Savvy Shopper: "But it Doesn't Have Enough Power!"
I was riding with two friends in the 2010 Honda Insight and we were buzzing up a mountain pass in Los Angeles when my friend said, "I'd never buy this car -- I need more power." I answered, "You mean you want more power, you don't need more power."
This triggered a long debate about driving styles, modern traffic patterns and the generally befuddled state of motorists in Los Angeles. But when we all calmed down again, I began thinking how important it is to choose a car with features that we will use about 80 percent of the time. What do I mean?
I've often said that choosing the right car for you is about considering needs versus wants. Say you buy a car and decide to pay an extra $2,000 for a V6 rather than a four cylinder engine. You've added extra weight to the car and cut your fuel economy. Why? So that you have stronger acceleration. Also, you might have better resale value (assuming gas prices don't shoot up).
But consider this: When you are not accelerating aggressively, or using the extra passing power, you're lugging around a lot of extra weight for nothing. To resolve this issue, look at how you drive. How much of the time do you need that V6. If it is 80 percent or higher, pop for the upgrade. If it is less than 80 percent, forget it.
Sure, it's nice to have extra features. But will you use them enough to justify the cost? And, unlike the V6, which might benefit the resale value, most features depreciate quickly. Other pricier options are nearly forgotten and provide no value on resale.
Am I off base? Over generalizing? This 80 percent rule is a work-in-progress so I'd welcome any input from other savvy shoppers.
- Posted by
- Philip Reed September 28, 2009, 12:15 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Car Buying, The Savvy Shopper
It definitely depends on your driving preference. I myself have a 4 cylinder, but it's a powerful 4 cylinder engine. I like the economy of it but I was careful to test it on some of the steeper local hills before I got it. Personally I have to drive up a 5,000 foot mountain here in Southern California at least once a month if not several times a week (It varies). It can take 40 minutes or 15 minutes depending on what kind of car you drive and going back down can be a white knuckle drive if your car doesn't perform well going down a steep grade for an extended period of time.
But while this is the case for many of the people in town, it is not the case for everyone on the road. Still I have driven underpowered cars in the past and I can remember the horrible feeling of getting stuck in a lane on the freeway because no one will let me over and I don't have the power to accelerate and pass. I don't know about you but I feel a little bit safer when I can choose where I want to pass by coming up to an open spot ahead of me rather than having to rely on the good will of others. An underpowered engine might work in an ideal world but I've been cut off from some asshole from behind enough times to know that is not the world we live in.
Still if it's what you're comfortable with that's fine. But it's not what I'm comfortable with. For me it doesn't have to be a gas guzzling monstrosity of a powerhouse but it has to be able to accelerate, and go up and down mountains without me worrying about the car coming apart. For some cars like my mid sized sedan a 4 cylinder can do it, for heavier cars like the van I used to drive you need a 6 cylinder at a minimum.
Economy has never gone out of fashion. Yes, small whimpy cars come and go with the times. Now hybrids are popular. Do they make sense? Not always. For rural driving my Corolla gets the same mileage as my friend's Prius. It stickers for thousands less, won't have the $2,500 cost to replace batteries, and doesn't have the huge environmental impact of battery manufacturering and disposal. But its a status symbol.
Economy comes in other vains as well. Smaller is normally simplier which translates into less to buy, less to maintain, less to go wrong, and less to insure. As far as resale goes, the less invested the less to depreciate and the less to maintain/go wrong the less the depreciation as well.
And of course the less to buy, the less interest to pay on the car loan. Who are you trying to impress with that fancy car anyway? Some stranger that judges others by the level of debt they can "afford"?
Finally Daddy always recommended to buy the average car as there is safety in numbers. Works for servicing, resale, and reliability.
You need airbags, seatbelts and ABS less than 80% of the time, too. Should you ditch those as well?
Co-worker has a well built Jeep. Commutes to work in it every day and takes it off-roading every weekend. You won't see him trading in for an Insight.
Nobody would ever upgrade their Challenger, Camaro, or Mustang to a V8, using your 80% rule. Very few people would buy trucks, vans, or people haulers.
I don't think your 80% rule can or should be applied to just any automotive option. More power is really a personal preference. But for things you might use once in a while (like a tow package, all season tires vs summer tires, upgraded stereo, rain sensing wipers, air bags, etc) you'll have to look at it on a case by case basis. You may not haul your boat around 80% of the time, but the tow package sure comes in handy for the 10% of the time that you do.
7 driver, airbags, seatbelts, ABS, etc are needs irrespective of how many times you'll be in a potential or actual accident. That's not what this discussion is about.
I like the rule in principle, but I'd set it much lower, perhaps 30%. I don't want to feel like I'm giving something up (that I could afford) more than a third of the time.
You "need" a 6 cylinder (or 8 cylinder) in a car zero percent of the time.
Any 4 cylinder car on the market today will easily exceed any speed limit or go up any hill.
You may want more but you can't say you need more.
My minimum is enough power to go 65mph up a mountain road (Sierra Nevada or the Grapevine) with a full load of passengers. That isn’t a trivial amount of power – it might be in the 130-150hp range. Maybe less if the transmission has 5-6 gears and the ratios are just right.
My first car couldn’t really do that; it had 82hp and did 0-60 in nearly 13 seconds. Merging onto a freeway was uncomfortable. Not impossible and not necessarily unsafe, but something I would not recommend to anyone with other options.
blackadder, you're starting to get my point but it's obvious you haven't gotten it completely. My point is that how often you need something is only *one* decision factor. You also need to factor in how much that feature costs and how much value it adds to you.
In the example of my coworker, he uses his Jeep less than 20% of the time but the benefit he receives from his off-roading hobby presumably compensates for it.
My current car has the 2.0T VW engine with 200 horses. Going from the 244 HP in an Accord V6, I thought I'd be disappointed. I'm not, the car has plenty of power for what I do (schlep the kids to school and back, with an occasional rip down Ortega Highway just for fun).