Investing in bargain basement cars?

softdown · November 2019

On a kick of buying cheap cars with bad motors, transmissions, brakes, etc. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Might be an interesting strategy if one is handy, has plenty of time and can trailer broken vehicles. Surprises always lay in store. For example - bought a 2006 Lincoln Town Car missing fourth gear. Owner just said it needed a new transmission. But we drove it 40 miles by locking out overdrive. Preparing to drive it to Kansas where a salvage yard has a 2006 Lincoln Town Car transmission.

What I didn't expect:
*Only a transmission from a 2006 Lincoln Town Car bolts up with no need for different parts.
*Rebuilt transmissions from other Town Cars must be programmed and some transmission shops say to have a dealership do that.

While I often enjoy bringing the dead back to life I did have an epiphany. If one is going to have much hope of making this pay off a bit, they should probably fix up dead collectibles. For example - fixing up a dead Jeep is a better investment than reviving an old Explorer. Why? Jeeps hang unto their value much, much better.

Buying a car without being able to drive it is certainly not for everybody. You can get bit quite severely. On the other hand, risk and reward tend to go hand in hand. As well as risk and disaster.

jonr · November 2019

I lean more and more towards DIY car repairs. Too many problems with them doing things wrong - their standard is "just good enough to run as it goes out the door". They also charge too much per hour - and they bill for estimated hours (usually high), not actual hours. making it even worse. And then they want to make money on the parts too. I'd never consider such financial shenanigans in my business (it's actual worked hours and exactly what the parts cost).

softdown · November 2019

jonr said:

I lean more and more towards DIY car repairs. Too many problems with them doing things wrong - their standard is "just good enough to run as it goes out the door". They also charge too much per hour - and they bill for estimated hours (usually high), not actual hours. making it even worse. And then they want to make money on the parts too. I'd never consider such financial shenanigans in my business (it's actual worked hours and exactly what the parts cost).

The hourly rate of mediocre mechanics is scandalous. The profession has always suffered a notorious reputation though good, honest mechanics may be found from time to time. I have always done most of my own work and can still remember many instances of being cheated quite badly.

The issue with doing it yourself on modern cars is that many jobs are virtually impossible without specialized equipment. The level of technology has compelled me to increasingly go back to the golden years of the 90's. There is nothing I can do that makes xxl hands fit into modern automotive spaces. Plus the miles of micro wiring and hundreds of microprocessors gives me the shivers.

So much that the industry has done is a blatant screwing over of the car buying public. Inferior plastic in hot confines with chemicals is a guaranteed failure point. Using rubber balls instead of steel balls in transmission valve bodies is another guaranteed failure point. The rubber balls can split in half and will shrink due to wear and tear from rubbing against aluminum. Transmission valve bodies are no place to save a few pennies with critical parts. I could go on and on and on.

It is, of course, now biting them in the rear. Cars used to be retired when they hit 100,000 miles and cost $2000. Not they are driven until the wheels fall off since they often costs over $40,000. Today's average car for sale has well over 100,000 miles. The challenges of buying and maintaining new cars has grown so tenuous that Ford has thrown in the towel on making any car except for the Mustang. I will say with confidence that Ford is currently the premier US manufacturer and that is unlikely to change. That is coming from an old Dodge guy.

Marking up parts? Some lose money if they don't. Why? Because they are held responsible for part failures. In my case that can mean an unexpected 450 mile drive and buying another part at my expense.

Had to pass on a "reasonable estimate" of $1700 for a transmission "overhaul". Going salvage yard at $950 installed instead. Why? Because the 6 month warranty on the overhaul tells me they likely just fix the broken part and cross their fingers. A real overhaul should carry a 3 year warranty. I get a 3 month warranty with a salvage yard transmission.

This may be the best time of all to invest in automotive knowledge. Transmission and engine replacements on newer cars now costs well over $6000. My first transmission rebuild cost $300 and carried an Amoco lifetime warranty by comparison.

