Comments on: ALG Forecasts Residual-Value Impact of $4 Gas by 2013

By: Maxy

Maxy — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 05:58:40 +0000

I wonder if the same arguments as in the days when people would ask the new "horseless carriages." The fall or impact on the residual value would be enormous, given the Land Cruiser reference price.
Used Bikes For sale in India

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:28:45 +0000

bill, i don't buy that argument.

switching to any new car will almost never make sense from a pure economic perspective (depreciation, interest costs, etc) but that does not prevent people switching from one suv to another. the comparison has to be fair otherwise we all should be walking or riding a bicycle.

By: Collin Burnell

Collin Burnell — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:47:24 +0000

Actually, for vehicles that are driven less than (say) 5000 miles per year, an Electric or Hybrid vehicle may be a bad choice. Batteries are more likely to fail when they are not used often enough. I haven’t heard of any testing done on the 'shelf life' of these batteries left sedentary for long stretches of time.

As for the article... seems like a no-brainer to me. For those of us who remember the gas crisis of the 70's, the bigger the vehicle, the more likely it did nothing more than take up space on your front lawn with a FOR SALE sign on it. Nobody was buying them and their value plummeted. We will see those days again.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:23:11 +0000

The issue boils down to your personal priorities - Do you want to be kind to the planet? Do you want to be economically wise? Do you want to support American manufacturing industry?

Kindest to the planet would be buying the most efficient, least polluting item regardless of cost.

Economically wise would look at life-cycle cost.

Most patriotic would limit your choices to American products.

A new book, "Our Money, Our Values: Building A Just And Sustainable World" helps the reader look at several perspectives.

As to SUV's, my 21 year old Jeep with 349,000+ miles @ 18 mpg average is not kindest to the planet, but 50+mpg would not have saved enough to pay back the cost of replacing it with a hybrid when they became available, and the 4WD has been priceless the few times it was needed. My favorite feature is that the corporate profits from its sale stayed in the US ofA.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:40:24 +0000

Nice~~~ “horseless carriages” ha ha ha! oooooooooooh ha ha ha!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:37:21 +0000

Come on put up a picture of the Toyota Land Cruiser. It gets 13/18 MPG, with an MSRP of 65,970! The drop or impact on residual value would be huge considering the Land Cruiser’s pricetag. The people buying these deserve to lose their @$$.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:14:39 +0000

I wonder if these were the same arguments back in the day when people were debating those new “horseless carriages”.

By: Rich S

Rich S — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 04:59:11 +0000

Thinking about payback on the hybrid premium is completely missing the point. Does anyone ever ask about payback on leather seating, premium sound system, or 4 wheel drive? I drive a hybrid cause I want to use less oil! Get it?

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:38:44 +0000

I think the math goes something like this:
Current truck, 3000 miles @ 10 MPG @ $4.00/gallon is $1200/year. Mythical perfect car, 3000 miles @ infinite MPG @ $4.00/gallon is $0.00. If the new car costs $24,000 payback is 20 years. If the $24,000 is invested at only 2%, that could pay for $480 in maintenance per year. In other words keep the old car going as long as possible. It is the smart thing to do from a purely economic point of view.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:52:47 +0000

unfortunately some people still believe they are the center of universe, earth is flat, suv represents bigger body parts, fuel will never run out, few oil spills do not matter, and there is no such thing as climate change.