BlueJ
Blue Haired Freak
Chill out Sal! I'm not attacking you! Hell I even agreed with you! Just pointing out that there's a LOT more than fuel economy to consider when making the switch to a new vehicle - as you yourself pointed out, it's the decrease in maintenance costs that really tip the scales.
Yep you're absolutely correct I did. Also forgot to multiply the $3,750 x 4. So you're up $500 after the 4 years - and you're a high mileage driver, so this is still consistent with what I originally posted which is that it takes a more average mileage driver a LONG time to recover the cost of getting a new car BASED ON FUEL ECONOMY SAVINGS ALONE. Your own numbers support that, I don't understand why you have your panties in a bunch.
Who's the one with the button here? I didn't "keep saying" *you* were disingenuous. I said, one time, that justifying the F250 for minvan swap at *today's* fuel prices instead of the prices in effect when you actually did the swap could be misleading if someone wasn't reading closely.
I could give a flying fuck if you do, or don't, want to drive a gas guzzler, or collect hot rods, or whatever. I'm not saying you are "hiding" behind fuel economy arguments. I'm just tired of hearing people "justify" their car decisions based on fuel economy arguments when those arguments don't hold water. In your own case, it's the $2000/year maintenance you saved when you swapped (and when you swap again) that really tips the scales, afterall. That's all about the car being new, and not at all about it's mileage. That's all. No judgement, no nothing.
Yep that was a typo (the 'Lass was impatiently tapping her feet waiting for me so that we could go ride to work). The correct phrasing is that "we are now at the point where the rate at which new discoveries are made each year *no longer* exceeds our consumption..." The rest of the comment stands.
Again, you're being incredibly defensive considering I'm not attacking you. Or somehow bothered that I'm agreeing with you, I don't get it.
All I'm trying to state that fuel economy alone is generally not a sufficient financial justification to swap vehicles. Period. Nothing you've posted contradicts that.
So, yes, cheers!!
You wrote
1250 gallons a year on the van at $5/gallon = $6,250/yr
714 in the cmax = $3,570
So the van cost $6,250 gas and $8000 maint for 4 years, $14,250 total.
CMAX = zip for repairs and $3,750 gas
Difference = $10,500. Cost of CMAX= $20,000.
You're down $9500 after 4 years.
I think you forgot to multiply the $6250 x 4.
Yep you're absolutely correct I did. Also forgot to multiply the $3,750 x 4. So you're up $500 after the 4 years - and you're a high mileage driver, so this is still consistent with what I originally posted which is that it takes a more average mileage driver a LONG time to recover the cost of getting a new car BASED ON FUEL ECONOMY SAVINGS ALONE. Your own numbers support that, I don't understand why you have your panties in a bunch.
You can't bullshit a bulshitter. What are you getting at? You keep saying I am disingenuous. That I am hiding behind fuel economy arguments. Are you trying to argue that it is better to keep big gas guzzlers? It could be if you drive low miles. Maybe your Frueduan slip is showing. You did say it's a hot button. So just say what you really think. You like to collect big cars or whatever. Hey, I like hot rods too. I like them, but i don't pretend they are rational.
Who's the one with the button here? I didn't "keep saying" *you* were disingenuous. I said, one time, that justifying the F250 for minvan swap at *today's* fuel prices instead of the prices in effect when you actually did the swap could be misleading if someone wasn't reading closely.
I could give a flying fuck if you do, or don't, want to drive a gas guzzler, or collect hot rods, or whatever. I'm not saying you are "hiding" behind fuel economy arguments. I'm just tired of hearing people "justify" their car decisions based on fuel economy arguments when those arguments don't hold water. In your own case, it's the $2000/year maintenance you saved when you swapped (and when you swap again) that really tips the scales, afterall. That's all about the car being new, and not at all about it's mileage. That's all. No judgement, no nothing.
...For instance you write - "we are now at the point where the rate at which new discoveries are made each year exceeds our consumption, so now, just 125 short years after we started sucking the oil out of our planet, we're on the diminishing returns end of the curve"
Yep that was a typo (the 'Lass was impatiently tapping her feet waiting for me so that we could go ride to work). The correct phrasing is that "we are now at the point where the rate at which new discoveries are made each year *no longer* exceeds our consumption..." The rest of the comment stands.
Again, you're being incredibly defensive considering I'm not attacking you. Or somehow bothered that I'm agreeing with you, I don't get it.
All I'm trying to state that fuel economy alone is generally not a sufficient financial justification to swap vehicles. Period. Nothing you've posted contradicts that.
So, yes, cheers!!