Interstate). So, I expected to get 25 on the highway and 17-18 in town for the STI.
“I expected to get 25 on the highway and 17-18 in town for the STI.”
You expected to beat the EPA rating of 17/23, and are surprised that you didn’t?
It takes all kinds to make an internet.
you bought an AWD souped up sports car, and bitch about high maintenance and gas mileage? do yourself and the world a favor and buy a toyota camry.
I agree, I am seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance in PaulVincent’s post. I mean who buys a b411s out sports car and expects or even cares about gas mileage?
With Audi claiming that AWD doesn’t hurt fuel economy because of reduced rolling resistance and everyone else claiming turbocharging is a way of saving gas, I can see how expectations might not have aligned with reality.
FYI, 305 fwhp is not souped up. My brother’s 507 hp 4,200 pound Merc station wagon got as good of mileage, and he always had his foot in it too (ultimate sleeper). In addition, his 2006 Ford GT easily got better mileage than the STI, and he always had his foot in it (Ford GT) too. I was with him once when he did it. 270 miles round trip with several 80-160 mph runs, and it got 21 mpg. Otherwise it would get 23 or better.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a 4-cylinder performance car to get reasonable fuel mileage. A LT1-powered mid-90s Caprice can bang out 18/25mpg quite easily, and late-model Corvettes even better.
My good friend had a stock Miata, and it would barely get 25mpg on the highway. Huh? Our 4400lb Odyssey “mini”van gets that!
My 2005 STi with 20-25% light city driving and 75-80% highway yields mixed 23-24. I received VASTLY different (worse) gas mileage if I shifted at 3000rpm vs 2000-2500.
I have a scanguage and on level ground at 40mph in 6 I can get ~ 35+.
A believable ownership description.
Your hypermiling technique for acceleration sounds incorrect. You should be briskly accelerating up to an optimal cruising speed (usually around 55 or so) then maintain momentum from there. That way, you spend as little fuel as possible to achieve acceleration. Very light throttle openings and slow acceleration would probably hurt your gas mileage more than improve it.
That said, STIs are genuinely bad on fuel. A friend of mine with an 08 would get 22~23 mpg on long drives between San Francisco and Portland. He ended up borrowing an 02 E55 AMG to make that trip a few times, and it would consistently get about 3-4 mpg better, in much more comfort.
Looks like the idea is that some cars hold their value so well it’s not much of a stretch to go new. I was shopping for a new car in 2003, I was looking at Honda’s, the cost of a used Honda with 60,000 miles was so close to that of a new one it didn’t make sense to buy used.
With gas prices going up the used car values of efficient/small cars goes up with it, in addition to the used car market being already high, maybe buying new for a number of makes/models makes more sense.
If the price of New v. Used is similar do you end up saving more buying new because a) you have a warranty for the odd problem that may or may not crop up and b) the financing for new cars tends to be better (read: lower interest rates)?
It all depends how long you intend to keep the car.
Us? When we bought our 2002 CR-V and 2004 Impala, these were/are intended to be AT LEAST ten-year cars as ownership goes. So far, the Honda will be ten years old in late May. The Impala will be eight at that time.
We maintain our cars by the book, and the Impala has been just as reliable as the Honda. Of course, we’re older than most commenters on here, and as you age, you become easier on a car so they do last longer.
For us, at least, we got our money’s worth out of our purchases, and neither one of us has gotten tired of our cars, yet.
Is it much asking to avoid converting this into a Subaru/BMW/GM/lo-que-sea you had before bash fest?
It happens whenever a Chevette shows up, when a Pinto shows up, when… well you get the idea.
This makes sense. Some cars hold their value quite well and remain expensive used. Also, if you plan to finance you can get much better deals on financing if you buy new. You have to decide if the depreciation hit is worth the gamble of not knowing how the car was treated after it left the lot. I’ve heard enough stories and have had enough personal experience to have a hard time buying a used car ever again.
