Living Car Free - car-free does not save much money

Also, that curve shows classic flattening, not continous dipping (and as zeppinger mentioned, it will eventually uptick). So, it's probably safe to leave all 8+ year cars at 5K.I doubt that. Someone who has an older car that requires excessive repair costs will probably just get a newer car that will have better features and the like, putting them back in the ~7 year old bracket, meaning the older vehicles that are left on the road are likely there because they cost less than newer vehicles. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but as a whole I'm pretty sure operating costs will continue to slowly flatten out over the next decade or so because higher repair and operating costs provide an incentive to just junk a vehicle and buy a newer one.

The actual average savings would be (5K + X)/2

X is the slightly more difficult variable as you'd have to do a bit of calculus presuming a standard bell distribution around 8.9 years and multiplying across the values shown in this chart. However, by eyeballing it, your weighted average for below 8 years is about 8K. (or more specifically, that the weighted average of all cars >8 yrs at 5K - this would be conservatively low and weight it more towards your side of the arguement)

There for average savings for eliminating a car would be (5K + 8K) / 2 = 6.5K... more for more expensive cars (or cars with higher 5-year TCOs), less for less expensive cars.Actually, we have more info than just that. The wiki link states that ~14% of all cars are under two years old, ~26% of all cars were two to six years old, and ~60% were seven years and up, so we can at least weight the initial part of the curve accurately, and that leaves us with ~$3440 in terms of cost, plus the weighted average cost of all vehicles seven years and older. If that's $5000, which I very much doubt, then we're looking at ~$6500/year savings on average, at $4000 that would be $5900, and at $3000 that would be $5300.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ~$6000 isn't reasonably ballpark, but I also don't think that the average for all vehicles seven years and old of is equal to the $5000 cost for only seven year old vehicles when the cost of ownership declines after that, albeit at a fairly slow rate. There's no incentive for someone to have a 15yo car that costs as much or more as one that's 7yo, so as a whole, the most common reason we would see people hanging on to older vehicles is because they cost less, which means that we'll probably see older vehicles operating costs decline a a whole, until the pop up briefly and the owners buys a newer vehicle because it costs less (usually after a steep repair estimate).

lye,

You're making the common assumption that most people are rational. The majority are not, a large number of people who hang on to older cars believe that they cost less to maintain.

PS - Where are you getting a 3440 number?

I doubt that. Someone who has an older car that requires excessive repair costs will probably just get a newer car that will have better features and the like, putting them back in the ~7 year old bracket, meaning the older vehicles that are left on the road are likely there because they cost less than newer vehicles. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but as a whole I'm pretty sure operating costs will continue to slowly flatten out over the next decade or so because higher repair and operating costs provide an incentive to just junk a vehicle and buy a newer one.
Actually, we have more info than just that. The wiki link states that ~14% of all cars are under two years old, ~26% of all cars were two to six years old, and ~60% were seven years and up, so we can at least weight the initial part of the curve accurately, and that leaves us with ~$3440 in terms of cost, plus the weighted average cost of all vehicles seven years and older. If that's $5000, which I very much doubt, then we're looking at ~$6500/year savings on average, at $4000 that would be $5900, and at $3000 that would be $5300.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ~$6000 isn't reasonably ballpark, but I also don't think that the average for all vehicles seven years and old of is equal to the $5000 cost for only seven year old vehicles when the cost of ownership declines after that, albeit at a fairly slow rate. There's no incentive for someone to have a 15yo car that costs as much or more as one that's 7yo, so as a whole, the most common reason we would see people hanging on to older vehicles is because they cost less, which means that we'll probably see older vehicles operating costs decline a a whole, until the pop up briefly and the owners buys a newer vehicle because it costs less (usually after a steep repair estimate).


