Louis Block said:
Okay...taking a deep breath...I promise to try not to get defensive. I'm
not interested in starting another flame war like so many that populate
Usenet these days. I appreciate your comments, Ted, and I'm trying to
re-assess my own arguments.
1) From experience, I've found that a point of diminishing returns is
reached for me somewhere around 110-130k, in which I am paying out more
in maintenance costs than it would cost to obtain a new (or new used)
vehicle. I'd love to believe otherwise. I am NOT a mechanic, or the
least bit savvy about automotive repairs. The (replaced) Aamco
transmission in my current vehicle is only covered for another 5k.
Again, from experience, I expect it to die shortly thereafter.
I'm not sure if it proves your point or mine, but when I went to sell my
'93 Grand Voyager, it took 8 months and I had to settle for much less
than very conservative blue book.
Hmm... I'd like to know more about that, frankly. When I bought our
95 T&C a couple years ago, nothing that was worth having was below
book. In fact a lot of them were asking significantly above book. I was
looking in the 92-95 age range specifically. However I will add as a
qualifier that I was only looking at 3.3/3.8 liter vehicles.
However I will add that I live in Oregon, which does not salt the roads.
30-40 year old vehicles usually have little to no rust underbody. The few
vehicles I've seen used that have rusted panels all originated out of state.
Also, vans and trucks here are the most popular sellers. People really go
apeshit over used trucks.
My guess is your 93 had a 3.0 liter engine, that would knock it's value
way down. But this is an exception - because the maintainence problems
(oil leaks, timing belt & such) apparently didn't become well known
until later on. (I say apparently because the 3.0 engine was still selling
quite late in the 90's) Also, the '93 vans took a bad rap because of the
ABS
brake recall fiasco. (even though yours might not have had ABS)
And AWD turned out to be another maintainence pig too. If your
93 had a 3.0, with ABS and AWD then it would have taken a triple
wammy and no wonder it would have sold way below blue book. But,
when I was looking, the 4 cylinder variants of that year were holding
their blue book. (still are, in fact probably now are worth above blue
book due to gas prices)
Now, this much I'll say on mileage. There is NO QUESTION
that ALL vehicles have a point of diminishing returns. EVEN if you
are the worlds greatest mechanic with a bench full of tools, you
just cannot keep a vehicle running forever. Sooner or later the
parts themselves are going to be so hard to find because nobody
stocks them anymore and all the cars that were of that model are
crushed up and made into toasters, that the day will come when
it's all over.
And this point certainly does vary depending on the person. I
would suggest for a non-mechanical person that this point is more
in the 70K range - because right after 70K is when the book
value starts depreciating quite rapidly. In short, since your goal is
to spend nothing on repairs (save normal maintainence) you want
to sell the vehicle right before a "knee" in the depreciation graph
so you can extract the most money you can from it
Another way of looking at it is this - for the 99 Caravan SE with
75000 miles and a 3.3 engine the book value is $7K - for the same vehicle
with another 20K miles on it, the book value drops nearly $1K, add
another 10K miles on it, and the book value only drops an additional
$200. In short, if your vehicle is at 110K miles now and you add on
another 50K miles, the value only drops $400!
By 110-130K miles if you still have the vehicle, you might as well
keep driving it another 50K miles since by 110-130K you have just
hit the bottom of a knee in the depreciation curve. There's another
knee somewhere close to 200K miles I just haven't bothered figuring
it out. Kelly Blue Book is online - you can run the numbers yourself
with various years and mileages to get a more clear idea of what I'm
talking about.
Of course this all assumes that the difference between 110K miles and
160K miles on a vehicle is nothing - and I think that today it is. 30 years
ago - no!
2) This is my primary business vehicle. I RELY on it daily for average
trips of 100 miles per day. I transport large amounts of equipment and
clients. On my off days, I transport my wife and 3 daughters. I'm VERY
hard on my vehicles. Although it may have sounded as if the seats were
my main concern, reliability IS first and foremost.
But your OP said you were attracted by the TV ads, which certainly don't
feature reliability first and foremost.
Don't get me wrong, I know there's lots of new car buyers that once they
get past the showroom door and are looking seriously at a vehicle, they
are going to look at different things than what attracted them in the first
place.
But you can't deny that your eye was caught by the seat thing.
I don't really think that ANY auto manufacturers today emphasize reliability
in their TV ads. Thus my submission to you is this - if reliability really
is
number 1 for you, then you want to close your eyes whenever a car TV
ad comes on lest your judgement become compromised.