I love the idea of owning a Subaru, but I certainly wouldn’t own one without a warranty, and would never own one of the open deck blocks. I I feel like they have made some serious mis-steps in the last few years by killing off most of their manuals (which is required for the good AWD system) and going more towards CVTs as well as giant sizing the outback and the forester. Also their boxers are great, but a little underpowered and still have a bad reputation due to head gasket and timing belt failures. Subaru offers some outstanding options such as a real high low transfer case and boxer diesels for the rest of the world while the United States gets screwed again. Bring back the BRAT! The Baja was an abomination.
My 2003 “abomination” has served me quite well. It’s close to 125K miles and I’m getting 25 mpg combined highway/city driving.
If one flogs a ride like a rented mule, one will get dog-food additive.
Buying a car is like buying a pair of shoes. First – they must FIT.
If you buy shoes while you are still growing, then it doesn’t matter how well made or expensive your shoes are – you will not be able to get your money’s worth out of them when you grow out of them. Many men and women buying cars are in the growing stage of life. They are settling down and making families. As this process occurs, they will discover that what fit their lifestyles before kids, while having small kids, with growing teens, etc – will no longer fit, regardless of make, model or cost.
So this argument is only valid if you are no longer experiencing life changes. You cannot keep a vehicle as long as you like unless your life won’t be impacting your auto needs.
Brand, reliability, cost, maintainance, financing costs, don’t matter if you discover that your ideal purchase is too small when your wife tells you that you’ve got multiple births coming.
We all read about a man who bought a $60,000 vehicle whose life changed so that he couldn’t keep it. There are many seniors who have to turn in their keys while driving perfectly fine Camrys, Corollas, Civics and Accords – you know, old people’s cars. It doesn’t matter if your life changes as most of our lives will.
So, if you are an empty nester, a no nester, never intend to nester, then you can probably benefit from this advice. As for the rest of us, eh – whatever.
Excellent post, Dude. People maybe don’t take sufficient account of changing life circumstances, which can make what appeared to be a wise purchase, an unfortunate one.
Then there are those of us who have no desire for rugrats, and can buy whatever we want within financial reason.
I would be firmly in that camp. However, I still like the versatility of wagons/hatches because I have stuff to haul, it’s just not crappy kid stuff. ;)
Then by all means, don’t go forth and multiply!
Then when you die, all your stuff goes to my rugrats, grand rugrats and great grand rugrats! The good thing about evolution is that the nonreproductive don’t contribute to our species.
Unless they’re your teacher, boss, or foster parent. That was a really foolish thing to say, and it doesn’t even hold true for most animals let alone humans.
Last time I checked, VD, you weren’t in my will. My wife and relatives (who fortunately do not include you) are.
It doesn’t matter what you think. You’re otta here and you’re leaving no one behind.
The future belongs to those who are there.
Enjoy your stuff! Your portrait will probably end up hanging in a Cracker Barrel seventy years from now staring down at a bunch of my offspring wondering who the hell you were.
“Then when you die, all your stuff goes to my rugrats, grand rugrats and great grand rugrats!”
Don’t care.
What does it matter to me what happens to my “stuff” after I’m done?
If the best reason to have kids is that they might inherit some strangers crap 3 generations hence, count me out.
In the meantime, I’ll be spending my life doing things that I enjoy much more than exciting kid-centric activities such as selecting my vehicle based on “family” concerns and routinely handling paper bags full of excrement.
“In the meantime, I’ll be spending my life doing things that I enjoy much more than exciting kid-centric activities such as selecting my vehicle based on “family” concerns and routinely handling paper bags full of excrement.”
This +1000.
Most of my peers who have kids are financially strapped, extremely stressed out, and unhappy.
I don’t have those concerns.
I’m quite enjoying my vasectomy. Best $500 I’ve ever spent. No kids. Ever. If reproducing is the definition of contributing to a world that still has war, hate, starvation, and death, I can’t say I’m doing a disservice to my potential offspring that will suffer the same existence we have.
On a more positive note, just bought a Mustang project car. Thanks again planned parenthood for clipping my dudes.
Thanks VD for verifying my opinion that having children is one of the most selfish things one can do. If one is compelled to force themselves through the process of child rearing, there are millions of orphans throughout the world who would love to have parents.
