Cheaper to drive a maverick then to Buy a new car

This started here but I decided it was too big and figured I better move it.
http://mmb.maverick.to/showthread.php?t=45329

"My Mavericks get about 20 to 25 MPG with 302s in stock trim and a decent tune-up." Paul said this and it got me thinking. I started to figure my fuel economy then I figured how much I was spending monthly per fuel and I was not at all impressed with my costs.... well this got me thinking maybe I should get a new car to offset fuel costs. Then when I was reading on MSNbc this morning I came across some data on the new cars, you know fuel economy engine size ect. I just happened to see one of the more common cars around here lately The Toyota Camry, now I am not a Toyota fan and I would never own one but using that data I wanted to see if it was justified for me to get a new car, probably one of the Fusions, and leave my beloved Maverick that is so fun to drive for weekend use only.
Guess what, I found that my 302 powered Maverick with an AOD getting about 17 to 21(i probably like to step on it more than PaulS does) is actually alot more economical to own than one of the new Toyota Camrys.:bananaman

Compared to: 2007 Toyota Camry LE 5-Spd AT
Base price: $21,735
MPG: 21/30 (city/hwy)
Combined MPG: 24
*taken from MSNbc.com original source MYRIDE.com*

Yes you can hold as many people in a Camry and it does get better fuel economy, but all of the other factors start falling into place. First I only pay $55 bucks for comprehensive insurance on it...my 05 explorer is about $90 each month. Second registration, for me to register my car in Utah (Utah being age based on costs) I spent a whole $10.00 for this year, it is $150 for my explorer, the same for all 2005 and newer vehicles.
Now for the third and biggest deciding factor, my car is paid for. I paid $1600 bucks cash for it. Now if I would have taken that money down and put it on one of the new Camrys got a 36 month loan at 5.25% (current rate through my credit union) equaling out to a monthly payment of $606. Plus all of the transport fees, licensing fees ect....

Given that I can equate it that my Combined fuel economy is 19mpg in comparison to the Toyotas 24mpg combined fuel economy that breaks down like this. For 10,000 miles on my combined fuel economy it equals to 526.3 gallons of gas, for the Toyota it equals 416 gallons of gas for the same distance traveled. So 526.3 gallons of gas at $3.91 (thats how much it cost when I filled up this morning) equals $2057.83 and the 416 gallons equal to $1626.56. So within 10,000 miles there is a $431.27 dollar price difference on how much I spend in gas, in roughly 9 months of driving I have not yet equaled the cost difference in improved fuel economy to one single monthly payment I would have had to make on a new car, that would still hold me, my wife and two car seats. (tight fit yes but more room than the contour use to have).

Within the three years with an average driving habit of 15000 miles a year and $4.00 a gallon of gas that equates to $3157 dollars per year or $9473 per 36 months when you would finally be paying off your loan. Then I figured it out that 45,000 miles over 3 years using the average 24mpg for the Toyota is $7500 in fuel+ the $21,735 cost of the car equals to $29,235.

My total investment of $1600 for the car and gas is a $18,162 savings over 3 years........ hmm now why did I buy my wife that new explorer two years ago? So yes it can be more economical to drive your old car then it is to go out and buy a new one despite what every one says about fuel economy....And you can use that $18,000 for more important things you know like Maverick parts, I can buy a whole lot of Maverick parts for $18,000.

 

I agree with you there.

Ive been in the market for a truck and/or SUV lately.

Then I got to thinking about it... why? If I get a 4 door truck, it holds just as many people as the Taurus, but gets worse MPG. If I get a Explorer, the same situation.

So I'm now in the market for a 3 seater Expedition or Durango or something of that nature. Sure it gets worse MPG than the Explorer or the 4 door truck, but the primary use of this vehicle will be for out of state/town trips that I will either pull the ski/fish boat and/or the mustang to the track.

If My brother and mother go with us on these trips, then we can all take 1 vehicle, instead of taking the Taurus AND her Nissan truck

Sure, it may use more gas than either one of those, but it has to get better MPG than taking BOTH of those.

