|
Affording Fuel
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: But I can assure you that in their latest entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and engineering is on par with the best of them again. Let's talk again after 100,000 miles. I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-) see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time. I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but financed it, I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd lose $25k in depreciation in that time period. we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that - i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on it when we traded it in. You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your way is of course the smartest way to own a car. Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease, if market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and sell it, if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss. I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just bought had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20 percentage points too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's GMAC taking the hit...not me. I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate cost of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the vehicle at the end of the lease period. Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K - 12K km per year. Are you kidding!? You're the ideal candidate. Get a low mileage (10,000 mile per year) lease, and you'll save at least $150/month over financing the same vehicle. Consider this: My car has an MSRP of just under $42k. I paid $1800 to the dealer when I picked it up...plus another $422 for the first month payment. That's just under $18,500 in total out of pocket and monthly payments. If I financed the same car for 66 months, rolled the sales tax into the payment, and paid out the same $1800 when I picked up the car, my payment would have been nearly $700/month. $700/mo * 39 months=$27,300. Add the $1800, and you're at nearly $29k to drive that car for 39 months. On a 66 month finance deal, with very little money down, you end up owing after 3 years about the same amount as the car is worth. In other words, you have zero equity and still owe $20k on a 3 year old car. And you've paid out almost $10k more in cash over that time period! The only way purchasing the car makes sense is if you keep it a year or two past the last payment (ie--7 or 8 years). And hope that nothing breaks when it's out of warranty. OR.....like me, drive 20-30k miles a year. |
Affording Fuel
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... If sales go up, profits should as well. Not necessarily. Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher margins even. There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different types of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly. |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:24:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: But I can assure you that in their latest entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and engineering is on par with the best of them again. Let's talk again after 100,000 miles. I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-) see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time. I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but financed it, I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd lose $25k in depreciation in that time period. we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that - i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on it when we traded it in. You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your way is of course the smartest way to own a car. Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease, if market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and sell it, if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss. I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just bought had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20 percentage points too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's GMAC taking the hit...not me. I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate cost of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the vehicle at the end of the lease period. Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K - 12K km per year. Are you kidding!? You're the ideal candidate. Get a low mileage (10,000 mile per year) lease, and you'll save at least $150/month over financing the same vehicle. Consider this: My car has an MSRP of just under $42k. I paid $1800 to the dealer when I picked it up...plus another $422 for the first month payment. That's just under $18,500 in total out of pocket and monthly payments. If I financed the same car for 66 months, rolled the sales tax into the payment, and paid out the same $1800 when I picked up the car, my payment would have been nearly $700/month. $700/mo * 39 months=$27,300. Add the $1800, and you're at nearly $29k to drive that car for 39 months. On a 66 month finance deal, with very little money down, you end up owing after 3 years about the same amount as the car is worth. In other words, you have zero equity and still owe $20k on a 3 year old car. And you've paid out almost $10k more in cash over that time period! The only way purchasing the car makes sense is if you keep it a year or two past the last payment (ie--7 or 8 years). And hope that nothing breaks when it's out of warranty. Which is why I keep cars and trucks for ten years or more. My Mustang will go to a grandkid. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Affording Fuel
Mike Hunter wrote:
You might want to do some research on gasket problems. Don't need to, I realize that, the Ford 3.8 front drive is a prime example... BUT The gaskets are not responsible for the action of the DexCool gunking up & "beaching" in low-flow areas, & erosion of cast iron head surfaces that were just fine with glycol, or even plain water! GM like ever other manufacture had gasket problem. The result of the government mandate to gasket manufactures to remove asbestos without giving the gasket manufactures time to develop an alternative material. GM, Toyota, Chrysler, Honda and every other manufacture were not at fault, they and their customer were victims of a poorly planed government madate. But asbestos was not a factor in the design of lower intake gaskets - practically EVERY ONE with DexCool on GM V-6s & most V-8s is going to fail to some extent - go out & look at yours. If it's under warranty - go get it done - there are updated gaskets coming out now for more recent vehicles - Rendezvous, etc... Rob |
Affording Fuel
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the enviro's got the building of same, outlawed. No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain. As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say "dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants the was Starbucks builds coffee shops. Why worry about the control of the waste? Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin. Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American. Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials. Read the rest of the post you snipped! |
Affording Fuel
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:03:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:02:32 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: A much stronger car of the 1960s...a TR4A-IRS. I had one of those, too. Great car. Not nearly as pretty as the MGA, but...it ran and ran and ran. Always wanted a red 'Healy 3000 from that era. Indeed. An aluminum bodied 100-6. Love 'em. pansies... Not if you stuff a chevy in there. Was funny how years ago, people would claim the AH 1000's would be turds in the handling area, when they had a chevy small block replace that huge hunk of cast iron from England. Was that they were not used to power. The small block engine was about 200# less in weight. Anathema. I've got an older English sports car with a straight six in it, and it would lose tens of thousands in value if I replaced that engine with a Chevy engine. My old car is older than my wife. They've both still got their curves, though. But years ago, we swapped engines. The cars were not classics then. I turned down buying a Ferrari GTO for $5500 in about 1967 as I figured I could not afford the ZF replacement transmissions, etc. Was racing a 1964 Corvette in those days. Highest a GTO sold for was $16,500,000. Would have been a good car to buy and store. |
Affording Fuel
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... If sales go up, profits should as well. Not necessarily. Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher margins even. There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different types of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly. But with good management, the profits should go up. |
Affording Fuel
The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal,
is it? NOYB wrote: The actual answer was "yes" to 2 of the 3 questions. It may be "yes" to all of the questions, but I haven't the time to lookup what their budget was. You're kidding right? Here's the problem for you- reality. Name one lie and/or slander published by moveon.org. DSK |
Affording Fuel
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the enviro's got the building of same, outlawed. No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain. As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say "dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants the was Starbucks builds coffee shops. Why worry about the control of the waste? Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin. Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American. Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials. Read the rest of the post you snipped! I read it, and then snipped it to make the next message less cluttered. The things you said are only distantly related to the worst threats regarding nuclear materials. Go back to step 2 and buy the magazine. You'll probably be interested and surprised, as I was. I'd post the text, but I don't subscribe to the digital version, which is $39. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com