I want to buy a new car

[jtr1962]

Society and most of the country are designed in such a way that existing without a car is a significant disability (insert JTR here, I said "most" ).

It's a lot more complex than that. Right now there's a glut of suburban and exurban housing and a shortage of urban housing. On top of that, government at all levels directly or indirectly subsidizes auto use more than other modes. Despite these subsidies, owning a car is still hideously expensive simply because it's just about the least efficient mode of transport possible in terms of space or energy. What puzzles me is why the average American isn't shouting at the top of their lungs telling government to do something so car ownership would be far less necessary. Seriously, an entry level car costs more than a person takes home on a minimum wage job. That basically makes working for low wages pointless if you'll need to drive to the job. You'll be working just to pay for your car.

That said, I think we need more outside the box thinking here. If there is a need for individual motorized transportation in a good part of the country, then why must it take form of something weighing several tons? Why not something like an electric velomobile? That'll work fine for most trips. It'll easily cruise at highway speeds with maybe 1 or 2 HP. The battery will give sufficient range for most trips. If there are rare times you're carrying a heavy load or doing something the velomobile can't do you rent a conventional car. Sure, cars are going to be ridiculously expensive precisely because they're grossly overdesigned for what the average person uses them for.

Another big problem with the concept of everyone needing to drive is the fact most people really can't drive safely, regardless of how much training they have. They simply lack the reflexes, spatial judgement, intelligence, or attitude. No amount of training can fix that. We made a Faustian bargain once we created communities where driving became practically mandatory. Despite decades of road and vehicle safely engineering, plus dumbing down the driving process, you still have insane levels of carnage because we insist on letting incompetents drive. If the NTSB was in charge of road transport, they would shut the entire system down until a way was found to make it safer. That would either be self-driving cars, or much stricter licensing akin to what a pilot needs to go through to get and keep their license.

 

[Striker]

That sounds wonderful, except I don't want to be riding in one of those velomobiles on the same road as an 18 wheeler. No thank you.
Also, if my whole family needs to go somewhere together, are we supposed to have our own? The 2 year old supposed to get strapped on top?
It also still won't get rid of crappy drivers, it will only make the accidents more often deadly.

 

[Handruin]

Okay, so sell your car and get a horse and buggy. Pretend your Amish.

So, someone on minimum wage can afford a $3000-$5000 investment for a horse and buggy never mind the cost for food and vet bills? They're probably better off buying a really cheap car.

 

[Stereodude]

So, someone on minimum wage can afford a $3000-$5000 investment for a horse and buggy never mind the cost for food and vet bills? They're probably better off buying a really cheap car.

No idea. Who said minimum wage was supposed to be a comfortable livable wage? Frankly we should eliminate the minimum wage and get rid of all the illegals (the endless cheap labor supply that suppresses wages) and see what happens. The minimum wage doesn't really have any benefit other than suppressing minority employment.

I was simply proposing that David could lead by example instead of complaining about the burden of having an inefficient mode of transport.

 

[Stereodude]

We made a Faustian bargain once we created communities where driving became practically mandatory.

You seem to have cause and effect backwards. The car allowed people to work in the city and live elsewhere. Suburbs didn't exist prior to cars.

The gov't didn't place people in suburbs which in turn forced them to buy cars. People bought cars which in turned allowed them to move out of crowded cities into the burbs where they could improve their standard of living. Not everyone wants to live in an expensive shoebox sized apartment in a city with bad school and a high crime rate.

 

[LunarMist]

It's a lot more complex than that. Right now there's a glut of suburban and exurban housing and a shortage of urban housing. On top of that, government at all levels directly or indirectly subsidizes auto use more than other modes. Despite these subsidies, owning a car is still hideously expensive simply because it's just about the least efficient mode of transport possible in terms of space or energy. What puzzles me is why the average American isn't shouting at the top of their lungs telling government to do something so car ownership would be far less necessary. Seriously, an entry level car costs more than a person takes home on a minimum wage job. That basically makes working for low wages pointless if you'll need to drive to the job. You'll be working just to pay for your car.