Yet many things have improved. Motor oils, tires, coolant fluid and rust prevention for example.

icarus · November 2019

As cars have gotten ever more electronically controlled, from ignition, to cam timing, to fuel injection, to cooling systems, to exhaust systems to ABS and stability control, they have gotten ever further from the ability of the average DIY guy,even with a modicum of skills and tools to properly repair. This is not a conspiracy of auto mechanics as they struggle with the same issue, and nor ultimately is it the fault of the auto companies per se. It is the fault of the consumer (and to some extent the safety and environmental regulators) who wants high efficiency, low maintenance, safe cars at the most “reasonable” price out the door. Most people don’t factor in the cost of a potential repair that they themselves will in all likelyhood never have to pay for. (Like a new transmission.)

I have said before, cars of today are orders of magnitude more reliable, require significantly less service an are much safer than cars of the 1960-70s. As far as the cost, In ~1970 you could buy a new top of the line Volvo or Saab or BMW for ~$3000. The going wage in my trade then was~$5/hour, my house was ~$10k etc. Today, a “similar” car is $40-50k, but is much better. The average house in the US is ~$200K, average wage is ~$28. You do the math.

Icarus

jonr · November 2019

> many jobs are virtually impossible without specialized equipment
I agree. I just paid $400 to get such a tool, mostly so I could properly bleed the ABS system.

I'd love to see a shop that has an "we don't hide anything" policy. Specifically, they video the entire repair and send it to you. You could see how long it took, that they are responsible for the new fender scratch and that a torque wrench wasn't used.

icarus · November 2019

I also think the OP title is incorrect. “Investing” in used cars, even classics is not an investment, merely an exercise in trying to maximize value. Yes, If I still had my ‘58 23 window, sunroof VW bus, that I bought for $75 and sold for $75, it might have been a good investment, being it is now worth north of $125k. Same for my ‘68 soft window 911 Targa, or my Austin Healy 3000. Most cars in between are/were simple tools, depreciated to near zero. What is a 1975 F250 worth, or a 1985 E350 van?

Tony

Estragon · November 2019

I used to know a guy who "invested" in used cars. Sold maybe a half-dozen a year. He also owned a lot of residential real estate.

The dealers licence gave him access to a database of vehicle registrations, which includes current address and the vehicle details. He collected a lot of otherwise bad debt rent that way.

Marc Kurth · November 2019

Softdown: As a prepper, I assume that you maintain a vehicle that will survive a classic nuke induced EMP and a Carrington event - with the parts to replace when needed? (Yes, I do understand the nuances of ground coupled waves/pulses)

bill von novak · November 2019

softdown said:

The issue with doing it yourself on modern cars is that many jobs are virtually impossible without specialized equipment. The level of technology has compelled me to increasingly go back to the golden years of the 90's. There is nothing I can do that makes xxl hands fit into modern automotive spaces. Plus the miles of micro wiring and hundreds of microprocessors gives me the shivers.

Funny. In the 80's I remember a great many people saying the same thing about "modern" cars, and they'd only work on cars from the 70's that were well designed and easy to maintain. And in 30 years people will be saying "these new cars SUCK! They are impossible to work on. Give me a car from the '20s any day!"

bill von novak · November 2019

jonr said:

I'd love to see a shop that has an "we don't hide anything" policy. Specifically, they video the entire repair and send it to you. You could see how long it took, that they are responsible for the new fender scratch and that a torque wrench wasn't used.

I am having an image of a garage that does that, then spends an hour on the phone the next day with their customers.

"You have to use a torque wrench on that! I saw that on Youtube! I demand my money back."
"We did use a torque wrench."
"You are LYING! I saw the video; I never saw any kind of gauge showing torque!"
"The wrench we used - you set the torque and it clicks when you reach it. It's not a beam type."
"You're just trying to cover your ass now! I know what a torque wrench looks like."

jonr · November 2019

Maybe, but currently many shops work without secrecy and allow you to watch through a window. Video just makes watching more convenient and proof easier.

Marc Kurth · November 2019

bill von novak said:

jonr said:

I'd love to see a shop that has an "we don't hide anything" policy. Specifically, they video the entire repair and send it to you. You could see how long it took, that they are responsible for the new fender scratch and that a torque wrench wasn't used.

I am having an image of a garage that does that, then spends an hour on the phone the next day with their customers.

"You have to use a torque wrench on that! I saw that on Youtube! I demand my money back."
"We did use a torque wrench."
"You are LYING! I saw the video; I never saw any kind of gauge showing torque!"
"The wrench we used - you set the torque and it clicks when you reach it. It's not a beam type."
"You're just trying to cover your ass now! I know what a torque wrench looks like."

