Detroit 2019: 2019 Subaru WRX STi S209: Comments

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

We will always have plenty of peeps to LEASE New, so we have our CPO options!

And, buying a 2~4 year old car as a CPO or used vehicle DIRECTLY props up residual values and DIRECTLY lowers the lease rates.

Lease rate = (New Price + dealer profit - Residual value - manufacturer's incentives) * effective contractual interest / months of lease term

Ever notice that cars which nobody wants on the used market are also those that are very expensive to lease or are money losers for the manufacturer or both?

Edited January 24, 2019 by dwightlooi

[oldshurst442]

5 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

The point is that you save a lot of money by avoiding the first 2~3 years of horrendous depreciation.

That is more for people who change their vehicles often.

I always buy new.  But you wouldnt be buying my new car as a used one as I tend to keep them longer than what you may deem a good used car to buy.

I amortize my new car purchases properly. I usually keep them at least 8 years. Keep in mind that is in Montreal Quebec where deep freeze and snowy winters are a thing.

My last car was a 2005 Impala SS and I changed it for a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD. I kept it only 7 years because I dumb driver ran into my passenger door. I never fixed the door. It was dented a little. And it pissed the phoque out of me looking at my car that way. So I decided to cut that car loose and buy the Acura. I could have fixed her, but in my eyes, she was no longer perfect and I just couldnt keep her.  That and I was about to do some major overhauling on her soon. New battery, maybe a new exhaust etc...So I prefered to put that money into a new car instead. 

But, my Acura is 7 going on 8 years now. I am perfectly fine in owning her still. She has no major battle scars to speak of, couple of paint chips here and there on the hood, but Ive touched them up and she still looks good even with all that salt and sand and gravel they put on our snowy and icy roads.  I think I will keep her until she dies on me.  I dont think I mind repairing the things I need to repair on her in her older age now just to keep her on the road safely as she still puts a smile on my face as I drive her.  That and there is really nothing out there that interests me in owning enough for me to invest in another new car so because I still love my Acura, she gets to stay with me.. 

So...the 2-3 years of horrendous depreciation does not really apply to me on the Acura...and if I keep her another 7-8 years, which I think the TL could last that long, then depreciation is really not a factor. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by oldshurst442

[dwightlooi]

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

That is more for people who change their vehicles often.

I always buy new.  But you wouldnt be buying my new car as a used one as I tend to keep them longer than what you may deem a good used car to buy.

I amortize my new car purchases properly. I usually keep them at least 8 years. Keep in mind that is in Montreal Quebec where deep freeze and snowy winters are a thing.

My last car was a 2005 Impala SS and I changed it for a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD. I kept it only 7 years because I dumb driver ran into my passenger door. I never fixed the door. It was dented a little. And it pissed the phoque out of me looking at my car that way. So I decided to cut that car loose and buy the Acura. I could have fixed her, but in my eyes, she was no longer perfect and I just couldnt keep her.  That and I was about to do some major overhauling on her soon. New battery, maybe a new exhaust etc...So I prefered to put that money into a new car instead. 

But, my Acura is 7 going on 8 years now. I am perfectly fine in owning her still. She has no major battle scars to speak of, couple of paint chips here and there on the hood, but Ive touched them up and she still looks good even with all that salt and sand and gravel they put on our snowy and icy roads.  I think I will keep her until she dies on me.  I dont think I mind repairing the things I need to repair on her in her older age now just to keep her on the road safely as she still puts a smile on my face as I drive her.  That and there is really nothing out there that interests me in owning enough for me to invest in another new car so because I still love my Acura, she gets to stay with me.. 

So...the 2-3 years of horrendous depreciation does not really apply to me on the Acura...and if I keep her another 7-8 years, which I think the TL could last that long, then depreciation is really not a factor. 

Actually, yes it does! It does no tmatter how long you keep the car. It applies to you the first 3 years you had the car. Yes, you have lower annual depreciation costs from year 4 to year 10. But you will always average out worse than the guy who only foot year 4 to year 10 depreciation. Let's do the math...

Buy a $70K car new, keep for 10 years and sell it for $10K. You lose $60K total, burning a average of $6K a year.