That said, I think we need more outside the box thinking here. If there is a need for individual motorized transportation in a good part of the country, then why must it take form of something weighing several tons? Why not something like an electric velomobile? That'll work fine for most trips. It'll easily cruise at highway speeds with maybe 1 or 2 HP. The battery will give sufficient range for most trips. If there are rare times you're carrying a heavy load or doing something the velomobile can't do you rent a conventional car. Sure, cars are going to be ridiculously expensive precisely because they're grossly overdesigned for what the average person uses them for.

Another big problem with the concept of everyone needing to drive is the fact most people really can't drive safely, regardless of how much training they have. They simply lack the reflexes, spatial judgement, intelligence, or attitude. No amount of training can fix that. We made a Faustian bargain once we created communities where driving became practically mandatory. Despite decades of road and vehicle safely engineering, plus dumbing down the driving process, you still have insane levels of carnage because we insist on letting incompetents drive. If the NTSB was in charge of road transport, they would shut the entire system down until a way was found to make it safer. That would either be self-driving cars, or much stricter licensing akin to what a pilot needs to go through to get and keep their license.

So you live in a big city and don't have the automotive costs, but everything else costs more. I bet that Merc's apartment and car combined cost is less than an equivalent apt. alone would cost in NYC. TANSTAAFL.
Poor people tend to drive old, cheap cars. I was driving a

 

[jtr1962]

So you live in a big city and don't have the automotive costs, but everything else costs more. I bet that Merc's apartment and car combined cost is less than an equivalent apt. alone would cost in NYC. TANSTAAFL.
Poor people tend to drive old, cheap cars. I was driving a

Baloney on everything costing more. Most things in stores cost less here than many other places because of competition. As for housing, once you own a private home it's not bad. Taxes and utilities are under $1,000 a month.

It's not just about money, either. Driving is slow, stressful, and very, very dangerous. You're breathing is exhaust from all the vehicles in front of you. Sitting instead of walking means you're ruining your health. And the time spent driving is time wasted. These things all have a cost attached to them. Suppose Merc was now a quadriplegic? Still worth it? Traffic deaths are up this year. On top of all that, without direct and indirect subsidies from their core cities, suburbs wouldn't even exist. If someone likes the country, live on a farm or live like Survivor Man. The idea of having city-like amenities without the requisite density is a proven failure economically, socially, etc.

 

[jtr1962]

You seem to have cause and effect backwards. The car allowed people to work in the city and live elsewhere. Suburbs didn't exist prior to cars.

The gov't didn't place people in suburbs which in turn forced them to buy cars. People bought cars which in turned allowed them to move out of crowded cities into the burbs where they could improve their standard of living. Not everyone wants to live in an expensive shoebox sized apartment in a city with bad school and a high crime rate.

Does your dinner conversation also include talking about the niggers in the big city because you hit on just about every other stereotype? There's a big problem with "work in the city and live elsewhere". It's the fact the city has to have highways going through it, and parking for all these cars coming in from the suburbs. Not to mention the pollution, congestion, and carnage they cause. It may be news to people who live in a split level on a cul-de-sac but there's real people living in the city. Things which make it easier to drive to the suburbs are same things which have decimated inner cities for the last 50 years. But I guess it doesn't matter because the city is just a bunch of niggers on welfare getting high on crack all day, right? I don't care if someone wants to live in a suburb but don't shit on my front lawn, so to speak, by driving into my city. Take a train or a bus or work in the suburbs. How would these suburbanites like it if hordes of cars drove through their neighborhoods?

Have you ever lived in a big city? In fact, have you ever actually been to a big city? Just curious.

 

[Stereodude]

ROFL... $1k a month for just taxes and utilities. That's more than the average mortgage payment.

Your highly erroneous rants about the evils of cars, life in the burbs, and life in the city are always good for a chuckle and an eye roll.

 

[Stereodude]

There's no need for me to respond to that one. You've already proven you are incapable of having a rational and/or logical discussion about cars or suburbs. Doing so will just be a waste of time.