Do I sense smugness? I mean, it’s great you made the decision best for you, but…
I agree with Marcelo.
Kids are not the only life change that can happen. A job and resulting commute change can really impact your driving. My neighbor’s job change resulted in the amount of miles he drives quadrupling; away went the F150, in came the Corolla.
Stuff happens, especially when you think it won’t or can’t. BTW, 50% of pregnancies are not planned.
OMG, lots of people here talking through their asses. Sigh
I would agree. Especially the one claiming their reason for having children is so their spawn can lay claim to my crap after I’m dead.
Ay Marcelo, tu no has visto nada todavia. Vanilla Dude is so fucking right.
The people that today feels “morally superior” for not having kids is the one that will be whingeing in the future when their governments have to open the immigration valves to allow people in to make sustain the system. Or when they find their ethnic group is a minority as a result of their current BS.
I for instance love the “crappy kids stuff” available nowadays. The toys are absolutely AWESOME, the diapers work like magic, the car chairs have even iPod connection… and watching this little kid grow, learn and develop new skills is one of the greatest things I’ve experienced in life.
And we will “order” another one.
Being a parent doesn’t have anything to do with being selfish. One only have to follow JB articles to see how his point of view are changing.
@Athos Nobile
“Being a parent doesn’t have anything to do with being selfish.”
And yet your entire argument is filled with nothing selfish reasons to have children.
This is an aberration. The linked article specifically compares a new 2012 n/a Impreza with a 2011 n/a Impreza. The only reason new is cheaper, in this case, is the 8mpg mixed-driving improvement between model years.
The TTAC image is a bit disingenuous–or funny if you look at it a different way. The TTAC image is of the 2011-2012 WRX, which gets horrible gas mileage. My own 2011 gets about 18 city, 26 highway–and I don’t care, because it is awesome. The 2012 WRX is unchanged.
2009 was when you could buy a new car cheaper than you could buy it used a year later.
anyone recommending buying a new car versus a used car, no matter the justification in the end is just a car salesman in disguise.
Dealers make way more money selling used cars.
You wouldn’t believe how happy the salesmen would be after they sold a used Chrysler Sebring purchased from the dealer auctions. The dealer would get them for about $8,500 and sell them for $13,000 to $14,000.
The salesmen would only get “mini” commissions the few times they actually sold a new Sebring.
I can believe it. I sold cars one summer in college. One of them was a Maxima wagon that went for $7,000 and cost the dealership something in the teens of hundreds of dollars. The commission would have been thousands if I hadn’t been on training wages. I also sold a new Colt for $7,000. A full commission salesman would have made $50 on it.
There are many factors that go into answering this question. If you are a used car buyer who shops older less popular vehicles (say your looking at 5+ year old Panthers or W-bodys) in my area they’re still cheap. However if your trying to buy something just a year or two old with say 30,000 or less miles your not going to save enough money to make it worth it.
As posters have brought up in the past it also depends on how long you keep vehicles and what sort of financing you can secure. A colleauge of mine is condidering trading her few year old Ford Edge (with 80,000 miles) which is still not paid off because she’s one of those buyers who takes the longest loan terms at the lowest monthly payment she can afford and then, wouldn’t you know it, the loan isn’t paid off when she’s read to trade so she “rolls” it over into the next loan…
This is thought provoking and honestly I had hoped to see more of Jack’s thoughts.
I just went through it and decided to buy new. I had a Miata that I leased in 1996. Because it was a three year lease and a toy car I got a totally base model: steelies, black plastic/cloth interior and top, cassette radio, no ABS, etc., figuring I’d get rid of it after the lease so I didn’t want to spend too much on it.
Then after the lease was up I bought it off the lease because it was such a great car. Unfortunately, I wrecked it last month. In replacing it I was looking at 2-3 year old Miatas but decided to get new because while it was more expensive it wasn’t THAT much more expensive and I could get exactly what I want.
After all the only regret I ever had in my 16 years of ownership of the previous one was that I didn’t spend a few $K more in 1996 and get exactly what I wanted. I ended up spending money here and there over time to upgrade the wheels, top, stereo, etc. I cheaped out when I first leased because I didn’t think I’d keep it that long. Now I know better and adjust accordingly on the replacement.