LOL, you are right!

softdown · November 2019

Marc Kurth said:

Softdown: As a prepper, I assume that you maintain a vehicle that will survive a classic nuke induced EMP and a Carrington event - with the parts to replace when needed? (Yes, I do understand the nuances of ground coupled waves/pulses)

No I don't. Not currently seeing a need to have a working car when virtually nobody else does. Other people are the greatest threat of all assuming that one has food, water and fuel.

Think I may get out of this older car investing thing. Without the ability to paint cars, do bodywork, and intricate engine and transmission repairs, the project may have been doomed from the start.

softdown · November 2019

bill von novak said:

softdown said:

The issue with doing it yourself on modern cars is that many jobs are virtually impossible without specialized equipment. The level of technology has compelled me to increasingly go back to the golden years of the 90's. There is nothing I can do that makes xxl hands fit into modern automotive spaces. Plus the miles of micro wiring and hundreds of microprocessors gives me the shivers.

Funny. In the 80's I remember a great many people saying the same thing about "modern" cars, and they'd only work on cars from the 70's that were well designed and easy to maintain. And in 30 years people will be saying "these new cars SUCK! They are impossible to work on. Give me a car from the '20s any day!"

They were right. 80's cars did suck compared to the cars of the 60s. What will people say in 30 more years? I'd pay to know.

My point is that cars are getting more difficult to work on with each passing year. Nobody realistically argues with that.

softdown · November 2019

icarus said:

As cars have gotten ever more electronically controlled, from ignition, to cam timing, to fuel injection, to cooling systems, to exhaust systems to ABS and stability control, they have gotten ever further from the ability of the average DIY guy,even with a modicum of skills and tools to properly repair. This is not a conspiracy of auto mechanics as they struggle with the same issue, and nor ultimately is it the fault of the auto companies per se. It is the fault of the consumer (and to some extent the safety and environmental regulators) who wants high efficiency, low maintenance, safe cars at the most “reasonable” price out the door. Most people don’t factor in the cost of a potential repair that they themselves will in all likelyhood never have to pay for. (Like a new transmission.)

I have said before, cars of today are orders of magnitude more reliable, require significantly less service an are much safer than cars of the 1960-70s. As far as the cost, In ~1970 you could buy a new top of the line Volvo or Saab or BMW for ~$3000. The going wage in my trade then was~$5/hour, my house was ~$10k etc. Today, a “similar” car is $40-50k, but is much better. The average house in the US is ~$200K, average wage is ~$28. You do the math.

Icarus

Top of the line BMWs for $40-50K? That is closer to what a top of the line Mustang or Camry commands. Top of the line BMWs may exceed $100,000.

The cars are not necessarily safer. Driving is a little safer because of draconian changes in safety regulations. Many of which are absolutely hated - like the incessant chiming about wearing mandatory seat belts. Driving really should be at least four times safer now considering the advances in tires, brakes, dashes, air bags, seat belts, seats, crumple zones, DUI knowledge and enforcement, suspensions etc.

Buying a new car is not the no brainer that it used to be. Ford, for example, has dropped every passenger car but the Mustang. China sales sustain GM and Chrysler is owned by Fiat while Fiat is again dropping out of US sales of Fiats.

Comparing the current economic figures to older figures is an exercise in futility. The economy has been sustained by debt for years now. Plus most households depend on two incomes instead of one - while the statistics regarding the children are abysmal if one cares about mental and physical health.

Where does the "fault" lay? The EPA and excessive corporate greed are responsible for the deterioration of many sectors of the automotive industry. Of course many other things have improved. But almost everything was improving quite rapidly before corporate greed and EPA mandates changed everything.

The average car owner now spends over $4000/year maintaining their car. Hardly the stats indicative of automotive success. Unless one is reaping the rewards of those maintenance costs.

icarus · November 2019

Sorry soft, but I think your anti government bias is showing. Cars have gotten significantly safer, just read the stats. Deaths per miles driven has steadily decreases, largely because of “draconian” regulation like seat belt use and air bag installation. From over 4 deaths per 1oo million miles in the 1950’s to just over 1 now. This inspire of the huge increase in the volume of traffic, without a similar increase in lane miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year. (Coincendlty, that translates to ~four times as safe!.