This is why I'm also looking to pay cash for a vehicle instead of financing and therefor cutting down on insurance costs (no full coverage because its financed)

 

Then you got to add the cost of full cover insurance on the new car ($30 vs $400). The cost of having emission inspection each year ($25). The cost of tax and tag ($400?). Might as well through in the price of stamps and envelopes to mail in the payment. I'm sure you could think up other cost to include.

 

Luckily we dont have inspections.

Sales tax is something to think of, then personal property taxes, Tags here are only $26 a year so thats cheap, but if its antique then its $15 for a lifetime non-expiring tag

 

I live in a non-emission area also in utah, the cars that are 5 years and newer only get safety inspected every other year, so sorry I forgot about that didn't have to do it to the explorer this year. Also as for the stamps and envelopes come on..you think I would miss standing in line at the DMV for 2 1/2 hours when I could mail it.

 

i have been considering buying a older used 4cyl car to save on gas something in the 1-2K range. i think with somethig old and used i'd save alot of money oover something fresh off the lot and they way things are going the initial investment will pay its self off pretty coon compared to driving my comet everyday.

 

I vote for the Expedition, my inlaws had one of the new Durangos with the nice hemi for six months on lease wow it had alot of power, they just turned it in because it only got 8mpg in town and they figured they could save some money on fuel going with a Cummins.(kind of ironic I am saying this considering the first post LOL) The Expedition gets better than that and with the wider stance it will be a little more stable pulling a trailer.

 

I also tend to lean towards ford anyways.

My ex inlaws had a 05ish durango, gas burner, non hemi with 3rd row seat. It was quite nice, and had rear air. Im sure I can get rear air in a expedition also.

 

Hope this can be posted here...if not please delete...this is an article wrtten by david freiburger of hot rod magazine(warning long read but a good one)

Here's an editorial i've been meaning to write forever but have never been able find a source for all the facts i need to back me up, so finally im just going to lay it out there for your intuitive reveiw. here's my theory: old cars can be more enviromentally responsible then new ones.

let's go to the extreams and compare my daily driven, clapped out '72 pontiac ventura to a brand new toyota prius hybrid. the ventura with its 250ci six and powerglide trans gets 20mpg on the hiway and about 13 in the city and a typical fill-up sees an average around 17mpg. the prius is rated at 60mpg city and 51 on the hiway though even light footed users report averages closer to 48mpg, even so in a typical 10,000mile year the prius will only use 208 gallons of gas to the ventura's 588 galons and the '72 will pump out more airborne pollutants for every one of those miles. enviromentalists would far rather see the ventura get crushed and me out driving a prius.

and there's the glitch. as soon as the '72 gets scraped 100% of its manufacturing equity is lost. there's a cost in industrial pollution to manufacture every single component of a car, and while we're a lot more responsible about the individual processes now then we were 30 years ago, that may be offset by the fact that there is far more technology and goverment mandated content in cars today, more components then ever are made in countries with standards far diffent then ours, and there are more cars made and sold. meanwhile the pollution aftereffect of manufacturing my ventura has been amortized over 34 years consider it damage long since healed. in an idealized scenario where i drive that car instead of buying a new one it means one less new car needs to be manufactured today so the pollution of making all those wires, plastics, batterys, and metals is saved right now, if the crusher bills are enacted and the ventura is junked then there's that much more wreakage in a landfill. many parts can be recycled, but that has its impact too. what i'd really like to know is how many miles the new hybrid would have to go to earn back the enviromental impact of both its manufacturing process and also the losses of having scraped the old car it replaced.

