OT: Looking to purchase a Kia.

[Optimus Prime 4]

Now do the math at 20k miles, and it's 400 gallon difference. Which is a realistic number for annual driving. So roughly $1,500 worth of gas (not even counting time wasted on trips to fill up, etc.) times an expected use of 8-10 years, and you're looking at about 15k in savings. Which is significant. Plus a smaller strain on resources, good for the ole planet and such.

And while with small numbers you can make a case that there is a larger difference from 15 to 25 (though it's still just a 67% increase vs a 100% increase) the numbers are still much better with 50mpg than 15mpg. Going from 15 to 25 will save you roughly 533 gallons per year, but going from 15 to 50 will save you 933 gallons per year.

Over the life of the car, say 150,000 miles, you would buy 10,000 gallons at 15mpg, 6,000 at 25mpg, and 3,000 at 50mpg, so there is still a very good case for better gas mileage. You're still doubling your effective rate going from 25 to 50.

Plus, I just know it's nice only filling my tank once every 3 weeks or so. I went from 20 to about 35, and it's great. Plus my car is still plenty quick, but I haven't jumped to a hybrid yet.

 

[patdog]

You math just proves my point.

Going from 15 to 25 will save you roughly 533 gallons per year, but going from 15 to 50 will save you 933 gallons per year.

This is just another way of saying that going from 15 to 25 will save you 533 gallons per year and going from 25 to 50 will only save you 400. I'm certainly not arguing against going from 25 to 50 MPG. But the planet (and everyone's wallets) would be better off if everyone getting 15 MPG in their large trucks and SUV's switched to something getting 25 MPG than if everyone currently getting 25 MPG increased to 50 MPG. And it's a lot more realistic. You sacrifice a lot to get to 50 MPG. My parents have a Prius and they don't get more than 50 MPG.

 

[fishwater99]

Toyota is the way to go..

I have a 4runner and a Land Cruiser. Not a problem with either.
Buy used if you want to save $$..

 

[drt7891]

Hybrids are really a waste of resources, to be honest. A prius, for instance, isn't near as efficient as advertised... For what you save in fuel, you more than make up for in maintenance. The most overlooked cost when people are purchasing a car is maintenance costs. Battery packs in hybrids will not last more than 100,000 - 150,000 miles before they have to be replaced, and you might as well buy a new car if you are going to replace the batteries. That battery wear also cuts tremendously into a hybrid's resale value. Until a pure electric vehicle that's practical and affordable hits the market, your best bet for a cheap car is to get a compact 4 cylinder (midsized sedans are a great alternative now... the 4 cyl. offered in most are plenty powerful, the car is larger, has more to offer, and can compete with a compact's fuel economy)

Ideally, diesels are the way to go to maximize efficiency. General Motors ruined that for us in the 70's-80's when they decided to put injectors on a gasoline engine and it resulted in many a blown up engine. In europe, the diesel market is tremendous... here, it's non-existant. They have an undeserved TERRIBLE reputation, but really, they are what you want in economy. The gasoline equivalent (in terms of size) of a diesel engine is about 25-30% less powerful (torque... not HP... but torque goes much further than HP) and 33-36% less efficient. Volkswagen tried to bring in a TDI "clean diesel," but the market just hasn't accepted it. Personally, I'd love more diesel options.

 

[kired]

I went car shopping with my sister for her a Toyota Camry. You could buy a new Camry cheaper than you could but the ones that were a few years older. Maybe I'm not the negotiator everyone else is but it was a couple grand difference to buy new.

We're in a strange time for used vs. new comparisons. You can in fact get much better deals on new cars today than in the past. Why? Think about it.

When the recession there weren't as many new cars being sold. So there are not as many quality used cars today as there were 5 years ago, simply because there weren't as many new cars being purchased. Combine that with the Dave Ramsey thinking of "buy used" that has spread around the country - and today you have an extreme demand for good, low mileage used cars. Low supply + high demand = higher prices for used cars

You're still going to overpay for a new car compared to used, but it's not near gap as we became used to 5+ years ago.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

Skin flint magazine did a study to find out what was the least expensive method to buy a car.

Conclusion? On average buy new!

That shocked me, but the article went on to explain. It stated to buy what you wanted because you had to drive it a very long time for this to be true. I think the term they used was: "Drive it until the wheels fall off."