Buy a $70k car used at $40K, keep it for 7 years and sell it for $10K. You lose $30K at an average rate of $4.3K a year.

You are spending 39.5% more money on an annual basis. And, these numbers are about right for an Acura which retains 57% of value over 3 years. It gets worse if you buy a car that depreciates more.

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by dwightlooi

[G. David Felt]

@dwightlooi Totally agree with you on the new versus CPO purchase and depreciation. Only time that does not play out is how I bought my 2006 Escalade ESV Platinum. Cadillac went to their new generation of Escalade and wanted all the last generation sold. I liked the last generation better than the new, but was not ready to buy yet and as such stayed with my CTS I had at the time that the Wife drove.

GM did an audit and found my dealership to be missing a Escalade. It was no where on the lot. At the end of 2005, December, the owner of the dealership found my Escalade in his private storage where he had a few other cars stuck there to due to space on the dealership lot.

GM wanted this $100,000 fully loaded Escalade sold. I had just come in for service on the CTS and ran into my sales rep who had sold me my Demo 2yr old CTS and asked if I was interested in an Escalade if the price was right.

We walked into the showroom where the District manager from GM was talking to the sales manager and owner of Doug's Cadillac and said GM was willing to discount it up to 50% off the MSRP price if they could sell it before the end of December so it was off the books.

I stepped up and told him if I liked the Escalade, I would take it for 50% off. It was all I wanted, fully loaded Platinum edition in White Diamond. I got it, priced in half and went away with the Escalade rather than taking home my CTS. 

Now I had been saving to buy what I figured would be a CPO, but instead with getting such a price discount, bought this new with less than 20 miles on it and paid cash. Best auto purchase ever and I still own it.

I think the rare exception is when the OEM does heavy discounts to move out the last year model auto's. That can make up for going the CPO route.

[dwightlooi]

14 hours ago, dfelt said:

@dwightlooi Totally agree with you on the new versus CPO purchase and depreciation. Only time that does not play out is how I bought my 2006 Escalade ESV Platinum. Cadillac went to their new generation of Escalade and wanted all the last generation sold. I liked the last generation better than the new, but was not ready to buy yet and as such stayed with my CTS I had at the time that the Wife drove.

GM did an audit and found my dealership to be missing a Escalade. It was no where on the lot. At the end of 2005, December, the owner of the dealership found my Escalade in his private storage where he had a few other cars stuck there to due to space on the dealership lot.

GM wanted this $100,000 fully loaded Escalade sold. I had just come in for service on the CTS and ran into my sales rep who had sold me my Demo 2yr old CTS and asked if I was interested in an Escalade if the price was right.

We walked into the showroom where the District manager from GM was talking to the sales manager and owner of Doug's Cadillac and said GM was willing to discount it up to 50% off the MSRP price if they could sell it before the end of December so it was off the books.

I stepped up and told him if I liked the Escalade, I would take it for 50% off. It was all I wanted, fully loaded Platinum edition in White Diamond. I got it, priced in half and went away with the Escalade rather than taking home my CTS. 

Now I had been saving to buy what I figured would be a CPO, but instead with getting such a price discount, bought this new with less than 20 miles on it and paid cash. Best auto purchase ever and I still own it.

I think the rare exception is when the OEM does heavy discounts to move out the last year model auto's. That can make up for going the CPO route.

Well, good for you. But, that is like saying none of the math on car values matter if you hit the jackpot on the Powerball Lottery. Well... yeah.... of course not!

The GMT900 Escalade has more "gimmicks" like the fake side vent and the Suburbanite interior though. The K2 cars are nicer inside and out. But the K2 is a big missed opportunity for The General in that they could have gone Aluminum like Ford did, but they didn't. Consequently the K2 is not any lighter than the GMT900. The Escalade is also at a price point where it can easily absorb the LT4 V8, but they didn't do that either. This resulted in an Escalade that is neither fast nor miserly on fuel. Being AVERAGE is how you get beat up on when you are the flagship bling car.