This is actually a pretty complicated calculation, with lots of idiosyncratic, important variables.
The first is, if you’re going to finance or lease the car, rather than pay cash. Typically, new car loan interest rates are lower than used car interest rates. And, if the manufacturer is trying to move the metal without putting cash on the hood, it may buy down interest rates to zero (or do subsidized leasing). Advantage: new car.
The second is, how long are you going to keep the car? Generally, if you only want to keep the car 3 years, a 2-year old used car is a better deal unless it’s a repair queen. You avoid the initial steep depreciation, but if the car’s a repair queen, you risk higher repair costs once the car is out of warranty. This is where good CPO programs (which extend the new car warranty a couple of years) make sense. Advantage: used car.
The third is, how much are you going to drive the car? If you’re a low-annual mileage driver like I am (6,000/yr.) buying a 2-3 year old car, even if you plan to keep it ten years, makes more sense than buying a new car.
OTOH, buying a used car is not a free lunch. If you buy a used car with 36,000 miles on it, that’s 36,000 miles of wear on the car, no matter how reliable, “bullet-proof,” etc. That’s why the car is cheaper than a new one of the same make and model. So, it seems to me if you drive 12,000-15,000 miles a year and plan to keep your car 8-10 years, you are better off driving a new car. The extra 36,000 miles of wear on the 3 year old used car will make a difference to you, and the advantage of being able to maintain the car correctly and drive it sanely (and not abusively) are available only for the new car.
And, I’m assuming an apples-to-apples comparison: that is, the same make and model used vs. new.
AS for the OP’s bad experience with his Subaru, I would say when you buy any car with that kind of mileage on it, you are buying a big unknown, having nothing to do with the brand’s reputation for quality: you are buying how the previous owner(s) drove and maintained the car, and where they drove it.
The only advantage is that once a car has been on the market for several years (and if there are enough of them out there), the car’s inherent weaknesses become known: e.g. the fragile cooling systems on early 2000s BMW 6-cylinder engines. So, if you buy a used one of those, find out whether the cooling system components: water pump, radiator, thermostat, expansion tank (and hoses, of course) have been replaced. If they haven’t, then figure on a $2,000 repair in the near future.
Similarly, there are obvious used cars of which you should watch out for: performance modified cars, cars that are likely to have been tracked (e.g. manufacturer- performance variants, such as BMW Ms, Benz AMGs, etc.)
Bruce, I’m with you on moderate to high annual mileage and long ownership making a new car the right choice.
We’ve been in that pattern over the years and the new cars we’ve bought have served us well over 8 to 12 years of ownership, selling at near 125K miles.
Among the sincere replies to the OP, I’m amused by responses to folks who post issues with their Subarus.
Responses like “what did you expect” and “my similarly-aged car didn’t have any issues” reveal expectations for any Japanese vehicle to be flawless are not true. Not that it matters what their actual experience is, the expectations are such that folks feel these cars will exceed them in every possible understanding of the word “exceed”.
You pays your money, you takes your chances.
Every time I made the calculation, I bought new. For a popular or desirable model, late model used cars are not a bargain. It is a myth, probably based on reality decades ago, that a new car loses “25-33%” as soon as you drive it off the lot. Maybe if you count taxes and fees on top of the purchase price vs. lowball trade in offers it may be right, but that is not the same as the purchase price of a used car.
After three years a typical modern car is just getting ready for new tires and maybe brakes. The powertrain warranty is still in force, but the bumper to bumper one just expired. CPO covers some of these items, but raises the purchase price $1-2k.
Last new car purchase was a Honda Fit, not an Impala or other rental queen, which do depreciate much faster. Two year old Fits, that didnt have a bad Carfax or ultra-high miles were priced within
$2k of new. If I wanted to unload the Fit today, after two years and only 18,000 miles, with a private party sale, my depreciation is almost zero.
