So you just always magically have enough money to buy a new thing whenever it's needed without ever touching the $10k car fund? How do you decide how much to put in whatever fund you do actually use to buy cars - and then how much and how often to pull from that fund to buy them?
I thought I kinda understood your process, now I know that I know nothing.
As I said before bonuses, throw fun money in, etc.
The easiest way to have money to buy expensive cars is to not buy cars.
It's like my house, I was approved for over a million. I bought 450k.
Based on how you guys budget I could easily be into a 120k dollar car. I spent 75k.
That's incomplete. You spent $78k over what time period?
I budget about $1000/mo max all-in for the 2 of us, counting fuel and insurance and depreciation and maintenance/repairs. Pretty simple.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:58 am
That's incomplete. You spent $78k over what time period?
I budget about $1000/mo max all-in for the 2 of us, counting fuel and insurance and depreciation and maintenance/repairs. Pretty simple.
Over one day. I wrote a check. Money gone. Now I have a car. It's no different for me than buying an Xbox. Both are toys. When I get a new Xbox I might be able to trade it in for $100, sweet! But I don't account for that when I buy the Xbox.
When I get a new toy car I might be able to sell it for 40k, sweet! But that's a bonus at that point.
So what you're saying is that everyone should just make enough money so that they don't have to care about the cost of their cars?
Your strategy only works if your income can be high enough to always be able to buy the cheapest reliable car every single day, because they're all instantly worthless and you can't touch the emergency fund. So $2500/day or $75k/mo. $900k/year after tax and other living expenses. Anything less than that and you cannot afford a car because you can never know how long it'll last.
troyguitar wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:58 am
That's incomplete. You spent $78k over what time period?
I budget about $1000/mo max all-in for the 2 of us, counting fuel and insurance and depreciation and maintenance/repairs. Pretty simple.
Over one day. I wrote a check. Money gone. Now I have a car. It's no different for me than buying an Xbox. Both are toys. When I get a new Xbox I might be able to trade it in for $100, sweet! But I don't account for that when I buy the Xbox.
When I get a new toy car I might be able to sell it for 40k, sweet! But that's a bonus at that point.
Hope you paid cash for the house as well. Tomorrow a meteor could strike it.
So what you're saying is that everyone should just make enough money so that they don't have to care about the cost of their cars?
Your strategy only works if your income can be high enough to always be able to buy the cheapest reliable car every single day, because they're all instantly worthless and you can't touch the emergency fund. So $2500/day or $75k/mo. $900k/year after tax and other living expenses. Anything less than that and you cannot afford a car because you can never know how long it'll last.
Zero estimated value doesn't mean zero utility.
Most people vastly over estimate their net worth. I prefer to underestimate mine.
So what utility do you expect from your car? This shouldn't be so hard to understand. Why be so purposely evasive?
If you had to buy a $2500 beater, how long would you expect that to provide utility?
Maybe I'm a terrible bean counter, but I don't understand the issue with Benders method?
Buy a toy upfront, money is gone. Keep car over a period of time, not placing constantly, save money. Meteor strikes car, utilize emergency fund for additional transportation.
Throw extra funds from last month/bonus to replenish emergency fund.
If additional funds are needed look to liquidate stocks/mutual funds/less liquid items.
Hope you paid cash for the house as well. Tomorrow a meteor could strike it.
For my house - I count it as a liability rather than an asset. Once that mortgage is 0 I'll count it as an asset. When the housing market tanks again guess who won't give a shit? Me!
continues. ME!ME!ME! revolves around myself and how I think. Financial concepts don't matter because they don't affect ME according to my and my own rules!
troyguitar wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:21 am
So what utility do you expect from your car? This shouldn't be so hard to understand. Why be so purposely evasive?
If you had to buy a $2500 beater, how long would you expect that to provide utility?
I'm not being evasive at all?
From the Alfa? None. It's a toy. Smiles only. Anything else is a bonus.
From the CR-V (probably worth about $3500) I expect another 100k or so.
