Older BMW 328is or Newer Chevy Impala?

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Why would you or anybody want to sell a new car they just bought??

Perhaps because the buyer has decided he/she does not like the car they
bought?

> It is
> not like one can find many used cars that do not have any mileage on the
> clock, it is the mileage and wear and tear that causes the deprecation. Buy
> a new car and let it sit in a garage for ten years and see what it is worth
> compared to one 150,000 miles on the clock

What's your point? A 10 year old car with low mileage is obviously
going to be worth more than one with 150k miles on it by a good margin.
But by no means will it be worth anything close to new. As the OP
said, there's a huge depreciation hit the first instant you take
delivery of any new car.

--
-Fred W

JimV wrote:

>
> I'd say if you're equally happy driving the Impala, then buy it. It will
> cost you less in the long run. The BMW is a much better driving car, but
> it's getting to the expensive to maintain stage. I also think $15K is
> way high for a '98 328is.
>

Not necessarily. 3 series BMWs are generally pretty inexpensive to
maintain (as BMWs go) and if you have (or can find) a good, trustworthy
independent mechanic nearby for the BMW it is actually surprisingly not
any more expensive than bringing an American car to a dealership. But
beyond the maintenance costs, the biggest outlay is for the car itself.
In all likelihood, even with a much higher starting mileage, the BMW
should outlast the Chevy, thereby delaying the necessity of going
through the blood-letting exercise of car buying again.

--
-Fred W

SO wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>I drive back & forth to work each day (60 miles a day round trip) and
>>have a budget of $15,000. I've narrowed down my decision to 2
>>possibilities and want to make a move tonight.
>>
>
>
> I honestly would try to come up with about $2,000 more and get a new Civic
> or the like with a warranty.
>
> SO
>
>

Unless of course you value your life. Driving a 60 mile commute each
day in a civic? Not me...

--
-Fred W

Fred W wrote:
> SO wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > I honestly would try to come up with about $2,000 more and get a
> > new Civic or the like with a warranty.
>
> Unless of course you value your life. Driving a 60 mile commute each
> day in a civic? Not me...

Your likely safer in the Civic than either of those other choices. Size is not
the end-all in safety.

Rick Brandt wrote:
> Fred W wrote:
>
>>SO wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
>>>
>>>I honestly would try to come up with about $2,000 more and get a
>>>new Civic or the like with a warranty.
>>
>>Unless of course you value your life. Driving a 60 mile commute each
>>day in a civic? Not me...
>
>
> Your likely safer in the Civic than either of those other choices. Size is not
> the end-all in safety.
>
>

Nonsense. I would take my chances in either the BMW or Chevy over a
Civic. You are correct; size is not the only safety factor, but it does
figure into the equation as does (even more importantly) weight and how
solidly built the car is. There is a reason Civics can reach 40mpg.
They are light. If you are a big fan of Hondas, an Accord would be an
entirely different story.

--
-Fred W

Fred W wrote:
> Rick Brandt wrote:
> > Fred W wrote:
> >
> > > SO wrote:
> > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > I honestly would try to come up with about $2,000 more and get a
> > > > new Civic or the like with a warranty.
> > >
> > > Unless of course you value your life. Driving a 60 mile commute
> > > each day in a civic? Not me...
> >
> > Your likely safer in the Civic than either of those other choices. Size is
> > not the end-all in safety.
> >
>
> Nonsense. I would take my chances in either the BMW or Chevy over a
> Civic. You are correct; size is not the only safety factor, but it
> does figure into the equation as does (even more importantly) weight
> and how solidly built the car is. There is a reason Civics can reach
> 40mpg. They are light. If you are a big fan of Hondas, an Accord
> would be an entirely different story.

Even if the other cars would provide somewhat more protection than the Civic
that does not equate to someone "not valuing their life" because they drive a
Civic. A new Civic has a five star rating on front impacts (same as the Impala)
and both of those are going to have multiple air bags compared to the beemer
which would likely have none being that old.

A BIG factor for safety is the ability to avoid the accident in the first place
in which case the BMW and Honda are likely to be much better than the pedestrian
handling that an Impala provides.