The only advantage with any new car (except safety, and luckily, most of us never use our crumple zones or airbags(knock on wood)) is a somewhat exaggerated certainty that it will be near trouble-free during it’s warranty time. Imho spending money on cars is just that, spending money. And on new cars it’s worse. It’s like burning dollar bills to keep warm… But, if you have money to spend, and get an aneurism thinking about wrenches, DIY guides, searching for cheap parts off fleebay etc, it may well be worth it. Too some people at least…
Here’s my story of why I bought new over used:
I was in the market for a commuter car a few years back. I wanted something reliable, inexpensive to maintain, and something that could get me 30+ mpg. I ended up buying a leftover 2010 Civic. It’s not the most desirable combination (auto, coupe, LX trim) and 6 of the 7 local Honda dealers still had leftovers in stock in Jan 2011. I did two rounds of “what’s your lowest out the door price” with the dealers and walked out with it financed for 0.9% over 60 months.
I have had zero problems since I bought the car, still have two years left on the factory warranty, and unlike with a used car, I know everything has been done right since day one. I am confident I could still be commuting to work with this car 15 years after it’s been paid off. Or I could sell it at any time for more than is owed on it. Not trying to pat myself on the back, but I don’t see how I could have done better buying used.
I think the Wrangler and Tacoma are better bought new. They just don’t seem to depreciate fast enough that you’d really want to bother with a used one.
““I expected to get 25 on the highway and 17-18 in town for the STI.”
You expected to beat the EPA rating of 17/23, and are surprised that you didn’t?
It takes all kinds to make an internet.” Yes, it takes all kind – even a smug kind such as yourself. Twenty-three’s the highway mpg for the 2012 version, and it was not for the 2008. It was suppose to get 25 on the highway. Regardless, I have never had another car where hyper-miling it failed to yield superior mpg than what the EPA certified. In addition, the majority of driving was in town, and the EPA figures (17) were never close to being achieved. Notice that I haven’t mentioned the extremely cheap seating, overly heavy wheels, or terrible paint (like a nineteen sixties paint quality – impossible to get clean in a car wash under any circumstances).
“Twenty-three’s the highway mpg for the 2012 version, and it was not for the 2008.”
Er, no.
______________________
2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI: Fuel Economy Update
Official EPA estimate: 17 mpg city/ 23 mpg highway
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2008/07/2008-subaru-impreza-wrx-sti-fuel-economy-update.html
If you’re buying an STI for it’s seats, interior, or paint you’re ‘doing it wrong’. You buy a WRX/STI for the suspension, chassis, and drivetrain. period.
If you’re expecting luxury interiors, rattle free driving, nice paint, basically any sort of amenities at all you need to look at either the Legacy if you really must have a Scooby, or something like an Audi/BMW/Lexus if you want the same performance level and AWD, but then the price is $$$.
The fact that you were even trying to hyper-mile your STI makes me laugh. I am glad you sold it, that car deserves to go to a driver who appreciates it.
It depends on the car. Entry level sporty cars like the WRX or Mustang GT should never be purchased used. Chances are they have been abused, modified, raced or all three.
Likewise, some entry level economy cars depreciate so slowly that it makes no sense to buy them used.Take advantage of low finance offers and buying them new is sometimes the better way to go.
However, other cars like Porsche 911s, Boxters and Caymans should only be purchased used. They are generally low mileage cars with older owners and have the kind of depreciation that makes good economic sense for the second owner.
Used cars generally also only make sense when you buy private. Used car dealers have a hefty mark up and add very little value. A private sale will also yield useful information about the cars former owner and how they treated the car.
Agree 100%.
We bought our 2007 MX5 used – 15K miles – in May, 2010, with three months’ factory warranty left. These cars are pretty much toys and are treated as such. Day-to-day drivers, not so much.
I saved money once buying a new Dakota vs keeping my 6 year old Ranger. The Ranger had reached the point were I was paying for costly repairs on a monthly basis just to keep the vehicle functional: fuel injectors, cruise control, A/C, etc. Other cosmetic items were on their last legs: the paint was fading, the rims needed refurbishing, bed liner was cracked, etc. Putting money into such an older vehicle stops making sense once you enter this money pit stage. The problem is all these repairs weren’t effecting the vehicles value since it was already too old and too far gone to be worth much anyway.