Now we're getting somewhere. So you drive what, 20k miles a year? $3500 to replace that in 100k or 5 years = $700 a year plus fuel, insurance, registration, and maintenance/repairs (you aren't getting 100k out of that without at least a set of tires) is your minimum personal transportation budget. It's a lot more than merely fuel and insurance as stated earlier. You've got a minimum total cost in mind that you for some reason wouldn't share until now.
That might be such a small number to you that you can consider it to be a rounding error in your budget, but it's significant for most people and is the $1000/mo that we use in our budget for 2 cars.
They are toys but unlike a used dildo they have residual values, so going 100 to 0 on day 1 is
Oh, obviously you never bought a new Porsche.
500 miles on my car and it's now worth 1 new GTI and maybe a fox body Mustang.
But what’s your beater slush fund when the meteor hits ?
Next time get gt3 rs, only appreciation now ...
The only new car I ever bought was the Porsche lite ... my golf tdi
Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc and General Motors Co are in talks to invest in Rivian Automotive LLC in a deal that would value the U.S. electric pickup truck manufacturer at between $1 billion and $2 billion, people familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.
is wrong with GM. This is an embarrassment. YOU OWN PICKUPS why invest in start ups... that are going to blow it on tranny hookers and blow and illustrious comp parties.
Are they only fun for a week because 392, or are they actually decent cars to live with?
Having seen a few ~$400/mo leases with zero or close to zero down, that’s something I’d like to look into.
Obviously it’ll be a while to build a decent credit score first but luckily FCA seem to be happy to help anyone with a beating heart and a job.
I’d love an SS but looking at prices..
I guess the can’t really compare in terms of handling but are there other things that make the SS better?
It really depends on you, and what you consider fun. These cars can be had with the 5.7 for next to nothing and with a quick exhaust mod they sound great.
I have extensively shopped these and new they have around 10-15k on the hood for the 5.7s but at most 1/2 that for the 392. They are only very minor dynamic differences between the two motors. However the 392s come with much bigger brakes.
That said I couldn’t justify the huge upcharge for the same car with a slightly bigger motor.
I mean it's not insignificant. It's a 120hp increase + Brembos etc for $4k.
It really depends on you, and what you consider fun. These cars can be had with the 5.7 for next to nothing and with a quick exhaust mod they sound great.
I have extensively shopped these and new they have around 10-15k on the hood for the 5.7s but at most 1/2 that for the 392. They are only very minor dynamic differences between the two motors. However the 392s come with much bigger brakes.
That said I couldn’t justify the huge upcharge for the same car with a slightly bigger motor.
I mean it's not insignificant. It's a 120hp increase + Brembos etc for $4k.
It isn't 4k, it is more like 10-15k. The 5.7s have heavy discounts, the 392s don't on top of having a higher MSRP. There isn't THAT MUCH of a performance increase between the vehicles. Even the 392 is mostly meh, yes it is obviously better than the 5.7 but I don't' think it can justify that premium.
I mean it's not insignificant. It's a 120hp increase + Brembos etc for $4k.
It isn't 4k, it is more like 10-15k. The 5.7s have heavy discounts, the 392s don't on top of having a higher MSRP. There isn't THAT MUCH of a performance increase between the vehicles. Even the 392 is mostly meh, yes it is obviously better than the 5.7 but I don't' think it can justify that premium.
The difference in resale probably makes up for all of the difference in initial cost, which isn't so huge when considering lease prices anyways. We'll just have to disagree that the Scat is worth the price over the R/T.
max225 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:26 pm
It isn't 4k, it is more like 10-15k. The 5.7s have heavy discounts, the 392s don't on top of having a higher MSRP. There isn't THAT MUCH of a performance increase between the vehicles. Even the 392 is mostly meh, yes it is obviously better than the 5.7 but I don't' think it can justify that premium.
The difference in resale probably makes up for all of the difference in initial cost, which isn't so huge when considering lease prices anyways. We'll just have to disagree that the Scat is worth the price over the R/T.
Max would but the Scat over the R/T every time, he doesn't practice what he preaches.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm
Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm
Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.