The same could be said of “dreaded/hated environmental/Cafe regulations. The air is demonstrably cleaner than was inthe 1950’s in places like CA, once again in spite of a huge increase in the mileage driven, and the average car gets way better fuel economy. You can argue the politics, but you can’t argue the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles

Icarus
]

softdown · November 2019

You went back to the 1950's to buttress your bias? Wow. I'm not sure that most cars even had seat belts at that time. Of course going through the windshield is a lot more dangerous.

My argument is that cars would represent a much better investment without the excessive regulations and without the excessive corporate greed. Your attempts to lay the blame on the consumer are yet another example of your pro big government bias which corresponds with blaming the consumer for things out of their control. "It is the fault of the consumer"

We could have attained most of the improvements in safety simply by requiring modern seat belts and a couple other common sense measures. Cars were improving rapidly without the involvement of hyper governance. Hyper governance is responsible for most of the negativity regarding the modern automobile amongst the more properly informed.

The opinions of the completely uneducated are no more relevant to cars that their opinions regarding energy production. i.e. - "Tesla is going to save us because Musk is a smart man." And lithium doncha know.

icarus · November 2019

Sorry, but your response is an epic fail, if for no other reason that you made no attempt to actually look at the documentation provided, for fear that it would up set your bias. I went back to the 1950’s simply because that is when the DoT began to implement some meaningful safety regs, like seat belts, padded dashes etc. Feel free to use what ever time frame wish from ~1950-60 on and the results are the same. In fact, if you had actually read my link, you would have realized that the death rate per mile driven has in fact dropped by about 75%, (the number you cited as “wishful thinking”.

If you assume that the “market place” would have driven these improvements solely, you would be mistaken. Both Saab and Volvo started trying to sell “safety” as a goal. While they were able to penetrate the market slightly, the effect was minimal.

The same can be said for EPA emission standards. The air in most major cities in the USofA is demonstrably better, (much better!) now than it was a generation or so ago. If you argue that isn’t true, please provide some factual basis on which to base that argument!. If you think that would hav happened in the market place, I think you are wrong. Same with CAFE standards.

The bottom line, “hyper governance” as you put it has made significant advances in safety, emissions and efficiencies. You may not like government, but to argue that this is not true is fallacy. Once again, feel free to rebut the argument with a fact based rebuttal.

Finally, I am not goin got routinely engage in this kind of “debate” with people who willingly avoid facts, and who attempt to put worlds in my mouth. I never once (previously) mentioned that I “Blame the consumer” or ‘It is the consumer’s fault”. It is the potential downfall of otherwise good informational forums such as this one, that get ruined by such rancorous “debate”. You (or anyone) want to debate the meters and facts of an issue civilly without conflation, false narrative etc, I will participate. Failing those basics rules of conversation, count me out.

Tony

bill von novak · November 2019

softdown said:

The cars are not necessarily safer. Driving is a little safer because of draconian changes in safety regulations. Many of which are absolutely hated - like the incessant chiming about wearing mandatory seat belts. Driving really should be at least four times safer now considering the advances in tires, brakes, dashes, air bags, seat belts, seats, crumple zones, DUI knowledge and enforcement, suspensions etc.

Cars are WAY WAY safer than they used to be, and much better at keeping you alive. 12 times better than in 1921, per mile driven. 4 times better than 1945. Tires, suspensions and brakes are better - and these keep you from getting into accidents to begin with. Cars are designed to crash safely now. That means the steering wheel no longer decapitates you, for one thing. They are designed to crush progressively, reducing deceleration trauma. The passenger compartment is designed to remain intact, protecting the occupants from impact. Air bags and seat belts keep people in place during crash decelerations.

https://www.businessinsider.com/traffic-fatalities-historical-trend-us-2016-4

They are also far more efficient and go much farther on a gallon of gas. They are also more reliable.

The economy has been sustained by debt for years now.

Yes, the economy has been sustained by debt for a long time - since the 1950's or so. But people still use money. And people can still buy cheap cars for about what they paid in 1960, in terms of real dollars.

The average car owner now spends over $4000/year maintaining their car.

Gonna call a big huge BS on that one. The average American spends $408 in car maintenance per year. (All repairs and consumables except oil and gas.)