It really depends on how well the vehicle in question is holding its value. The trick is buying at point where the depreciation levels off, this way you can buy a lightly used (read: like new) ride, drive for a few years and then sell it on at a nearly the same price you paid. The wife’s Volvo C30 and my Nissan 350Z seem to work this way. New they are both expensive, but used they are a good value. Both are in excellent condition almost indistinguishable from new, yet we paid HALF what a brand new model goes for. Like someone once said – the best value in a used car is the Acura NSX since it hardly changed over the years: thus nobody knows your driving a 15 year old car.
Sometimes luck is a factor. My sister bought a first generation xB in its last year of production. When the next generation came out, all the Scion fanboys declared it ugly. Only the first generation was worthy of their hipster adulation. Suddenly, my sister’s xB was used car gold. She traded it for a new one and got cash back. And she liked the new one better.
I believe Steven Lang said something along the lines of “unless you know the prior owner, buying a used car is akin to buying a total stranger” recently. I could not agree more. As a used turbo Subaru owner, I’m losing patience with drivability issues and nickel & dime repairs that seem to happen weekly.
That said, its problems seem to disappear when powering thru a snowy corner or rocketing past a “convoy” while still in the entrance lane. And previous posts about fuel economy concerns with turbo Subarus? Surely you jest…
Well, let’s look at it from a basic economics POV:
Let’s assume used cars are a better value (better cost/worth ratio, not just lower cost) than new cars.
If that is true, then there is room for the price to go up. If they really are a better deal, the buyer will pay that extra amount because it will still be cheaper than the new car. When it is no longer cheaper, the buyer won’t buy. Similarly, new cars won’t sell for too much because the buyer will get a used car.
However, there is emotional value to a new car, e.g., not having to worry about what someone else has done to/in it. New cars will thus carry a premium equal to that value. So, the question is how much is that value? IMO, I don’t think it’s very much for most people, which means new and used are much closer in value terms than most people realize.
I will say that from my own, non-scientific experience, I don’t see devout used-car buyers getting ahead compared to new car buyers. Rather, it’s the people who take care of whatever they buy and keep it longer than everyone else who get ahead. But that’s just my observation; YMMV.
I think your analysis is exactly right– it’s a very good way of thinking about the issue.
The only other thing I would add– and this is where used cars typically edge ahead in the analysis– is the cost of options. Few of us buy a basic stripper model anymore, and since options depreciate much faster than the rest of the car, buying a luxed-up late model used car is typically more favorable financially than buying a brand new one.
For example: in 1998, I could buy a barebones BMW 318ti with a four-cylinder, cloth seats, no sunroof, a wimpy stereo, and dog dish wheels for $23k, or a ritzy 323is with the straight-six, sunroof, leather, a premium stereo, the sport package and BBS alloys for about $36k. (That’s a difference of 56%!)
Today, fourteen years later, the difference between the two is likely about $500, a measly 14% over the current value of the 318ti. I think that the “look at my new ride, y’all” factor that some people are willing to pay extra for is derived heavily from new bells and whistles; when that factor is gone, those bells and whistles plummet in value.
Jack Baruth for the win. Less than 60 words including title, 80 comments and counting. And it didn’t even read as trolling this time. It always looks effortless when the pro’s do it.
Still love ya’ Jack. keep it coming.
I read all the comments up to this point and the Subie-bashers are wrong.
I have no doubt that THEIR experiences are real but there are a lot of Subies in use in my area of the Sacramento Mountains, and by a lot I mean hundreds, of all vintages.
At many ski-resorts here that’s all they use because Subies are the only vehicles that move during heavy snow falls. Subies are how the snowplow drivers get to work.
I’ve owned a few used ones and it never ceases to amaze me how brain-dead the former owners were by not doing standard maintenance on the Subies.
“Driven on salted roads and not washed” does an awful lot of damage to ANY vehicle, no matter who makes it, and Subies are no different.
Generally, a complete inspection twice a year, one before winter and one after, of the underbody and topside will identify what needs to be replaced or repaired. Salt will eat holes in aluminum and steel, in case some of you don’t know.