Buying used can be a hit or miss proposition. I know, I just purchased one that had just gone out of warranty for what I thought was a steal. $3,500 in repairs later... not such a good deal!

Buying used brings in many variables but on average they will cost more than new. You still can outperform the average by buying used if you pick well but don't let anyone tell you buying new is wrong because it can be cheaper in the long run.

 

[mstateglfr]

Skin flint magazine did a study to find out what was the least expensive method to buy a car.

Conclusion? On average buy new!

That shocked me, but the article went on to explain. It stated to buy what you wanted because you had to drive it a very long time for this to be true. I think the term they used was: "Drive it until the wheels fall off."

Buying used can be a hit or miss proposition. I know, I just purchased one that had just gone out of warranty for what I thought was a steal. $3,500 in repairs later... not such a good deal!

Buying used brings in many variables but on average they will cost more than new. You still can outperform the average by buying used if you pick well but don't let anyone tell you buying new is wrong because it can be cheaper in the long run.

If everyone bought new and drove their cars till they fell apart, then all those issues you mention would still arise, only they would arise and affect the original owners, right?
A car that has a lot of repairs at 70K after being turned in at 36K will have issues regardless of owner(all things constant). So to say its cheaper to buy new and drive it til the wheels fall off is best sounds like parts of reality are being ignored.

Your car that had $3500 in repairs would have had those happen if you had bought the car new. So if bought new, you would have paid a higher monthly payment, owned something that depreciates at a faster rate, and would have the same repair bill.

 

[johnson86-1]

New cars lose 15-20% of their value the second you drive it off the lot.

This just isn't true right now. When I looked recently, you were looking at one year old cars being 8 to 12 percenet cheaper than new, with the only real exceptions becing cars that somehow had 30k plus miles even though the model year was only a year old. As far as I could tell, the trend seemed to be for depreciation to look like straightline depreciation for four years, with it slowing down after that. This may be a temporary blip because of the economy and production being slower two and three years earlier, but I wouldn't assume you are getting a better deal buying used right now.

 

[drt7891]

A new car depreciates in value on average about 15-20% as soon as you sign the paper... so that right there tells you it's not worth it... $30,000 car all the sudden is worth $25-26,000 right there... $4,000... JUST to drive a new car off the lot.

A new car depreciates nearly 25-30% the first year you drive it... so out of the $30,000... you now can only get $22,000 for it... $8,000 just to drive a new car for a year.

A car depreciates more in the first 2 years than it does the next 5-7 years, depending on the make. So, no, it's not worth it to drive a new car. New cars have problems at 70-80K miles and are just as apt for failure as any used car. I payed $10,000 for my 6 year old car (at the time) 5-6 years ago and have put probably $1,000 in repairs outside standard maintenance (oil, tires, etc.) and 150,000 miles on it.. an excellent investment by most standards.

There are many many many sources that counter that it is MUCH cheaper and more cost effective to go with a used car than a new one. You get far more bang for your buck going with a year or two old certified preowned with a respectable warrantee and service history than any new car you'll ever buy.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

I bought a new Ford Ranger in 1993 @ $10,800. To date that truck has had less than $2500 in repairs and it is still going strong. That's 20 years at a cost of less than 700 a year. It will probably run another ten years with a few more repairs. Go ahead buy used, I don't blame you. But the odds are that you will have to replace it sooner and with the car prices of the future which will negate part of, if not all of the initial loss.

I replaced that truck when I sold it to my neighbor with a used full size truck myself. My neighbor will probably do well on this cost analysis because I had it in top running condition when I sold it to him. You can do well with the right used cars and I don't deny that but it can be a crap shoot.

Pick your poison but don't tell me buying new is completely stupid because it's not if you drive it long enough.

I don't remember much about that article that I read over twenty years ago that convinced me to buy new but I don't regret buying new other than the choice of vehicles. I wanted/needed a full size truck and I was stuck with a Ranger.

Oh, and finance for three years or less!!!! If you something goes wrong then you will actually have some equity in it to sell/trade within a year or so.

 

[AT4 Dawg]

Blanket statements regarding the purchasing of a vehicle are never true-regardless of which argument you are trying to make because there are faaaar too many variables to consider. Here is a good example of why you cant say one is better than the other.