Enjoy your tilting at the windmills.

 

[jtr1962]

ROFL... $1k a month for just taxes and utilities. That's more than the average mortgage payment.

Your highly erroneous rants about the evils of cars, life in the burbs, and life in the city are always good for a chuckle and an eye roll.

Real estate taxes are about $5K annually. Utilities include electricity, cable, and heating oil. My sister lives in a suburb and here taxes are close to $10K. My aunt's taxes in NJ are $12K. So yes, this is inexpensive compared to many suburban places. Factor in not needing a car. That saves you $500 to $1,000 a month depending upon how much you drive.

Where on Earth is the average mortgage payment less than $1K a month? That implies the house costs under $100K. There's no state where average housing prices are that low. The only places with houses that inexpensive are 50 or 100 miles from major job centers. And probably 20 miles from the nearest decent store.

While we're at this, factor in if you live in a big city you generally get paid more for the same type of job. My sister is making under $50K doing a job she would probably get paid $100K for in Manhattan.

 

[Stereodude]

Does your dinner conversation also include talking about the niggers in the big city because you hit on just about every other stereotype? There's a big problem with "work in the city and live elsewhere". It's the fact the city has to have highways going through it, and parking for all these cars coming in from the suburbs. Not to mention the pollution, congestion, and carnage they cause. It may be news to people who live in a split level on a cul-de-sac but there's real people living in the city. Things which make it easier to drive to the suburbs are same things which have decimated inner cities for the last 50 years. But I guess it doesn't matter because the city is just a bunch of niggers on welfare getting high on crack all day, right? I don't care if someone wants to live in a suburb but don't shit on my front lawn, so to speak, by driving into my city. Take a train or a bus or work in the suburbs. How would these suburbanites like it if hordes of cars drove through their neighborhoods?

Have you ever lived in a big city? In fact, have you ever actually been to a big city? Just curious.

Quoted to prevent subsequent editing.

 

[LunarMist]

This is supposed to be a thread about buying new cars, but becoming more of a something random conflict.

 

[jtr1962]

There's no need for me to respond to that one. You've already proven you are incapable of having a rational and/or logical discussion about cars or suburbs. Doing so will just be a waste of time.

THEY BOTH SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, "expensive shoebox sized apartment in a city with bad school and a high crime rate" is rational? If you don't like cities it's your prerogative but please don't start in with all the stereotypes.

 

[Stereodude]

Where on Earth is the average mortgage payment less than $1K a month? That implies the house costs under $100K. There's no state where average housing prices are that low. The only places with houses that inexpensive are 50 or 100 miles from major job centers. And probably 20 miles from the nearest decent store.

Your Derp is showing again... Calculating mortgage payments isn't that hard. You should try it. You can borrow about $200k with current interest rates and have a payment of about $1k. 20% down puts you in a $250k house.

 

[jtr1962]

This is supposed to be a thread about buying new cars, but becoming more of a something random conflict.

All because I had earlier made a valiant attempt to (unsuccessfully) steer Merc to a car-free lifestyle. Granted, he may have valid needs for owning a car, but I thought it worthwhile to at least give him my thoughts on the matter. Even Merc thinks cars are a scam but unfortunately for whatever reason it appears he has little choice in the matter. And that's why I gave some further thoughts on the matter regarding our warped transportation policy. I simply thought it's a sin someone who obviously wants a car as much as hemorrhoids has to be forced into owning one due to a complete lack of vision by our so-called leaders. Maybe this belongs in another thread. It's a shame no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[jtr1962]

Your Derp is showing again... Calculating mortgage payments isn't that hard. You should try it. You can borrow about $200k with current interest rates and have a payment of about $1k. 20% down puts you in a $250k house.