These are all good points. However, where in this do you include the price of a "new" 8-9 year old car every few years or so? Your saying that owning a 8-10 year old car is the most cost effective way to be car-lite. The problem comes I think when you try to own an 8-10 year old car for more than say... about 2 years. Then you have to buy a new one once that thing breaks that is no longer financially worth fixing. If an older model car cost as little as $3,000 a year to operate then you will have to keep replacing it, or its parts, every so often before the lines on the graph start to go back up again due to repairs. People are rational but it can get pretty expensive to try and keep your car in this "Sweet Spot" where it never breaks and also never needs to be replaced. Or at least I was never able to figure it out when I was a car owner....:(

lye,

You're making the common assumption that most people are rational. The majority are not, a large number of people who hang on to older cars believe that they cost less to maintain.

PS - Where are you getting a 3440 number?

You have to finish the sentence. "a large number of people who hang on to older cars... cost less to maintain [than purchasing a replacement]." There is almost no amount of maintenance that a normal car owner could do that would justify committing to 300-700 per month for 4-5 years.

So it needs a new engine to replace the 15 year old one... that's an expensive item, good thing it is rare. It will cost less than half a year of payments and be good for another 10-15.

AC needs service (as if you need AC, but I digress)... that is about half a month of payments... oops, it needs a part, bump that up to one payment. Now it will be good for several years.

When I worked at Southern Oregon University there was a woman who worked in the science department who, at age 16, had purchased a Volkswagen square-back new (it is a two door sedan, not a bug, but still an air cooled engine) It was not the cheapest car that VW made at the time; nor, was it the most expensive. As an air cooled VW, it needs a level of regular maintenance that would shock owners of modern cars. She kept records from the day she bought it.

It was amazing how cheap that car was compared to anything she could purchase other than bike ((and she did have a bike that she used for trips after work). She car had always been serviced at the same shop and all major components had, at some point, been replaced. It was still a dirt cheap automobile. As I recall (late 90's) her total costs were close to .14 per mile.

There is no reason that a automobile cannot last indefinitely, airplanes do. It has nothing to do with build quality, piper cubs are still flying, and Geos' and diesel Rabbits' are still on the road. If you want a car that will be cheap then buy a car you like, maintain it properly, fix anything that goes bad (so that it does not suffer the slow death of disinterest), keep it forever, and (considering the nature of the forum) use it only when you need to. Considering the amount of resources it takes to make a new car, I consider this to be not only the best money advise; but also the best environmental advise.

Back to the topic, as I have said in this thread, car free would not save me any money; in fact, I can not afford to become car free at this point in time. It is an expensive luxury that I hope to be able to, someday, enjoy. However, car lite, which some see as combining the combines the worse of both worlds, does work for me.

There is no reason that a automobile cannot last indefinitely, airplanes do. It has nothing to do with build quality, piper cubs are still flying, and Geos' and diesel Rabbits' are still on the road. If you want a car that will be cheap then buy a car you like, maintain it properly, fix anything that goes bad (so that it does not suffer the slow death of disinterest), keep it forever, and (considering the nature of the forum) use it only when you need to. Considering the amount of resources it takes to make a new car, I consider this to be not only the best money advise; but also the best environmental advise.

Yup. That is certainly the best way to own a car (that's what we're doing with my wife's Jetta). Also, if done properly, cars (even when bought new) can be cheap / frugal. But, by way of statistical averages (aka, the vast majority of people who own cars), they aren't.

Sigh...

Sigh...


I know, it can be frustrating to see your theories not working in the real world. I expect that is is safe in saying that all of us here would like to live in a world where being car free would be an easy and economical lifestyle. However, as it stands, we live in the world that is here, not the ideal one we want to be in.

At the present, car-free is not the least expensive lifestyle for many people. However, I do see that almost everyone here is already car-lite and willing to go car-free.

You may see the lack of commitment to, and sacrifice for, "the cause." to be reason the sigh. I see the Desire to take part in the social change to be the promises of a better future.

lye,

You're making the common assumption that most people are rational. The majority are not, a large number of people who hang on to older cars believe that they cost less to maintain.It's not that they cost less to maintain, it's that they cost less to own. Insurance, vehicle registration, and depreciation are all a fraction of what they are with newer costs, and the increase in maintenance costs isn't nearly enough to offset this. If it is, for instance spending $4000 on a replacement engine, then people tend to just buy a newer vehicle. Anyhoo, they probably believe that older vehicles cost less to own because it tends to be the case (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/KeepYourOldClunkerOrBuyANewCar.aspx). And the cars that don't exhibit this trend tend to get sent to the junk yard, implying that the older a car is, the cheaper it tends to be.