Chevrolet and GMC are currently changing the body style of their trucks. Because of that, you can realistically get a new truck that has the old body style with around $7,000 of updates(some people can get higher) and get a great financing rate at 1.9 %. And that is JUST off of MSRP, not including dealer mark up(ususally close to around 1500-2500 for them to still make a profit) So you could find a crew cab GMC/Chevrolet truck right now for around $9,000 off of MSRP...a 43,000 truck now you can get 34,000.

Now then, compare that a truck that is 1-2 years old. You wont get promotional APRs. Instead, get ready for 3.9% if you are lucky, but probably 4.9 or higher. The cost to finance the 1-2 year old truck will be at least $1,000 more to finance. And then you have to consider these barely used trucks. The sellers are not going to sell the truck they bought for 43,000 a year ago for less than 34,000. They just arent. And so ask yourself which is the better deal? What if they were the same price, even then you want the new one because it hasnt been subject to a year more of driving.

 

[drt7891]

Still disagree. Let's look at a demonstration I've seen done before... you have a choice to buy the same make car. what we do is take 2 cars, 2 prices, 2 year models and drive each car until it reaches 200,000 miles, no more, no less. Why 200,000 miles? I know very few individuals who hold on to a car long enough to put that many miles on a car. Also, we are not including maintenance costs, everything else is equal. Let's do some simple math (Amount paid for the car / number of miles driven). What this does is it puts both cars onto an equal playing field... it shows you exactly what you pay for each mile you put on the car:

- 2013 Nissan Altima, brand new. $25,000, 0 miles, not broken in = $0.125 per mile
- 2011 Nissan Altima, used. $17,500, 24,000 miles, broken in (certified Preowned) = $0.0994 per mile

24,000 miles is NOTHING on a car. I would not pay $7,500 (126% more) for 24,000 miles more life on a car (for some perspective, I payed just under $10,000 for my car I've put 150,000 miles on). This does not include the interest you pay if you finance the car. You are still not guaranteed that at 80,000 miles, you have to contend with a major repair. So essentially, it boils down to this... up front, I'm paying $7,500 MORE for a car that will only get me 24,000 more miles, maybe a little longer warranty (certified preowned cars have very competitive warranties), and still no guarantees of no major malfunctions that happen to EVERY car, new or used. The crap shoot argument makes no sense because things go wrong with nearly every single car, regardless of the condition it was purchased. It's just with a new car, you just have a marginally better chance of catching it during the warranty windowr, but that's still not a guarantee. Give me the used car any day of the week.

 

[esplanade91]

Aston Martin's "flavor" is very heavy in the Fusion, and I agree with a lot of what you said. They also took the opportunity to begin investing in the midsized market long before the other 2 of the 3. Ford has had the Taurus for decades and it has done well... their current run started with the Fiesta in the early 2000s (basically a crap compact... but that's all compacts were at the time), then began making the Focus and 500... all around 2006 (well before the economy tanked). The 500 was basically a transition model for Ford to redo it's Taurus... which is now competitive with the Maxima as a larger, sportier sedan that offers a standard V6. The Fusion then came out of the wake of the 500 and has done real well... and will continue to get better. I'm sure Ford is working on a CVT transmission for the Fusion because that's the only thing that is really holding it back right now. Currently, A 4 cyl. Fusion can muster 32-33 on the highway while an Accord, Camry, or Altima can get up to 20% better. In the midsized segment, you better be able to match or beat the market leader in fuel economy to be competitive. Those numbers carry a lot of weight.

I feel German cars are slipping in reliability, especially Mercedes. Most people I know who drive new, German-made cars have issues with them... and you can't just take them down to the local shop to have them repaired. Most places in Starkville will hardly change the oil on a Mercedes or VW, much less work on one. You are limited to the dealership... and you better be ready to have a lot of cash if you are paying out of pocket. German-made cars are still good cars... a lot of prestige... but Mercedes has lost it's way some in terms of overall reliability. They still have the brand image they want, but reliability and cost of maintenance will hurt the German-made cars soon enough.

Way back in the day, Mercedes did a fabulous job engineering and designing their cars... along with offering great, detailed maintenance manuals. There was nothing at all flashy about them, but they were the longest lasting, best built cars on the road in any country. The older cars were a gear-head or weekend hobbyist's dreams because they were very easy to work on. They were built that way because Mercedes marketed to the German working-man who may not have had access to a shop to get their car worked on, so they set up a distribution network for parts and provided them with manuals. Now, you can't open the hood of a Mercedes or VW without specialized equipment because in the US, they are seen as a more prestigious car. I guess if you can afford own a Mercedes, you can afford to have it worked on.

