CNN Article: Do *not* sell your SUV

Chris_V wrote: ...and I'm looking at replacing it with a newer one (newer SUVs are dirt cheap these days...), say a 2002 model (I used to have an '88 Range Rover, that I had bought for $800. Liked it so much I bought the '95)... 2002 RR was the last of that generation; I would suggest a 2000 - 2002 (with Bosch EFI). I have a 2000. The 2000 - 2002's are basically the same, including the BMW-design improved trannys. Quirks? You bet. The 2003 was a complete redesign (under BMW) and are so much "better" than the previous generation it ain't funny. The 03's & '04's had BMW engines & are priced accordingly (huge jump from 02 to 03).

my fix was to keep my truck, and buy a used car. the honda i bought has paid for itself already in fuel savings. now i just use my truck "recreationally" though i do miss driving it daily, its allot of fun to drive unlike most suvs. I was spending between 550-600 a month in fuel alone, now i spend under $300 a month, and use the saving to pay down the gas bills i racked up before i got the car...

B02S4 wrote: 2002 RR was the last of that generation; I would suggest a 2000 - 2002 (with Bosch EFI). I have a 2000. The 2000 - 2002's are basically the same, including the BMW-design improved trannys. Quirks? You bet. The 2003 was a complete redesign (under BMW) and are so much "better" than the previous generation it ain't funny. The 03's & '04's had BMW engines & are priced accordingly (huge jump from 02 to 03).

Yeah, the '03s take a huge jump in price even on the wholesale market. Mostly because they are in the 5 year range that new car dealers will deal with and keep for retail. I like them, but the '01s and '02s can be had with around 70-80k miles for $10k or so. They are also the last of the body on frame versions which i like better for towing with.

And of course, as a current and previous RR owner, I know all about Rangie quirks! Ours had the air ride removed, and I'd do the same for any of the P38 chassis vehciles. I believe it removes half of the problems that the trucks have.

My total fuel bill for both cars (the Rangie and the BMW) tends to be under $200 per month, unless we make a road trip to CT or go camping, where we add another hundred bucks or so to the month's totals. Not too bad.

Chris_V wrote: Yeah, the '03s take a huge jump in price even on the wholesale market. Mostly because they are in the 5 year range that new car dealers will deal with and keep for retail. I like them, but the '01s and '02s can be had with around 70-80k miles for $10k or so. They are also the last of the body on frame versions which i like better for towing with. And of course, as a current and previous RR owner, I know all about Rangie quirks! Ours had the air ride removed, and I'd do the same for any of the P38 chassis vehciles. I believe it removes half of the problems that the trucks have. ...

Ahh, I love the air suspension. All part of the fun. And better than a Casino.

I understand a significant number of wholesaled/auctioned 03's & 04's were "exported" back to Europe/Russia in the last couple of years, given the exchange rate...

My 00 P38 Bosch EFI tows great.

It's all about the right tool for the job. I have a 12 MPG van that gets used only a tow vehicle and Lowe's Racing Supply runner, a Miata for the weekends, and a daily driver that I bought before fuel got pricey. I don't like wasting a lot of money on a depreciating asset like a car, particularly one that I am going to beat into the ground for 10+ years, on average.

My fix for fuel costs? I ain't never, ever, giving up my daily driver 2000 Corolla. 35 MPG in mixed driving and it has 220,000 miles on it. I've had it since it had 17K on it, and I am pretty confident in it's maintenance history. With the new job I only have a 100 mile per day commute (vs. the old 130 mile drive), and I have no hesitation about getting in it and driving it anywhere, anytime.

I've run the numbers, and if it spit a rod through the oil pan tomorrow I'd gladly pay $2500 for a new motor for it, rather than take that money as a down payment on something newer. Heck, if the "monster" torque from said new motor then caused it to puke a trans on the way home, a $2000 transmission ($4500 total) is still more cost efficient than $16 - $20,000 for a new car. My grandkids (if I ever have any) will inherit this thing. I hate that it's a slushbox, but that's not enough reason to replace it.

Overkill maintenance for the win.

I understand why people cherish their SUVs, even though I don't agree with it. It seems to be a "keep up with the Joneses" thing, which is human, if shallow.

I've never really gotten why minivans get such a bad rap, since they seem better suited to soccer mom duty than the bohemoths that so many of them use.

In my line of work, I NEED a vehicle that can cary 4X8 sheets of drywall, plywood, panelling, etc., so I drive a full size van. After 15 years driving a short wheelbase Chevy, I've just procured an longer '03 Ford cargo van. It's a no-frills, stripped down work vehicle with no social cachet whatsoever, but it serves my needs perfectly. I was concerned that moving to a larger van would hurt me mileage-wise, but I just took a trip in t last Sunday and realized 21.8 highway mpg, which I feel is respectable. I was pleased with the figure, which is larely due to my driving style (the "egg between my foot and the gas pedal" philosophy).

On the DD front, I have a Neon Sport Sedan that gets close to 40 mpg on the road, and for my fun/hobby car, another Neon Sport Coupe, that despite extensive modifications, gets about 34 mpg @ 70 mph. It also runs mid 14 second quarter mile times at about 100 mph, and places near the top of the pack in SM autocross; the perfect compromise!

There is definitely something to be said for comparing the TOTAL cost of a vechile rather than just the fuel mileage.

When I bought my '03 TDI wagon back in '03, my daily driver was a '90 E150 conversion van. At the time, the car's 46 mpg vs. the van's 16 mpg was just barely enough to cover the $405/mo loan amount... adding in the greatly increased insurance (full coverage on the car @ $1200/year vs bare-minimum @ $550/year for the van), the van still came out way ahead in a cost/mile calculation.

Five years later, the calculation is still tricky... fuel is more expensive... but the van was an incredibly reliable truck... and didn't need the costly maintenance the TDI does... and then if you add the depreciation of the TDI ($22K new down to KBB of $10K) it gets even murkier...

I don't regret the purchase... and now that the TDI loan is paid off, I hope to drive the car for at least another 5 years to amoritize the costs.

My current "toy" '95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 Club Cab is a harder sell... I don't drive it much... and while the 22mpg it gets is great for a big 4x4 truck, it's still hard when you're used to 46 mpg... and much of what I use the Dodge for could be accomplished with the TDI and a trailer... add to the fact I'm constantly needing to do something to the thing and I'm left going:

Interesting, that these articles always centr around dollars and cents instead of consumption rates.

I drove the Soyburban about 300 miles last weekend to go be tourists with friends that were visiting on the holiday weekend, we only used a few gallons of diesel, the rest was waste veggie oil. 8 passenger SUV + free fuel = AWESOME! Try doing that with your minivan. Interestingly enough, most people are debating if they should take a big hit selling their SUV because they're gas guzzlers and want a smaller car with better mileage; meanwhile, I'm devating if I should sell my big SUV because it uses free fuel and I can make a boatload of money selling it to fund challenge cars.

Bryce