If you become aware of the level of advertising out there and how it
controls and directs the typical buyers thinking, then you can immunize
yourself against what the advertisers want you to think and what they
want you to believe. That's the first step towards being a really informed
consumer, instead of a consumer who is basing a decision on a "feel" they
have, which in reality was manufactured by their subconscious as a
result of all the advertising they have been bombarded with and aren't
aware of.
You have to come to terms with the fact that at some level, the TV ad
got to you with that initial hook. And that would never have happened if
the TV advertising wasn't working away in your subconscious. Once you
come to terms with this, then you can direct your "gut feels" with logic
from your conscious mind. And it doesen't take that long before doing
this becomes second nature, and you will end up frankly revolted by
99% of the advertising you see.
From everything I'd
read, I assumed that the Odyssey was still much more reliable. From
posts here, I'm reevaluating that stance. I'll admit to having been
intrigued by the new seat configuration, and that WAS my original reason
for posting, but believe me, reliability is first in my mind. Next comes
suitability for my particular applications (ie. being able to covert
from cargo to passenger quickly and with minimal exertion, maximum cargo
space, and comfort). I have NOT purchased all of my minivans new. In
fact, only the '93 was purchased new from a dealer. The '86 was from a
lot, and the '99 was a used fleet vehicle from Hertz.
Even though I replaced my last transmission at 50k, I've been VERY happy
with my 99 Grand Caravan. I would probably have a different opinion had
I not opted for the extended warranty from Hertz.
Everyone knows that people beat the shit out of rentals. Thus an extended
warranty on a used rental is almost a no-brainer.
Any van I purchase
next will also include such a warranty. Unfortunately I've been
conditioned to consider this a 'necessary' expense. I wish this were not
the case. I've been burned over the years reading good reviews (service
and reliability ratings) of Chryslers current minivans in CR, buying,
then having them revise their opinions a year later. This has been the
case with all 3 of my vans.
The big bugaboo that any Chrysler guy that knows his stuff would have
told you is the electronic Ultradrive transmission that has been hitched
to the 3.3/3.8 engines in these vans for time out of mind. The number of
revisions that this trans has gone through over the years is quite
surprising,
espically considering what some of the revs are for. For example, the
original trans computers having dumb programming in them that ate
the trans clutches.
These trans today have by most accounts finally reached the reliability
level of the hydraulic trans that they replaced. But it is only because
Chrysler kept doggedly at it with them. Clearly the design itself was
not well thought out in the beginning.
The other problem with these trans besides the design is that few
trans shops it seems know how to diagnose and repair them properly.
Aamco has been cited before in this group for doing poor rebuilds
on these trans. And it is stunning the number of trans shops that
even today claim that you can use Dexron fluid in these trans instead
of ATF +4. Of course, none of this is your fault, you didn't know any
of this when you got your trans rebuilt.
Again, I'm constantly reexamining my opinions on these things. I'd love
to hear your (or anyone elses) opinions regarding my buying patterns. I
hope I'm not opening myself up for a public whipping!
Well there's a couple things that are going for you with a new Caravan
purchase. First is the 7 year/70,000 mile warranty on the drivetrain.
The Odyssey is a 3/30,000 The second thing is this, your buying
a model (Caravan) that has been around for 20 years now, and
your benefiting from a very long, long period of time that Chrysler has
been putting in refinements into this vehicle.
Also, if your using this for business, you can order the cargo van
option and instead of back rear side windows you get a nice expanse
of sheetmetal for your company logo.
Seriously, though, I certainly don't mean to hold you up for a public
whipping. It is just this - that as you might expect, a huge number of
posters in this group are dedicated used car buyers. Sometimes this
is by choice, like myself, simply because since we can do our own
wrenching, the temptation to get a great deal by buying used and
fixing it ourselves is irresistable. Other times it is by force - the
person
is simply not making enough money for anyone to finance them on
a new vehicle. But of the group of used car owners who post here,
a great many of them seem to have a total disconnect as to what
motivates the automakers to make and sell the cars they do.
How many times have I seen people complaining about the butt-ugly
front ends on the new Chrysler cars here? Well, folks, Chrysler isn't
makig them for YOU. They are making them for people like Louis
here.
The only point I was trying to make is that new car buyers don't
have the same criteria as used car buyers. Louis, your post illustrated
this perfectly. But you should pat yourself on the back,
anyway. 99% of new minivan buyers don't even make it to
this forum, at least.
Ted