I'll agree with you on that. My grandfather passed away a couple years ago at the age of 89 and we went through his papers and everything and came to find out he had close to 250 different Mercedes ranging from 1942 to 2006. I've personally had several diesels ranging from 1982 to 1999 and a 1991 gasoline 300E. On the old 5 cyl diesels and even the 6 until about '94/'95, any regular Joe who had any experience what-so-ever with diesel engines could change the glow plugs or whatever you needed. Parts were more expensive, but they lasted longer and you got a better product. When you factor in the time/distance you get between having to change out everything it's the same as any Ford part, in my opinion.

The early to late 80's models weren't flashy. The interior was subtle and plain, and the carpet pulled up and out without you having to even unscrew anything or pull anything up on your way to it. Every interior was the same, C-Class through S-Class. The most telling part about them was they didn't offer cup holders until the 90's because "beverages took away from the driving experience."

My '91 was decently hard to work on even as a gasoline engine. When it got to the '99, it's the SAME EXACT ENGINE as the '91 and up diesel models but it's like looking at a jet engine when you open the hood. It's insane how complicated they all of a sudden became. I was still able to take it to my "backyard" mechanic (certified MB mechanic whose garage is literally behind his house, but he almost ONLY does antiques now) but some stuff he had to figure out by trial and error. I attribute it to technology though... my '91 had electronic hydraulic stabilizing suspension which you would have never seen on my '82. That's only going to get worse in every brand's car moving forward. Hybrids are going to kick everyone's ***.

I'll say that I don't think the quality and reliability has dwindled, I think it's been the same, it's just that they've moved away from offering a slightly-above-your price range vehicle to the average American consumer who might choose to buy it anyway or choose to buy a certified pre-owned to offering the same car 10-15 years later at an even higher price... squeezing the buyer out of the market. As a consolation prize they offer a REALLY 17'ING ****** C-Class which isn't worth the metal it's made of, which people buy because they want to show off for having a Mercedes-Benz and complain about it 6 months afterwards because some major part in the drivetrain blew up. They're targeted toward teenage/early 20's girls whose parents have deep pockets. Why would they sell you a well crafted machine? My now-antique models didn't have plush interior and I wouldn't even come close to saying they were a direct competitor to Cadillac, but now they are. Sit in a new one. Plush as hell.

For what it's worth, my '82 had 450,000 miles on its original motor and tranny and worked great before floating off in Katrina. My '91 gasoline had 250,000 miles and never so much as leaked. The '99 got 45 mph and I drove it cross country 3 or 4 times.

I'll stick by VW too. There's a reason they have the reputation they have. Porsche has been the #1 most reliable car manufacturer by Consumer Reports for YEARS now... Porsche/VW/Audi/Lamborghini are all the same parent company and all share their R&D. You might not get a Lambo by buying a VW, but in a small way you get some engineering passed down from Lambo and Porsche's engineers developing some kind of something. You get Audi's decades of AWD kingdom. You get VW's perfection of the 4 cylinder engine. (*Interesting tidbit, most of Lambo's engines are modified VW 4 cylinder engines in some form or fashion put together to create a V. A lot of the engine components are modified (heavily, of course) from the same parts put in Golfs and what-not.*)

The days of guys learning how to work on cars in their trailer park and getting a job at Hank's shop down the street, never surpassing a GED and only charging you the bare minimum, are pretty much done. I've seen Chevy's newer renditions of the LS1 and I bet you the average weekend warrior wouldn't be able to do a lot of stuff to it that he could on his old LS1.

Why are you so crazy about the CVT though? If anything I'd rather have a dual clutch. Just because I buy a car that gets good gas mileage doesn't mean I don't want "oomph"... If you couldn't tell I really enjoy driving. CVT's aren't for "drivers". To each his own though, I think they're probably more reliable. If I have the option I always buy standard, but that's being offered in less and less new models.