Rick Brandt wrote:
>
>
> Even if the other cars would provide somewhat more protection than the Civic
> that does not equate to someone "not valuing their life" because they drive a
> Civic. A new Civic has a five star rating on front impacts (same as the Impala)
> and both of those are going to have multiple air bags compared to the beemer
> which would likely have none being that old.
>
> A BIG factor for safety is the ability to avoid the accident in the first place
> in which case the BMW and Honda are likely to be much better than the pedestrian
> handling that an Impala provides.
>
>
>
>

You cannot compare safety ratings between classes. I five star rating in
class relative. IN other words, all else being equal, the bigger heavier
vehicle is safer.

"Rick Brandt" > wrote in message
et...
> Fred W wrote:
>> Rick Brandt wrote:
>> > Fred W wrote:
>> >
>> > > SO wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote in message
>> > > >
>> > > > I honestly would try to come up with about $2,000 more and get a
>> > > > new Civic or the like with a warranty.
>> > >
>> > > Unless of course you value your life. Driving a 60 mile commute
>> > > each day in a civic? Not me...
>> >
>> > Your likely safer in the Civic than either of those other choices. Size
>> > is not the end-all in safety.
>> >
>>
>> Nonsense. I would take my chances in either the BMW or Chevy over a
>> Civic. You are correct; size is not the only safety factor, but it
>> does figure into the equation as does (even more importantly) weight
>> and how solidly built the car is. There is a reason Civics can reach
>> 40mpg. They are light. If you are a big fan of Hondas, an Accord
>> would be an entirely different story.
>
> Even if the other cars would provide somewhat more protection than the
> Civic that does not equate to someone "not valuing their life" because
> they drive a Civic. A new Civic has a five star rating on front impacts
> (same as the Impala) and both of those are going to have multiple air bags
> compared to the beemer which would likely have none being that old.

Crash test ratings measure the ability to survive controlled prescribed
crash tests, not the ability to protect the occupants in real world
situations. That's why Volvo tends to get outscored on those tests -- they
base their safety designs on actual accidents, not crash tests.

If I told you that you had to hit an 18 wheeler head on with both of you
doing 20MPH and gave you your choice of the 5-series or a civic, are you
seriously telling me you'd feel safer in the civic?

Your comment about no airbags in a 1998 BMW shows how little you know about
BMWs.

> A BIG factor for safety is the ability to avoid the accident in the first
> place in which case the BMW and Honda are likely to be much better than
> the pedestrian handling that an Impala provides.

This is the the most correct statement in the post.

Also, the OP sited room to stretch out as a reason to consider the Impala
over the E39. Why on earth would he want to fold himself in half to cram
into a civic?

-Russ.

"Somebody." > wrote in message
et.ca...
>
> Also, the OP sited room to stretch out as a reason to consider the Impala
> over the E39. Why on earth would he want to fold himself in half to cram
> into a civic?
>
> -Russ.
Actually, the debate was between an Impala and a 328. The 328 is over
priced--should be something in the range of $7,000-9,500, not $15,000.

In regard to cramming yourself in a Civic, I drive a 50 mile commute every
day in a Z4 because I can afford the Z4. If I only had in the range of
$15,000 to spend, I'd get something like a new Civic, which I've driven and
it isn't the Civic of 20 years, or even one year ago. I don't feel crammed
in either car (as you can't drive any car sitting in the back seat, anyway).

Scott O.

Somebody. wrote:
> Also, the OP sited room to stretch out as a reason to consider the
> Impala over the E39. Why on earth would he want to fold himself in
> half to cram into a civic?
>
> -Russ.

According to InternetAutoGuid.Com...

Front Headroom
2005 Civic 37.8 inches
1998 BMW 3 series 37.8 inches

Front Leg Room
Civic 42.2 inches
BMW 32.72 inches

Front Shoulder Room
Civic 53.1 inches
BMW 53.19 inches

I was incorrect about the airbag. For some reason I was thinking of an 1989 BMW
not a 1998.