On what planet? I'm getting $1,052 a month at a 4% interest rate on a 15 year loan of $100K using this calculator. Upping the term to 30 years, even though 30 year mortgages are a major scam, only drops the monthly payment to $790. To borrow $200K with a monthly payment of $1,000 would require an interest rate of 1.5%. I haven't seen anything much lower than 3% (and you likely need near perfect credit for a rate that low). At 3% you can only borrow about $165K with $1,000 monthly payments. Given that hardly anyone has much savings, they'll be lucky to scrap together $10K for a down payment. That puts the price at $175K. Only 5 states with average prices that low. Most places relatively close to job centers will have houses costing at least $300K. I've already noted once you factor in the higher real estate taxes in the NY metro area suburbs the total monthly payments are a wash compared to most parts of NYC. The homes here might be $100K to $200K more, but the taxes are as much as $10K a year less.

Manhattan is hideously expensive but even NYers know that. The rest of the city really isn't compared to a lot of other places.

 

[jtr1962]

That sounds wonderful, except I don't want to be riding in one of those velomobiles on the same road as an 18 wheeler. No thank you.
Also, if my whole family needs to go somewhere together, are we supposed to have our own? The 2 year old supposed to get strapped on top?
It also still won't get rid of crappy drivers, it will only make the accidents more often deadly.

Why would they be on the same road as 18 wheelers, not that you're any more likely to survive a collision with one being in a regular car? You can have separate infrastructure, just as many places already have separate bike infrastructure.

I'm thinking of these being useful more in terms of 1 person trips than family outings. That's the majority of vehicle miles in the US by far. There doesn't need to be any one size fits all solution. Have vehicles tailored more for their specific use is the concept. That will mean less expensive vehicles for those for whom a conventional car is overkill.

 

[Stereodude]

On what planet? I'm getting $1,052 a month at a 4% interest rate on a 15 year loan of $100K using this calculator. Upping the term to 30 years, even though 30 year mortgages are a major scam, only drops the monthly payment to $790. To borrow $200K with a monthly payment of $1,000 would require an interest rate of 1.5%. I haven't seen anything much lower than 3% (and you likely need near perfect credit for a rate that low). At 3% you can only borrow about $165K with $1,000 monthly payments.

Planet Earth... The planet you apparently don't live on. Apparently you're baking in PMI and property taxes. Only suckers pay PMI, and property taxes aren't part of a mortgage payment.

The median price home across the entire US in 2010 was ~$225k. You really need new material.

 

[jtr1962]

Planet Earth... The planet you apparently don't live on. Apparently you're baking in PMI and property taxes. Only suckers pay PMI, and property taxes aren't part of a mortgage payment.

The real estate taxes do have to be paid, don't they? My original point (which still stands) is that housing in NYC, other than Manhattan, isn't particularly expensive, especially if you're in a paid for house. Besides, salaries tend to be more here, so that kind of absorbs any difference. There may be lots of reasons for choosing a suburb over a city, or vice versa, but in general you can't make a good case one way or another to base the decision solely on housing costs. If you want to look at just money, then factor in how much money you have left after you pay all your necessary expenses. The big win for city dwellers is in many cases car ownership doesn't fall into the "necessary" category. Going by your figures, if you save $500 a month on car expenses, you can carry another $100K on your mortgage. Most people spend at least that much, even on a used car. Insurance is usually at least $2K annually, then you have gas, repairs, tickets, registration, inspection, etc.

The median price home across the entire US in 2010 was ~$225k. You really need new material.

And the point is? So you have your hypothetical median priced home on which you're paying about $1000 a month just on the loan. Then you have real estate taxes and other utilities. Those are easily another $500. Now add in food. I spend about $50 a week to feed me and my mom but I buy practically everything on sale. The average family spends closer to $750 a month. So we're up to $2,250 a month not including miscellaneous expenses. Give $250 for that. That's $2,500 a month BEFORE car expenses. A two earner family where both people are making on the low end is already being stretched thin. That brings me to my main point here. This hypothetical broke family now is forced to own a car, maybe even two, because of our failed transportation policy. And before you give me any more nonsense about making a "choice" to live somewhere they needed to drive, or wanting to live in a suburb, the fact is even in places where there once existed viable alternatives those alternatives have disappeared, thanks to our failed transportation policy. I'm not one to expect a subway, or even a bus, running through a suburban housing tract. However, when those things don't exist even in places where they would be viable, then we have a major problem. Case in point is my neck of the woods. By all measures eastern Queens easily has the density for a few subway lines. They should have been built decades ago. They would have been built if not for the stupidity of the 1950s which had every American owning a car. Cars don't work in big cities. They can't. Once more than a fraction drive, you have gridlock. They arguably can't even work well in inner ring suburbs. And yet the government stopped funding alternatives.