 

[AT4 Dawg]

Still disagree. Let's look at a demonstration I've seen done before... you have a choice to buy the same make car. what we do is take 2 cars, 2 prices, 2 year models and drive each car until it reaches 200,000 miles, no more, no less. Why 200,000 miles? I know very few individuals who hold on to a car long enough to put that many miles on a car. Also, we are not including maintenance costs, everything else is equal. Let's do some simple math (Amount paid for the car / number of miles driven). What this does is it puts both cars onto an equal playing field... it shows you exactly what you pay for each mile you put on the car:

- 2013 Nissan Altima, brand new. $25,000, 0 miles, not broken in = $0.125 per mile
- 2011 Nissan Altima, used. $17,500, 24,000 miles, broken in (certified Preowned) = $0.0994 per mile

24,000 miles is NOTHING on a car. I would not pay $7,500 (126% more) for 24,000 miles more life on a car (for some perspective, I payed just under $10,000 for my car I've put 150,000 miles on). This does not include the interest you pay if you finance the car. You are still not guaranteed that at 80,000 miles, you have to contend with a major repair. So essentially, it boils down to this... up front, I'm paying $7,500 MORE for a car that will only get me 24,000 more miles, maybe a little longer warranty (certified preowned cars have very competitive warranties), and still no guarantees of no major malfunctions that happen to EVERY car, new or used. The crap shoot argument makes no sense because things go wrong with nearly every single car, regardless of the condition it was purchased. It's just with a new car, you just have a marginally better chance of catching it during the warranty windowr, but that's still not a guarantee. Give me the used car any day of the week.

This is my point. Your example proves one point is better, but not every new car. The one I gave, where a 1 year old used Z71 actually costs more than a new one right now( dont try to deliberate me on this, I have visited 6 different GM dealerships and have seen the new trucks be priced less after the rebates than the trucks that were comparable but were certified pre-owned) proves that specific example is best, but its not true for every new truck.

I am saying that blanket statements about purchasing a vehicle are not always true in both instances. There are waaaaaay too many variables to consider for each customer.


A lot of it just has to do with when you try to purchase a vehicle and the brand. Ford and Dodge offer significant rebates(6-10K) often on their new trucks. The incentives that come down from Chevrolet, Ford, Dodge, etc. can absolutely make it more worthwhile to buy a new car over one that is 1-2 years old.

 

[Sutterkane]

Used cars depreciate when you drive them off the lot as well. Most used car places like carmax have 5-7.5k markups versus what they will give you for your vehicle, and it's usually several thousand less than what your vehicle is rated for at blue book value. Whereas if you buy new usually dealers will look past some things in order to make a sale and you'll get better value for your trade-in. If you buy a vehicle brand new, you ALWAYS get a warranty on it by default, and you usually have to pay extra for that when buying used; and no matter what a carfax says, you can sneak issues by a carfax report.

 

[catvet]

Toyotas are excellent

I have a 4runner and a Land Cruiser. Not a problem with either.
Buy used if you want to save $$..

I owned 6 GM and Ford products before buying my Toyota: all of them had major issues before 100.000 miles and some started at 30,000 miles. That's when I bought my Toyota 4runner. In 2002. 440,000 miles later with the same engine and transmission and with only $800 in repairs and no payments in seven years, I like my decision. When this one finally dies, I'll get a new vehicle, but I have years to think about it. No one make vehicles like Toyota.

 

[drt7891]

I'm not a huge fan of cvt's personally and I echo your opinion... Give me a 5 speed manual any day of the week... I'm just pointing out many opinions and reviewa I've read on that market segment and what's competitive. The average consumer hardly knows what an air filter is, much less a transmission. Fuel mileage is a major factor to that market segment and very few care about the driving experience... And the fact is cvt's get much better fuel mileage... And to a consumer only seeing a number on a sticker, a 37-38 mpg looks much better that a 33-34.

 

[jxndawg]

I've always been big on buying 1-2 year old, low mileage cars, paying them off and driving them til the wheels fall off. Had an Acura that I kept for 10 years and 220k miles, spent about $1,500 in repairs on it the whole time (most of that was for a new timing belt toward the end). Shopped around forever for a good deal on a slightly used Accord to replace it, and wound up getting such a good deal on a new one (the price plus 0.9% financing) that I went with new. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a while back about how the recession has increased demand for used cars, which has driven the price up, and I found it to be true, at least for what I was looking for.

 

[Sutterkane]

I just bought a Toyota keyboardddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

 

[KurtRambis4]

Toyota

is a great brand. Our two Land Cruisers have stood the test of time. The Lexus 600 has been a great purchase, too.

 

[mstateglfr]

I have a 4runner and a Land Cruiser. Not a problem with either.
Buy used if you want to save $$..