Edited January 25, 2019 by dwightlooi

[G. David Felt]

32 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Well, good for you. But, that is like saying none of the math on car values matter if you hit the jackpot on the Powerball Lottery. Well... yeah.... of course not!

The GMT900 Escalade has more "gimmicks" like the fake side vent and the Suburbanite interior though. The K2 cars are nicer inside and out. But the K2 is a big missed opportunity for The General in that they could have gone Aluminum like Ford did, but they didn't. Consequently the K2 is not any lighter than the GMT900. The Escalade is also at a price point where it can easily absorb the LT4 V8, but they didn't do that either. This resulted in an Escalade that is neither fast nor miserly on fuel. Being AVERAGE is how you get beat up on when you are the flagship bling car.

Very true, I agree that GM missed really taking the Escalade to the next level. With that said, they are still one of the comfiest road trip auto's to have for large people like me.

Biggest problem that they did not correct till the next generation of Escalade was that from 2006 to 2007, the 2007 lost the ability for large people to put the seat on the floor and it cost head room and space. That cheapness of the power seat system to save a few dollars was just pathetic. Another reason I love the 2006 over the platform change in 2007.

[dwightlooi]

28 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Very true, I agree that GM missed really taking the Escalade to the next level. With that said, they are still one of the comfiest road trip auto's to have for large people like me.

Biggest problem that they did not correct till the next generation of Escalade was that from 2006 to 2007, the 2007 lost the ability for large people to put the seat on the floor and it cost head room and space. That cheapness of the power seat system to save a few dollars was just pathetic. Another reason I love the 2006 over the platform change in 2007.

My biggest complaint on the MDX is that the seat cushion DOES NOT go down low enough. I have no desire for a high hip point, to seat higher or to look over other cars (or the steering wheel) more. I do very much prefer to seat closer to the floor board for two reasons -- I like head room and I like feet in front of me not at 90 degrees. Hey, I like couches I don;t like bar stools! This is why I don't buy SUVs (the MDX is Wifey's car) and why I always lower the seat as much as I can when riding in an SUV (or any car for that matter).

Edited January 25, 2019 by dwightlooi

[G. David Felt]

2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

My biggest complaint on the MDX is that the seat cushion DOES NOT go down low enough. I have no desire for a high hip point, to seat higher or to look over other cars (or the steering wheel) more. I do very much prefer to seat closer to the floor board for two reasons -- I like head room and I like feet in front of me not at 90 degrees. Hey, I like couches I don;t like bar stools! This is why I don't buy SUVs (the MDX is Wifey's car) and why I always lower the seat as much as I can when riding in an SUV (or any car for that matter).

I can respect that about your seating position. For me, I have to put it flat on the floor due to my size. Yet the wife love to have the seat at the top, looking over the steering wheel and a bit down. Interesting how people like their seat position. Also amazing how many auto's have very limited electric seating position when they have the room for it. Perfect example is the Mazda CX9 I rented for a family vacation 2 years ago. Worst electric seats ever and I was totally cramped in that auto. Worst ride, comfort, etc. would never recommend a CX9 to anyone and yet so many people even here on this forum love them.

[dwightlooi]

37 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I can respect that about your seating position. For me, I have to put it flat on the floor due to my size. Yet the wife love to have the seat at the top, looking over the steering wheel and a bit down. Interesting how people like their seat position. Also amazing how many auto's have very limited electric seating position when they have the room for it. Perfect example is the Mazda CX9 I rented for a family vacation 2 years ago. Worst electric seats ever and I was totally cramped in that auto. Worst ride, comfort, etc. would never recommend a CX9 to anyone and yet so many people even here on this forum love them.

LOL... I think you'll "like" the Lexus RX350L Hybrid 3rd Row. The top of the seat cushion is about 4 inches from the floor (which is higher than the regular RX350L due to the battery). You seat with your legs up like an "A".

[Robert Hall]

Depends on the vehicle..in a low roofed car, I have to sit low so my head isn't touching the headliner.  In an SUV, I like to sit up moderately high.  In pretty much any vehicle, I like to be high enough to look through the top 1/3rd of the windshield.  I generally like the seat bottom fairly flat (not tilted) and the backrest slightly tilted.