new vs. used

I've got a question.
Has anyone really done the math.. .like i'm looking for a full out comparison of used vs. new.
What i'm finding in the used pickup market, is just a whole bunch of
junky trucks, for big prices, with high miles and worn out old tires, with a bunch of rust starting in various places, because people buy them to keep for 4 years and don't bother undercoating (which is completly valid).
If i were to buy new, i'd keep it i'm sure for no less than 7 years, and likely up to 10.
If i buy used, i'll likely only keep it for 4-7 years.
When I do the math, and the increased repair cost (and i have yet to see a used truck that didn't need a brand new set of tires within the first 6 months) it appears the new truck is almost as cheap as going with the used one.
Any thoughts?
Now, that being said, I find the used CAR market much better than the used TRUCK market value wise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

old truck financed with a conventional car loan. That is starting to force the price of used units down in our area. Around here there ARE a good number of lightly used pickups with reasonable mileage on them, and even more lightly used high milers (2 year old units with 140,000 or more Km on the clock) - many that appear to be almost show-room condition - and with the safety check requirements, many have a set of brand new tires installed already.
There are also a good number that have been beat half to death - and the difference in asking price sometimes is not very great.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Re new vs. used:

My experience is that if you get a good price on a NEW Ranger or smaller truck, keep it for 150,000 miles minimun and don't have the bad luck to get a lemon; then you are better of with the new rather than used truck.

True.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

On my third Ranger. This one was brand new. Never been in the shop.
If it lasts two more years, the purchase price spread over the useful life is around 1300/year.
I guess I will look for a low mileage used one in a couple years if they really aren't making them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is an easy question to answer! The only reason anyone buys a used vehicle is they can not afford a NEW vehicle.
Stay with a new truck, made by an American manufacture, if you can afford the cost, WBMA.
When you buy used, the reason you save on the initial cost is it is because it was USED and one can never know for sure how it WAS used or abused, or how it was or was NOT maintained.
When you are buying new, you are buying MILES and the older it get the more miles it accumulates and the more it cost to maintain and repair. At what point do you expect to have the most problems with a vehicle, the first 50,000 to 100,000 miles, or the last?
I formally owned a fleet repair facility that operated in six eastern states. We sold, through dealerships, and serviced just about any brand on the market. The fact is the vast majority of fleets buy Ford vehicles and Ford trucks in particular, that is one reason the Ford F150 has been the best selling vehicle for over 32 years.
Federal corporate income tax deprecation laws require fleets to deprecate their "Tools" over five years, and in the case of vehicles, or 300,000 miles. As a result corporate fleets maliciously maintain their vehicles, unlike Rental car companies where the vehicles are their "product" that must be sold off quickly before needing any maintenance or repairs. The most "maintenance" rental companies do it top fluids
The reason Ford has around 80% of the corporate fleet business is they have the best overall cost record. Some will tell fleets get big discounts, but the fact is All manufactures, foreign and domestics offer a discounts to fleets, of five or more, that averages only $700 and $1,200.
Our maintenance records continually showed that Fords, on average, cost less to acquirer, insure, maintain and repair over 30O,000 miles than any other manufacturer, period.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Picasso wrote:

The only truck I would buy would be a Ford. As for the undercoating, I would buy a truck from Massachusetts. My understanding is Undercoating is a state law there. And I would only but the 5.4 Litre engine, it's virtually indestructible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/3/10 3:07 PM, Theophilus wrote:

I wouldn't buy undercoating. It comes with the car or truck when you buy it. The steel they use is much better now. Rust is not nearly the problem it was years ago.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apparently you have not recently purchased a new vehicle and looked underneath. Not only are they not undercoated, the under carriage does not even receive the robotically applied base color. The last underbody covering is generally the electrostatic base coat, but you are correct about undercoat not being any value, except as a sound deadener.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

least here in the "rust belt" Any thick film undercoating is just guaranteeing the vehicle WILL rust.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/3/2010 5:22 PM, dr_jeff wrote:

My friend, unless you live in Texas, you are wrong.
I have been looking at 04,05,06... and even some 07's that are all in far worse rust condition than my 1996 Crown Victoria that sits outside all winter, spring summer and fall, and goes nearly every day in the heavily salted streets of my town (they don't even use sand anymore... just salt).
Every truck i look at thats not been undercoated the frame is full of surface rust, and there is rust bubbling under the doors where the metal seam is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And how do you know what the frame looks like UNDER the thick undercoating? The few actual objective comparisons I've ever come across showed that the thick undercoating's are worse then doing nothing, they just trap water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/4/2010 3:59 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Actually, I had it up on a hoist once, and wiped off some, its not a big thick heavy build up, and when i coat it i only apply where necessary... I wiped some off in a few spots on the frame, and it was shiny painted metal underneath believe it or not.
Not a spot of rust under teh doors,. the only spot starting to go is the seam of metal over the rear fenders... and its not on the surface, just kind of on the inside of the wheel well where the metal meets.
Rockers are solid as can be.
Explain to me why mine is so solid, and other cars this year I see driving, or for sale have broken frames, rotted fenders and quarters, and doors that are rusted out at the bottom?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've spent years in the automotive business in the southwestern ontario rust belt. Oil or wax type rustproofing is worth installing and does slow down the rusting of any vehicle - but today's vehicles are mush more resistant to rust than those of 20 years ago - which were MUCH superior to those of 35 years ago.
The heavy film undercoat products are worse than useless- promoting serious rust on vehicles that survive reasonably well with no "protection" at all.
The oil or wax type rustproofing can only protect what it hits and then only if it is not washed off. Annual treatment with a wax/oil mix is the best alternative.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/5/2010 8:10 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:
I'll buy that.
I'm not sure whats in it, but I have been using the rust check brand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It doesn't sound like you are using the heavy thick gunk that was all the rage many years ago. The kind of stuff I'm talking about you didn't "wipe" off, you have to scrape it off with a putty knife. My 92 explorer was coated with some kind of black goo - since I don't live in a snow area I don't know how well it worked but it wasn't like the heavy gunk and was very difficult to remove other then with solvent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.