The issue here isn't people needing cars in the sticks. That's a given, and really there's no reasonable alternative. The issue here is people being forced to own a car, or shut out of jobs, in places where any sane country would have alternatives. That's actually a good swath of the populated US. And this isn't even getting into the sheer stupidity of putting mostly untrained novices in charge of heavy machinery moving at high speeds. Nearly 40K deaths a year says about all that needs to be said regarding that.

 

[Striker]

Why would they be on the same road as 18 wheelers, not that you're any more likely to survive a collision with one being in a regular car? You can have separate infrastructure, just as many places already have separate bike infrastructure.

Where would these lanes be? Likely right next to the lanes for the Trucks. So they're essentially going to be on the same road. Which is more likely to be seen and survive a crash by an 18 wheeler. A 70 pound velomobile (guessing on the weight) or a car? Even a sideswipe when the trucker is checking his phone is going to very likely kill the person in the velomobile, where there's at least a chance of surviving in a car.

I'm thinking of these being useful more in terms of 1 person trips than family outings. That's the majority of vehicle miles in the US by far. There doesn't need to be any one size fits all solution. Have vehicles tailored more for their specific use is the concept. That will mean less expensive vehicles for those for whom a conventional car is overkill.

So families are still going to need a car regardless. Let's spend money on infrastructure and vehicles for no net benefit?
I would love to live in your Utopia, but it just wouldn't work here.

 

[timwhit]

Why not just institute congestion charges to drive into large cities during peak hours? This has been implemented in London. You aren't going to get people to give up cars and switch to velomobiles.

 

[ddrueding]

Reminds me of this:

http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

 

[jtr1962]

Where would these lanes be? Likely right next to the lanes for the Trucks. So they're essentially going to be on the same road. Which is more likely to be seen and survive a crash by an 18 wheeler. A 70 pound velomobile (guessing on the weight) or a car? Even a sideswipe when the trucker is checking his phone is going to very likely kill the person in the velomobile, where there's at least a chance of surviving in a car.

Why would they be next to truck lanes? If enough people adopted them, you would have a physically separated lane, much like the bike superhighways in the Netherlands. No issues of being sideswiped by 18-wheelers there. Often they're buffered from the car road by a line of trees or something similar. And frankly, 18-wheelers don't belong on the same roads as cars. There should either be a separate truck lane on Interstates, or better yet long distance freight should go by rail. The trucks tear up the roads as much as 1000 cars but don't pay their way in terms of road repair costs.

So families are still going to need a car regardless. Let's spend money on infrastructure and vehicles for no net benefit?
I would love to live in your Utopia, but it just wouldn't work here.

You'll need the separate infrastructure for light vehicles like bikes anyway so it's not a waste. And I'm sure these smaller vehicles could be made for several passengers. My point is cars are overbuilt for what they need to do. They could be a lot better by making them smaller and lighter.

 

[jtr1962]

Why not just institute congestion charges to drive into large cities during peak hours? This has been implemented in London. You aren't going to get people to give up cars and switch to velomobiles.

If you give them viable alternatives you'll get them to switch. That's the problem here in the US. We don't offer any alternatives at all in most places, even places where they would work. To show you how warped our priorities are, we have no plans yet to supplement two aging rail tunnels under the Hudson carrying trains which many commuters willingly use. If we had more tunnels and more trains, they would easily fill up. Same story in many other places. The demand for car alternatives is there, people would use them, but they're not being built. Why is that? Because our transportation policy is still stuck in the 1950s.