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/cost-of-car-ownership/auto-maintenance-cost.htm

I know it's trendy and popular to say "they just don't make em like they used to!" As I mentioned, people have been saying that since the first car was built. But in most metrics (reliability, safety, efficiency) cars are better than ever - and even cost is flat.

softdown · November 2019

icarus said:

Sorry, but your response is an epic fail, if for no other reason that you made no attempt to actually look at the documentation provided, for fear that it would up set your bias. I went back to the 1950’s simply because that is when the DoT began to implement some meaningful safety regs, like seat belts, padded dashes etc. Feel free to use what ever time frame wish from ~1950-60 on and the results are the same. In fact, if you had actually read my link, you would have realized that the death rate per mile driven has in fact dropped by about 75%, (the number you cited as “wishful thinking”.

If you assume that the “market place” would have driven these improvements solely, you would be mistaken. Both Saab and Volvo started trying to sell “safety” as a goal. While they were able to penetrate the market slightly, the effect was minimal.

The same can be said for EPA emission standards. The air in most major cities in the USofA is demonstrably better, (much better!) now than it was a generation or so ago. If you argue that isn’t true, please provide some factual basis on which to base that argument!. If you think that would hav happened in the market place, I think you are wrong. Same with CAFE standards.

The bottom line, “hyper governance” as you put it has made significant advances in safety, emissions and efficiencies. You may not like government, but to argue that this is not true is fallacy. Once again, feel free to rebut the argument with a fact based rebuttal.

Finally, I am not goin got routinely engage in this kind of “debate” with people who willingly avoid facts, and who attempt to put worlds in my mouth. I never once (previously) mentioned that I “Blame the consumer” or ‘It is the consumer’s fault”. It is the potential downfall of otherwise good informational forums such as this one, that get ruined by such rancorous “debate”. You (or anyone) want to debate the meters and facts of an issue civilly without conflation, false narrative etc, I will participate. Failing those basics rules of conversation, count me out.

Tony

The entirety of this response is an absolute trifecta of ignorance, cherry picking and extreme bias that drenches every thought. Not worthy of a more thoughtful reply. Two can play at your game.

Compare these images of cars primarily made without hyper governance: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jay+leno's+garage&t=opera&iax=images&ia=images

To these products of hyper governance: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=top+selling+cars+2019&t=opera&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

We would have realized the vast majority of any improvements with a little common sense and the innovations that accompany free enterprise. Going back to the 50's? The next poster goes back to the 40's? Why not the 20's? Though Bill makes a good point here:

"Cars are WAY WAY safer than they used to be, and much better at keeping you alive. 12 times better than in 1921, per mile driven. 4 times better than 1945." That trend was happening before the government take over. Imagine if free enterprise had been able to maintain the trend they were on. Driving became three times safer in just 24 short years.

Estragon · November 2019

I'm inclined to agree that many (if not more) safety improvements would have happened without the regulation, but I may have different reasons for thinking this.

What other product legally kills an average of 102 Americans daily without producers running the risk of being sued out of existence? IMHO, the regulation is protecting the industry at least as much as consumers

icarus · November 2019

“ The entirety of this response is an absolute trifecta of ignorance, cherry picking and extreme bias that drenches every thought. Not worthy of a more thoughtful reply”. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

(and quite indicative of what i have said about the concept of “in the weeds on this forum”)

Icarus

PS. Your comparing vintage Jaguars and Ferrari’s to modern Toyotas and Nissans in your links is completely...oh well never mind!

icarus · November 2019

Estragon said:

I'm inclined to agree that many (if not more) safety improvements would have happened without the regulation, but I may have different reasons for thinking this.”

What other product legally kills an average of 102 Americans daily without producers running the risk of being sued out of existence? IMHO, the regulation is protecting the industry at least as much as consumers

Tobacco comes to mind? Haven’t been too many successful lawsuits against big tobacco save the large “settlement”. Or, now that I think of it, the firearms industry? Have there been any successful lawsuits that have been “sued out of existence”?

Icarus

Estragon · November 2019

Absent the settlement, my guess is big tobacco likely would have been sued out of existence by now. Maybe vape products end up being round 2?

Guns, legally used don't kill anything like 100 people/day. That said, I think there's an ongoing thing with Remington about one of their rifles with a safety issue. Whether it's an existential thing for them, I dunno.

