I'll be 28 soon and never owned a brand new car. The newest vehicle I've ever owned was my 00 Z71 I bought in '05 with 66K on it.

I will most likely never buy a brand new vehicle. I have less money in my Z71, S-10, and 67's restoration (did it myself) COMBINED than what my Z71 would have cost brand new back in 2000.

My wife's brand new tacoma (in 05) was a college graduation present from her parents. I want to "unload" the tacoma, but my wife won't let me (will **** parents off). Damn thing never gets driven, it's 3.5 years old and has 8,400 miles on it.

 

This is not meant as a swipe at you Silverado so please don't take it personally - in fact, you are doing the right thing financially by buying "used".

That said, it does surprise me a bit at how many here are so pro-GM and so want GM to survive and so want the Federal government to step in and prop them up yet they don't buy NEW GM vehicles.

Buying used GM vehicles does help the overall economy (as buying "anything" does) and it does tend to keep used vehicle values "up" which does translate into a (mostly psychological) "bump" when people are considering buying new but let's be honest with ourselves; a person who buys a used GM vehicle isn't really helping GM!

So for all who are so adamant about saving GM, I'd say that if you haven't bought a brand new GM vehicle within the past 8-12 months then you too are part of the problem (and being at least a bit hypocritical in pushing for a taxpayer bailout).

Just my $0.02

 

^Nope, you're 100% within' the right to say that. I've felt that at times myself. I'm more of a classic car guy anyway. I had considered a Camaro (2010) as my first new vehicle ever until I saw the price tag. I can't say I won't ever buy brand new, my wife is a vet and I'm an engineer, but I can't ever seem to justify the depreciation in my head. My 67 was my first vehicle I ever owned and drove legally on the road. There's something about rolling in a classic GM vehicle that appeals to me. I want GM to survive so that I can have lots of reliable used GM cars/trucks in my future. It's selfish of me to want others to pay for the depreciation, but the a*hole in me doesn't care

HOWEVER, GM HAS gotten a good bit of money from me because I only buy GM parts when I fix my newer stuff (either GM dealer or GMpartsdirect.com (which really is just a GM dealer with good prices)). I plan on a $1,500 GM crate engine for my 67 next year. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of stuff "left" for my '67 but I was able to get about $500 of stuff from GM's restoration catalog (basically unsold NOS stuff) and the aftermarket companies that sell the GM restoration parts have to pay royalties to GM.

 

I see your point, but the flip of that is perhaps folks WANT to buy a new GM but cannot afford the vehicle they want. If you want a corvette, would you settle for an aveo? perhaps these same people WANT gm to survive, so that when they have the money saved up, they can buy that new corvette they've lusted after forever.

Yes, i used extremes in my example, but im sure you understand my point.

 

We don't get any salt on the roads in my area.

 

Yes...I get your point.

I could list about 20 cars of the top of my head that all, unfortunately, cost many times more than my annual salary (hell, some of them cost more than my lifetime of annual salaries combined) so I've always had to settle.

I think a lot of our economy's problem is that a lot of people should have settled for the Aveo but bougth the 'Vette anyay - that may have been good for GM in the short term but bad for themselves personally, the country generally and ultimately bad for GM as well!

 

But you do have humidity? When I lived in North Carolina and Virginia I remember humid summers.

 

No, the point is that if I felt child labor was inappropriate, and I go on an on (and on.... and on..... an on...) about how inappropriate it is.... I probably shouldn't be working for a company whole utilizes child labor.

It would kinda make anything I said hypocritical.

 

Well, analogies aside, I don't happen to think that a socialistic government doing socialistic things is inappropriate (nor should it be a surprise to anyone)...I do think it's inappropriate (not to mention illegal) for a representative democracy which purports to honor the virtues of the free enterprise system to step in and start acting like a socialistic government.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, what's more hypocritical than those who claim to be supportive of the free-enterprise system but clamor for the Federal government to step in with billions of dollars it doesn't have all to save their favorite company from its many decades of bad business decisions.

The current credit crunch and recession may be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back but the entire barn filled with straw fell on top of the camel a long time ago.

 

Bugatti Veyron and the new Aston Martin. Oh, and the Bugatti Veyron roadster. Pagani Zonda F. Pagani Zonda Roadster. McLaren F1. XJ220.

I cannot imagine how much sticker shock GM is going to go through over this regard. I (buying used and seemingly rather reliable cars) am not supporting GM all that much either - but GM's $40,000 trucks were rediculous and people making $44k a year would get financing for them.


If there are X cars on the road and their lifetime is constantly increasing, the number of sales will decrease. In order to maintain sales of more reliable cars, the number of cars on the road must constantly increase. If the economy goes in the junk, sales will decrease.

This is like high school economics. How GM intends to keep their volume is beyond me. Making more reliable product is going to reduce sales all on its own.

 

Exactly. That's me. One day I hope to be able to afford a new vehicle. However IF GM goes under I never will, because I wouldn't even consider another brand! I've also been a recycler most of my life, being that I can fix things myself. GM vehicles have been good to me.