There are people in my area who have owned their Subie for twenty or more years, ever since they bought it new. One of them is my attorney.
The Subie is not the only car they own but it is the only one that will get them where they need to go when the roads are bad. They may not be equal to BMW but Subies are worthy of anyone’s consideration. And a lot cheaper than a BMW, too.
The snowy mountains are full of Subarus, and only Subaru’s move in the snow? Gosh, they are really magic, aren’t they? “What needs to be replaced and repaired” are the key words here. Subarus appear to have a large sales percentage of lemons who need that activity constantly. Are we to believe that every episode of salt requires washing, and the failure to do so gives license to any failure imaginable? That car isn’t made for the real world. Other manufacturers consider the real world contaminants when creating designs. Maybe Subaru skips the section called “Corrosion Testing?”
Telling the truth does not make a person a “Subie Basher.” I’ve owned cars on Michigan’s salty roads all my life, and if Subarus are fragile in this environment, that is Subaru’s fault.
Here’s another dose of reality:
Excerpts from the Car and Driver, Long Term Test, 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI: “When it comes to evaluating cars, there’s often a very fine line between love and hate.” “It’s been a mere 5500 miles since our last update on the STI, and unfortunately, nearly all those miles have been plagued by engine issues. Our poor little hatch has been to the dealer some eight times with nary a solution yet to be found.” “Our initial love for the STI faded with every trip to the dealer.” “Further, the quick parts and tire wear and massive mechanical failures were enough to drive us batty. If this were our personal car, we can’t even begin to imagine how upset we’d be.” New transmission, new oxygen sensor, new ECU, new engine, new NAV system, new evaporative canister, recall on ECU, … all in the first 40,000 miles.
Detroit-X, during the ’70s I was stationed in Europe with the US military and had purchased a brand new American-made Olds Toronado through the BX system there, for delivery in Antwerp, Belgium.
Beautiful car, but after just one winter of urea and salt it started to rust, in spite of it having been Ziebart undercoated. True story that! Kept it one more year and dumped it on a guy going back stateside.
I also owned a host of USED European cars while there and NONE of them showed any rust over the years. A lot has to do with the annual bumper-to-bumper inspection most countries require for re-registration of cars.
There is no doubt that some Subaru owners have gotten lemons. I have been told by current Subaru owners that the FujiHeavy Subies made in Japan remain the best while the ones made in the US have had more than their share of problems, just like Toyota vehicles made in America, and Honda vehicles made in America. Only Hyundai made in America seems to have beaten the odds of cranking out faulty products from American assembly plants.
Among other vehicles I currently own a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee, and it remains to be seen if it will be as good and as durable as our Japan-built 2008 Highlander has been. But judging from my previous experience with USED Jeeps I have owned over the years, we are bracing ourselves for the worst with our new Grand Cherokee.
However, this does not prevent us from choosing to own one even though we know we have to be on the look out for things that can go wrong with Jeeps and Chrysler products in general. There’s a rich history of that over decades. And we have three years of warranty coverage to ponder whether to trade it after three years for another JGC or maybe buy a Sequoia or ML-class instead.
And so it is with Subies. Many people choose to own them, in spite of the bad experiences you and others may have had. Subies are that good. Like I said, I owned a few used Subies and neglect was the cause for all of the problems I experienced with them.
It would be informative if someone like CR could publish a chart of Subies sold vs Subies with problems, and compare that to domestic cars sold vs domestic cars with problems. Not bashing, just looking for facts.
The latter could account for the mass exodus of American buyers fleeing the domestic manufacturers in favor of the foreign made and transplant assembled, which, incidentally, includes Subaru.
There’s no doubt that Subaru sells a whole lot more product now than they ever did before. That doesn’t happen if Subaru was as bad as some people would like us to believe.
Weirdos buy Subarus.
obbop: I hope your saying this in jest. I think the opposite. Nice people buy them, and they deserve a dependable, reliable vehicle that lasts, and doesn’t cause them to spend their time & money excessively to maintain.