Anyhoo, do you have any evidence that people as a whole aren't rational a pay on average significantly more than ~$4-5k/year to own, mostly through maintenance costs, older vehicles.

PS - Where are you getting a 3440 number?The weighted sum of cars 0-2 years old and 2-6 years old.

These are all good points. However, where in this do you include the price of a "new" 8-9 year old car every few years or so?We have two situations. If an older car is cheaper to operate, then someone would tend to keep it. If it's more expensive due to maintenance, then they'll tend to just get a newer car instead of paying $3000-$4000 for a new engine or whatever.


Your saying that owning a 8-10 year old car is the most cost effective way to be car-lite. The problem comes I think when you try to own an 8-10 year old car for more than say... about 2 years. Then you have to buy a new one once that thing breaks that is no longer financially worth fixing. If an older model car cost as little as $3,000 a year to operate then you will have to keep replacing it, or its parts, every so often before the lines on the graph start to go back up again due to repairs. People are rational but it can get pretty expensive to try and keep your car in this "Sweet Spot" where it never breaks and also never needs to be replaced. Or at least I was never able to figure it out when I was a car owner....:(I'm saying that owning an older car in general is the most effective way to be car-lite. If repair costs exceed the costs of a newer vehicle, then someone can switch to that, and if they don't, then they can stick w/ what they have.There isn't a specific age to look at, although some models tend to be more reliable than others. Overall, w/ older vehicles, due to maintenance, costs will pop up when we look at individual vehicles, but even if we're paying $3000 for an engine, if it lasts another 15 years as was mentioned, or 30 years IME, then that's only $100-200/year, which is more or less part of maintenance. Stuff wears out, when that happens, we can fix itif we choose to. As a whole, what will eventually happen is that costs will more or less flat line on average, until parts availability and/or repair services start climbing because a car is really old, say 40-50 years or so, and not very common.

my situation with bikes and cars for transport is that if i didn't have a car i would have to use a taxi to get to work. that is 14 bucks two ways. i can estimate that i would use a taxi about 60 days a year at a minimum so even with no car and just having a bike i would spend about 850 a year in taxi fees.
i know if you dress right you can use a bike in any weather but that is not my reality.

I know, it can be frustrating to see your theories not working in the real world. I expect that is is safe in saying that all of us here would like to live in a world where being car free would be an easy and economical lifestyle. However, as it stands, we live in the world that is here, not the ideal one we want to be in.

At the present, car-free is not the least expensive lifestyle for many people. However, I do see that almost everyone here is already car-lite and willing to go car-free.

You may see the lack of commitment to, and sacrifice for, "the cause." to be reason the sigh. I see the Desire to take part in the social change to be the promises of a better future.

In the future, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you don't understand what I write, either ignore me, give me crap, or ask for clarification. But don't guess, because you'll almost always guess wrong.

In the future, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you don't understand what I write, either ignore me, give me crap, or ask for clarification. But don't guess, because you'll almost always guess wrong.

Well, that was quite rude...


So, please tell us what you meant by posting the single word "sigh."

Then pleas tell WHY it was to be seen and treated as insight and brilliance the stands above all comment.

I say this in all seriousness, that little "don't comment on what I wrote" is very rude. A much better way is to start with a from of, "You misunderstand my intent, I thought that I had, in a single word made it clear that ..."

Instead your rudeness illicited an immediate reaction of "ok as* h**e, why don't you just tell us what the ****** you meant instead of paying 'guess what I'm thinking' games and then getting pi**ey when people guess wrong."

Very simply, playing, "who can be the rudest," drags down the quality of a discussion, and a forum, very fast. Further, it is a game that I know I cannot win; so, I choose not to play it.

Time for this thread to go to bed.

If y'all want it re-opened PM me or report this post and I'll drag out the keys.