As for congestion taxes, that should be done regardless but it won't solve the problem entirely. Long term you need a lot more transportation alternatives. Long term we should also make more and more of our cities off-limits to private automobiles. Hamburg has plans to make the entire city car-free by 2034. London, NYC, Paris, and so forth should all follow this example. The hard fact is the world can't deal with 7 billion people living a 1960s American suburban lifestyle driving everywhere. We don't have the space, we don't have the resources, and we've realized this lifestyle has lots of downsides. Car use has contributed to obesity, resulted in social isolation, in general created as many problems as it's solved.

A good analogy here is to understand that most inventions have a life cycle. They're slowly adopted, peak, then gradually become obsolate. In the PC world, we've seen that with CRT monitors, and now we're seeing it again as SSDs are gradually displacing mechanical hard disks. We reached "peak car" here in the US early in the 2000s. Per capita auto use is on the decline. If we were smart and built the alternatives people ask for, we could hasten the decline. Nevertheless, the fact is in the latter 21st century it will become increasingly rare for people to use private autos. We may still have cars, but it's likely they'll be self-driven taxis or something along those lines, there will be a lot fewer of them, and much of our cities will be off-limits to them. Those are just extrapolations of long term trends, not wishful thinking on my part.

 

[LunarMist]

Is Lexus ES a viable option?

 

[Stereodude]

My point is cars are overbuilt for what they need to do.

Tell that to the gov't who forces emissions, mileage, and safety standards on them.

 

[Stereodude]

Is Lexus ES a viable option?

It's track honed!

 

[jtr1962]

Tell that to the gov't who forces emissions, mileage, and safety standards on them.

I agree 100%. The safety standards are what is mostly responsible for vehicle "bloat". Get rid of those, and you can make vehicles half the weight. If you do that the mileage and emissions will take care of themselves. I also tend to think vehicles which are less safe in crashes might tend to encourage more careful driving.

 

[LunarMist]

It's track honed!

That means understeer or something else? It's not a large car, so how bad can routine handling be?

 

[Stereodude]

That means understeer or something else? It's not a large car, so how bad can routine handling be?

It means Lexus is telling you they tuned the handling on the track... Cause it's a sport sedan!

"Track-honed performance meets aggressive styling meets the very latest in available technology with the 2016 Lexus ES luxury sport sedan."

 

[LunarMist]

That's does not sound good. I want a pothole- and bumpy pavement-tuned suspension that isolates my ass from the crappy roads. I've never encountered a race track on the drive to work.

 

[sdbardwick]

Lexus cars are generally well isolated - too isolated for my taste, but YMMV. Also check out the Toyota Avalon, which shares the basic platform.

 

[timwhit]

My Dad has a Lexus ES350, I think your ass will have plenty of cushioning.

 

[LunarMist]

I don't need special cushioning in the seat, but a suspension that can absorb the strong bumps.

 

[Santilli]

Yes, the cage was run into the front of the car, and used to mount the suspension and shocks, to, ala Nascar coil over shocks. Same with the rear end.
The guy building the cage was really good. You had to really look to notice it, and it was NOT in the way.

 

[Santilli]

Tesla insane mode: 691 horse.
0-60 in 3.2 seconds.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...&mid=9C520ACD31BF1806AAE29C520ACD31BF1806AAE2

 

[LunarMist]

Yes, the cage was run into the front of the car, and used to mount the suspension and shocks, to, ala Nascar coil over shocks. Same with the rear end.
The guy building the cage was really good. You had to really look to notice it, and it was NOT in the way.

What cage and what car? WTF?

 

[Santilli]

Check that. new Model is 2.8 to 60.

 

[LunarMist]

I agree 100%. The safety standards are what is mostly responsible for vehicle "bloat". Get rid of those, and you can make vehicles half the weight. If you do that the mileage and emissions will take care of themselves. I also tend to think vehicles which are less safe in crashes might tend to encourage more careful driving.

This looks like a potential car for you.