Estragon · November 2019

Seems to me vintage Jaguars used to have a reputation for spending as much time being fixed as being driven.

softdown · November 2019

Estragon said:

I'm inclined to agree that many (if not more) safety improvements would have happened without the regulation, but I may have different reasons for thinking this.

What other product legally kills an average of 102 Americans daily without producers running the risk of being sued out of existence? IMHO, the regulation is protecting the industry at least as much as consumers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Marc Kurth · November 2019

Estragon said:

.......................................................................
Guns, legally used don't kill anything like 100 people/day. That said, I think there's an ongoing thing with Remington about one of their rifles with a safety issue. Whether it's an existential thing for them, I dunno.

Yes, that is a clearly understood product design error. Some units in a particular (huge selling) model will (self?) fire with the safety engaged. MANY of us reported the problem long, long before they owned up to it. The damages have been egregious.

This is an example of a manufacturer trying to ignore a reported, documented, deadly defect,

Marc Kurth · November 2019

softdown said:

Marc Kurth said:

Softdown: As a prepper, I assume that you maintain a vehicle that will survive a classic nuke induced EMP and a Carrington event - with the parts to replace when needed? (Yes, I do understand the nuances of ground coupled waves/pulses)

No I don't. Not currently seeing a need to have a working car when virtually nobody else does. Other people are the greatest threat of all assuming that one has food, water and fuel.

I will respectfully disagree.I do understand the logic behind your position, based on a "lone wolf" plan for survival if the world really goes sideways.

in my view, a better approach is to build a coalition of mutual support and shared resources for emergency situations. Trying to hunker down with with a great stock of food, water, fuel and supplies - only scratches the surface of what would be needed if the grid really goes down hard.

Marc

mike95490 · November 2019

Carrington event is not likely to take out vehicles with "short" wiring. It's a much slower / softer pulse than an EMP, but it is wider spread and will effect long length conductors, generally over a couple 100 feet.

bill von novak · November 2019

softdown said:

We would have realized the vast majority of any improvements with a little common sense and the innovations that accompany free enterprise. Going back to the 50's? The next poster goes back to the 40's? Why not the 20's? Though Bill makes a good point here:

"Cars are WAY WAY safer than they used to be, and much better at keeping you alive. 12 times better than in 1921, per mile driven. 4 times better than 1945." That trend was happening before the government take over. Imagine if free enterprise had been able to maintain the trend they were on. Driving became three times safer in just 24 short years.

Wow that's quite a change from "Driving really should be at least four times safer now considering the advances in tires, brakes, dashes etc"! You are right in that they would have happened anyway - but certainly not as quickly. As proof I submit the approach GM and Ford took. GM introduced the first airbag in 1975, claiming it made cars much safer. They discontinued it in 1977, citing a lack of consumer interest. Ford and GM then went on the offensive, spending millions to lobby against airbag requirements, claiming no one wanted them and they didn't work. They even went to Nixon to fight any such requirement, and effectively killed the requirement. They then did not reintroduce them until 1984 - and they did not offer them in all their vehicles until the government forced them to in 1998.

Interestingly, they fought hard against mandatory seatbelts well before airbags. As soon as they decided to ditch airbags they started fighting FOR mandatory seatbelts, explaining that if everyone wore seatbelts no one would need airbags.

This isn't anything new. Car companies have been had to be pulled, kicking and screaming, into adding features that make today's cars as safe and efficient as they are. In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca told Congress that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down." In 1974, Chrysler VP Alan Loofborrow, claimed that CAFE standards would "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars - or even smaller ones - within five years." Ford later claimed that If CAFE became law, it would result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles." Needless to say, none of that happened.

So no, many of those improvements would NOT have come about from free enterprise as quickly. (To be more pedantic, they would have been invented - but not adopted as widely or as quickly.) Free enterprise wants to sell more cars, period - and they do that by making them cheap and pretty.

Estragon · November 2019

IMHO, CAFE is a good example of bad policy. It "solves" a fairly simple problem (poor average fuel economy) in an overly complex way. It's more of a full-employment measure for the lobbying industry, and a means of generating campaign money for evergreen fighting over the minutia of rules.

If higher fuel economy is the objective, just raise fuel taxes by enough to change consumer behavior.

Investing in bargain basement cars?

Comments

Categories