New 1999 Subaru Impreza owned from new, traded at 95,000 miles and 9 and a half-years, $860 in non-wear item repairs lifetime, 23.5 mpg average including 10 minute warmups on winter days by remote. I keep records of every single fill-up. This had the open deck block, Phase 2 SOHC, 2.2 liter. 4 sets of summer tires. A large rear sway bar from a 1998 Outback cured the understeer.
2008 Legacy GT, eats front sway bar bushes, otherwise ok, you can see history on True Delta, 22.5 mpg so far at 46,000 miles. I have used up two sets of summer tires on it so far, despite using winter tires from November to April since January 2008, so tire life is 15k at best, first set the dreaded Potenza RE92, second set Hankook EVO 12 Ventus — I drive hard around corners, folks. New pads all round at 40,000. And I still warm this thing up every winter morning, because I hate getting in a cold car. Just the way it is. Snap oversteer? Well the back end slides out at high lateral g, seems pretty tame to me, but I look after tire pressures. Same characteristic in deep snow at 0.1 g. Apply countersteer and some gas in snow, on asphalt gradually reduce power to get back end in line.
I’d need a book to tell you what the five Audis I owned needed in the way of maintenance before I switched to Subaru.
Never added an extra quart of oil to either car.
Now, I can tell you this, I wouldn’t have a present day Subaru, they’ve become either milquetoast or boy-racerish. But I wouldn’t mind having a go in a BRZ when it comes out even if I am almost 65.
So obbop, I’m a weirdo. Takes one to know one, I guess. The topic here is typical TTAC fare, how to minimize per mile costs by buying secondhand. If you are a car enthusiast, who needs to buy beaters? I want to see what the new car is capable of, not some mournful old wreck. I mean, is this a car enthusiast site or Mimsers International?
According to the NY Times: “mimser was defined as a driver who was terrified of the potential fury of his Austin 7 car.”
highdesertcat:
I certainly believe the Toro vs. the Euro cars in the 70s story. That example dovetails with my point that vehicles can be (should be) designed for the market’s their sold in. During that timeframe in Michigan, my Ford, Subaru, and two Toyotas all rusted like crazy. I think it was the ’80s when things began to improve.
My ’81 Subaru GL 4×4 wagon (bought new) was one of those mixed-feeling experiences, where you like the car and how it drives, but hate the time and money you’re pouring into it. (12/12k warranty, back then.) It took the Michigan Attorney General to force a fix to its hesitation problem, which was band-aided at the carburetor by the Subaru dealer at the expense of dropping my mileage to 17 city, 22 highway (at 55mph).
Still, years later, when I was suddenly desperate for a quick vehicle, I found a ’80 $500 2WD GL wagon with 94k which gave me basic transportation. That Subaru is my fondest memory, probably because it was only $500 and unlike buying new, I got more than I paid for. If this had been my only Subaru experience, I’d feel much better about them. Perhaps the core of the “Subaru reputation” comes from ownership experience like this. Lowered expectations.
In the late ’80s I worked up the courage to buy a used VW Jetta GLI (VW’s reliability was just as spotty then, as now, but they had a 24 month unlimited mileage warranty at the time). In one year, this GLI had a long list of problems to fix under warranty, but it soon got totalled in an accident. So what to do now? I loved driving it, but it was not trouble-free. So here’s a case of being an informed buyer: I bought another GLI, identical, but one year newer, and I took my chances. GLI #2 was excellent, and very trouble free past 110k miles. Go figure. My girlfriend liked it too. She bought a used GLI at 99k miles (which was soaked with thousands of dollars of previous-owner repairs) and drove it past 300k miles with great results. (Funny sideline here: right away it used a quart of oil every 1000 miles, so I only changed the oil filter every 5k; I never drained the oil. From 100k to 300k+ miles, no problems. She sold it to a kid in town who kept on driving it.)
My three best vehicle purchases as I’ve gotten older and wiser have been GM, but I pick the models very carefully. I’m sure both GM and Ford are much better now than their reputation suggests.
So that brings me back to my point here. You sound like an intelligent, realistic, former owner of Jeeps, aware of the potential hazards of the brand. My Subaru experience was posted here as similar historical information for potential new or used Subaru buyers to consider.