13th Aug 2008, 14:21

"I love the people with long commutes during the week, justifying it with the purchase of a 4 cylinder. Why not move closer to work and drive a shorter distance?"

Because sometimes the cost of doing so heavily outstrips the fuel savings by a huge margin. Me and my Wife live in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area and work in Silicon Valley 45 miles away. Prices for homes in SV are often well over a million dollars. Homes in the East Bay are usually 500-550k. As a result, we rent because the cost of buying is too high. But even rent is vastly cheaper where we rent. Our house costs us $1,600 a month. The same house in SV is $2,500-$3,000. 50% more.

Additionally, we drive a 2002 Prius that gets 50MPG. We fill it up once a week. It costs us $35 to do so, so roughly $140 a month in gas. That versus paying $1,500 more in rent.

BUT... if we drove one of those massive, gas-guzzling V8 powered trucks, it would cost us $500-$600 a month in gas. So in our case, driving a small and economical car is a given. I have a small truck too, which does everything I need to do. But even it simply stays home and gets used on weekends.

If I were someone who for some reason needed some massive truck to haul whatever, I'd buy a used one now because they are losing their values to the point where I actually saw a 2003 Ford F250, fully loaded for $3,800 down the street from me. In fact, I'm seeing a LOT of large SUVs and trucks for sale going down the freeway. If you really wanted a full sized truck, NOW is the time to buy since everyone wants to get rid of theirs.

13th Aug 2008, 15:25

17:31 Your argument doesn't make sense. Yes, a 4 cylinder that needs a tune-up or an air filter or whatever will get worse gas mileage. Let's say 25 instead of 35 or whatever. However, it's the same for the V-8, which will get 12 instead of 20 or whatever.

There doesn't exist a V-8 engine in production that I am aware of that gets even close to as good gas mileage as any 4 cylinder engine. And regardless of the length of your drive to work, your gas mileage still isn't very good. If you had a 4 cylinder, you'd cut your gas expenses nearly in half, if not in half.

My comment wasn't vague. I suppose you could find a 4 cylinder in bad enough shape that some V-8 somewhere in the world was getting better gas mileage than it, but that's the complete exception to the rule.

My Toyota 4 cylinder's (cars) ALL got around 40 mpg, and my new Accent gets around 35 or 36 generally. There is no V-8, however well maintained that comes even close to this kind of fuel mileage.

13th Aug 2008, 15:31

I always picked out classics that had plentiful aftermarket support and high demand such as a 1955-57 Chevrolet. I have never lost money on the "right" cars.

I have a friend in a similar circumstance that bought a Desoto 4 door, but it's a nice car nonetheless.

My best ones have been convertibles and highly sought after models, not the orphans. I now live in Delaware; look at the individuals paying 6 figures for a low # single digit active Delaware license tag just to put on their classic cars!

14th Aug 2008, 09:40

Datsun 210's and other old Japanese cars going for $10,000...?

You would have to find one that hasn't rotted away first.

14th Aug 2008, 09:55

I'm still looking for those 10-grand Datsuns (and I won't find any, as they are all rusting in junk yards) but we can be assured that the topic of this review, the Tundra, will NEVER be a classic.

Even the current resale value on Tundra is less than on the world-class Silverado, and after 30+ years the F-150 is STILL the best selling truck ever made anywhere on the planet.

It seems that when it has become obvious that the topic of the review has been thoroughly discredited, the import fans start straying very far afield with tales of 75mpg Camrys and Datsun 210 "classics".

There are NO Japanese "classics", and no Camry gets 40mpg unless it is coasting in neutral down the side of Mount Everest.

14th Aug 2008, 18:35

I drive V8's and live closer to work. In my office, quite a few individuals, the ones with the lengthy commutes, do so to be further out in the suburbs/country where they can have an acre or 2 of land for the same price. Some commute an hour or more one way every day. The justification is they do not lower their living standard with their families with more ground.

My home does not cost any different, and in fact we make the same income as far as I can tell. They have a bigger home and more land and small cars. I like driving what I own and likely burn less gas. It seems logical to not live in such far outlying areas today. In the event of an even more severe gas spike, I am where there is public transportation. Everyones case is different. Living closer to work for many is not more expensive. People are reluctant to give up the American dream of owning a home and will drive further and further away to have more of a home in many cases. Buying a small car is not necessary being the most thrifty overall.

I am glad I do not drive 100 plus miles round trip daily and face traffic, repairs and other headaches. I'd have my resume out the next day and move if forced to drive in congested traffic where I reside. It's not pretty to commute here.

14th Aug 2008, 21:06

Right after I posted the last comment (about the imaginary "classic" Datsuns), I read USA Today and they had a listing of the biggest losers in resale value in SUV's. The figures were for 3-year-old large SUV's (based on the years from 2004 thru 2007).

The biggest loser was the Nissan Armada (no big surprise there). It lost nearly 40% of its purchase price. The Ford Expedition, Chevy Tahoe, Chevy Suburban, GMC Yukon XL and regular Yukon ALL had higher resale values than the Toyota Sequoia (again, no big surprise).

The highest resale value was for the Chevy Suburban.

Since I have one friend who took a huge loss on a Nissan Pathfinder, and another who has tried (in vain) to sell his Murano, it appears that the real dog in resale is Nissan.

15th Aug 2008, 11:51

I thought I cleared the Toyota doesn't have any valuable classics last month, but I guess some didn't read those post. So here we go again.

The 1967-1970 Toyota 2000gt, which sold new for less than $7000 and now you will not be able to get one for less than $200,000.

How about the the 1960's Toyota FJ & BJ -40s (BJ were 4x4), which sold new for less than $5000, and good luck finding one for less than $20,000 that doesn't need a lot of work. One with matching numbers and in good shape will start around $60,000.

And let's not forget, not every vehicle Ford or GM has made will be come a valuable collector. Corvette can't even claim that all of them are really valuable, nor can Mustang. Face it, some cars will become more valuable and most will not. Not even Ferrari can claim that every vehicle will increase in price, the late 80's F40 was selling for $1.6 Million in the 90's, and now you can get one for less than $500,000. Actually, I would say less than 5% of all cars produced by any manufacture will ever become really valuable.

Now the 210's are a collectors car, but the 280z will more than likely become the better collector car for Nissan. Well until the new 09 GT-R hits the shores, first time the high performance line will be sold in the U.S. Of course if you can find one of the older Skyline GT-R and have it shipped here, they are a pretty good collector car.