i can assure you without a whiff of uncertainty that barring an outright ban on old cars i could keep driving the ventura for another 34 years. given today's scrap and replace attitude about cars how many hybrids would be built used up and scraped in that same time period? at least two perhaps meybe three. so while the ventura is still plugging along, there's all that other pollution from another two or three cars being built and scraped. it's all enviromental burden that no one considers. but is the manufacturing and scrapping deficit worse then the tailpipe emmisions of the old car in the long run? perhaps not-after all air quality has improved dramatically since the 70's but it's a resonable enough question that i think the goverment should give emmisions exemptions for every commuter car that has clearly out lived its resonable lifespan.

there are also the personal finances involved, i've never understood replacing a old car with a new one solely for the reason of milage and gas prices; you just trade a far higher car payment for a somewhat lower gas bill. given my earlier example of ventura vs prius milage and assuming and average gas price of $3.25 a gallon the ventura costs and extra $1,235 in gas every 10,000miles. but i bought the ventura and made it road worthy for just under $800, wich is less then half of the sales tax on a $21,725 prius, then consider new car financing and insurance. even if i spent $1000 a year on maintance for the ventura, i'd still be money ahead after 100,000miles, plus i'd get even better milage if i just added a junkyard overdrive trans.

thinking more about the real world situation i guess it would be best if everyone who didn't care about cars did just drive hybrids. that could lead to a greater likely hood that the goverment would allow older cars to stay on the road since there'd be less gas usage and tailpipe emmisions overall. but the bottom line is that i have fun with my old cars and don't feel the least bit guilty about it, how about you?

 

That article came to mind when we were discussing this topic.

I agree with him entirely..

 

Wow sounds like a guy after my own heart, I didn't get to read that one earlier but I am glad you have posted it.

 

Way cheaper to drive my Comet. When you factor in all the money I've dropped into the car, I have saved a ton of money. But at the same time, I have spent more then I should have. Working on these cars is like Pringles, One you pop (start) you can't stop. I payed 200 for the car, 300 for the tires, 100 for the steering, 40 for the alternator, 30 for used front springs, and I'm about to drop another 350 bucks on a parts car. All together I've spent 720 bucks or better and thats not including time. Being that I'm a out of work disabled Vet, I think thats kinda cheap.

 

Sounds about like me. I'm still looking for a 98-01 Explorer 5.0L V8 2WD, always seems to be an issue with the ones I go and look at. I thought about geting like a Focus, but I don't care for their styling much, also would like the ability to pull the Maverick or another car occasionally later down the road when I get a trailer.

 

An old car may nickel and dime you from time to time, and even when you make have to drop $200-300 in it, it may sting, but it is still less that if you have to cut a $300 new car payment each month.

We are currently doing that here ... the only reason is that we love the new Mustang and wanted reliability. Traded in my wife's 70K mile 1996 Monte Carlo. I hated that car in a way that few have ever have made me ... ridiculous to work on.... GM put antifreeze in it that eats head gaskets ... on and on.


From a mileage standpoint, it is a wash ... but the Mustang is so much the better car ... Even if it does cut into the Comet budget ...

 

I've been thinking like Freiburger for several years now. I have bought several new cars and trucks, some American made, some import. Most of them were for my wife, I wanted her to have the security of a dependable car and not have to worry about her breaking down, espcially after I started trucking and was hundreds of miles away from home most of the time. The last new car we bought, a 87 Pontiac Sunbird, was no more dependable than the 78 Toyota pickup I had at the time with 200,000 miles on it. After that, I have not owned anything less than 5 years old. I let somebody else take the hit on the depreation [sp], and I get a vehicle that usually has all the bugs worked out. I traded a 74 Cheyene Chevy pickup with a 454 for the 78 Toyota brand new, and kept it through three engines and 16 years, so I probably came out about even. We traded my wife's 93 Explorer with 215,000 miles on it for a 03 PT Cruiser......bad trade. I figured out what the "PT" stood for....they left out the letters in between....Piece of $hiT. Went back with a 93 convertible Mustang, been happy ever since. So to make a long story short, I now only buy 5 year old or older cars, save the interest and increased insurance and licensing costs, and sleep better at night knowing that I don't have to work as hard just to make payments and not have any pocket money left....