Um, you have $35,000 and $73,000 cars. Your two cars cost almost $110,000 new. I would hope there isnt a problem with either. Problems shouldnt arise with either for years and years. At $73K, a car not only shouldnt have any problems, standard maintenance should be included for a decade and the car should have a self cleaning option, like ovens.

 

[johnson86-1]

- 2013 Nissan Altima, brand new. $25,000, 0 miles, not broken in = $0.125 per mile
- 2011 Nissan Altima, used. $17,500, 24,000 miles, broken in (certified Preowned) = $0.0994 per mile

Where are you seeing that big of a difference in price? I haven't looked in the past few months, but when I was looking, there wasn't nearly that much depreciation for a car two model years old with less than 25k miles. It was closer to a $4,000 difference, and $2,000 per year in depreciation isn't bad. There just wasn't a clear point where depreciation slowed down significantly in the first four or five years. That may have been a temporary aberration, but I wouldn't go out and buy a two year old car to save $4k unless $4k meant a ton to you. It's just not going to be a predictable difference in total cost per mile driven over the life of the car.

 

[Indndawg]

3 Toyotas and nary a prob.

I have a Tacoma-146000
Wife has Sienna-11000
Daughter has Lexus RX-80000

You get what you pay for.

 

[mstateglfr]

You do get what you pay for

...and the thread started out asking about Kias. I just found it funny that a Landcruiser, which costs 150% more than the average US household income, had found its way into the conversation.

 

[seshomoru]

^in the lead for the internet today

 

[Maroon Eagle]

6. The honda accord would be my recommendation. The new accords are stylish, well built, reputable, and last a long time. Honda 4 cylinder engines are fabulous engines, I think.

Agreed. I bought my '99 Accord used back in '02 when it had 50K miles and have put another 200K miles on it. It's fantastic.

 

[JackShephard]

A new car depreciates in value on average about 15-20% as soon as you sign the paper... so that right there tells you it's not worth it... $30,000 car all the sudden is worth $25-26,000 right there... $4,000... JUST to drive a new car off the lot.

A new car depreciates nearly 25-30% the first year you drive it... so out of the $30,000... you now can only get $22,000 for it... $8,000 just to drive a new car for a year.

A car depreciates more in the first 2 years than it does the next 5-7 years, depending on the make. So, no, it's not worth it to drive a new car. New cars have problems at 70-80K miles and are just as apt for failure as any used car. I payed $10,000 for my 6 year old car (at the time) 5-6 years ago and have put probably $1,000 in repairs outside standard maintenance (oil, tires, etc.) and 150,000 miles on it.. an excellent investment by most standards.

There are many many many sources that counter that it is MUCH cheaper and more cost effective to go with a used car than a new one. You get far more bang for your buck going with a year or two old certified preowned with a respectable warrantee and service history than any new car you'll ever buy.

This is total BS. At least in today's economy. And if you know what you're doing. I bought an F150 crew cab 3.5 years ago for $23,500. Brand new. About a year ago, I looked up the Blue Book trade in value...over $18,000. I only owed $13,000. I could have sold it right then and driven it for 30 months for only $5,500 out of pocket. It was still worth 77% of its original value 2.5 years later. No, this is not the norm, and my timing was just right. Again, you have to use some sense. But like someone else said, every situation is different. Blanket statements are dumb. When I bought the truck, I traded in an Altima that I bought brand new 5 years prior for $19,000. I got $5500 for it. So I paid $2,700/year for that one. Had I bought it used, I may have gotten it for 13,500. Had I driven the same miles and time, it probably would've traded for $2500. That would've been $11,000 out of pocket instead of $13,500. So I would've saved a meager $500 per year. I will gladly pay $500/year for the peace of mind of knowing I have a longer warranty, better financing, and that I am the only person to ever drive the car. A lot of those low mileage used vehicles are rentals, work vehicles, or government fleet vehicles. Those can be some hard miles due to some real morons driving them. Maintenance is often poor on those as well. Again, you have to know what you're doing. I personally am willing to shop harder and even pay a little more for the luxury of having a new vehicle. My wife and I have also purchased a brand new Sonata Limited and an X-Terra. To each his own though. If you prefer saving a little cash (even if it is only in your mind - let's be honest, we've all been ripped off buying used OR new), that's your prerogative. But to apply blanket statements and take a know it all approach is just annoying.