Seven year auto loans

timemoveson said:
It didn't kill our trajectory but we were not normal. I out-earned and out-saved our way past this. But, for "normal" people struggling against all the normal life pressures and the hedonic treadmill, this is a disaster waiting to happen.


+1

This group is probably much better equipped to recover from a financial mistake than Jane and Joe Average.

I really wanted to drive my 2012 Camry quarter of a million miles. Then I could claimed I drove the car to the moon. But not back. Uh Oh.......
 
Well, by the time your investments are doing worse than the loan interest rate, we may be deep in the trough of a recession, and that plus the recovery could take five years to rebound over what it was when you took out the loan. So you'd either wind up paying more in interest than you made on your investments, or selling off investments during the recession to pay off the loan, which kind of defeats the purpose of trying to outperform the loan.



I'm glad it's worked for you so far, though! If I was feeling lucky, I might do the same, but I'd rather take that risk on a retirement/snowbird home, as the loan will be for somewhere in the 15-30 year range, and market performance might be less volatile over the longer term.

Thanks! Though when I say "yield", I've referring to the actual cash flow from the investments, not capital appreciation at all. I have more than enough invested that's receiving 5% + in interest and dividend payments.
 
One other historical tidbit I forgot. Lee Iaccocca came up with the marketing slogan "$56/mo for a '56 Ford", whereby the buyer put 20% down, and the monthly payments were $56/mo for 36 months.

I've always wondered about the details behind that, though. For instance, what was the original MSRP of the car? $56 over 36 months comes out to $2,016. Even at 0% interest, when you factor in the 20% down, that would put the total purchase price at around $2500. Which, admittedly, wouldn't get you much of a car, even back then. My grandparents bought a '57 Ford, and it was around $3500.

FWIW, adjusting for inflation, that $56/mo would be around $528 in today's dollars. Not *too* bad, I guess, considering it was for 3 years.



$3500 in 1956 was a top of the line Ford. I looked it up and the price range was $17xx-3500. I don’t think Iaccocca was touting the budget plan for a top of the line car. My first new car in 1974 cost around $2k and the payment was ~$60/mo for 3 yrs. I was in college and could afford the payments from my summer jobs.

https://www.reference.com/history/much-did-things-cost-1956-1c8c29771bb78135
 
I've always wondered about the details behind that, though. For instance, what was the original MSRP of the car? $56 over 36 months comes out to $2,016. Even at 0% interest, when you factor in the 20% down, that would put the total purchase price at around $2500. Which, admittedly, wouldn't get you much of a car, even back then.
1956 Fords cost about $1750 to $3150.

My grandparents bought a '57 Ford, and it was around $3500.
In 1957 Fords cost about $1850 to $3400. You could get a T-Bird for about $3150.
 
Last edited:
I met a 60yo guy ( not retired ) in an Rv Park that was selling his 2016 1/2 ton truck to buy a new $75,000 one ton to pull his new fifth wheel trailer. He wanted $27,000 and he owed $42,000. His new fifth wheel was $87,000 and he was upside down $7,000 on his old travel trailer. I didn’t want the truck because it had 56000 miles, but asked him how he was paying the difference on both. He was rolling it into the new loans and was buying the hitch and all new camping stuff using his $10,000 equity from his house he owned in Reno for 20 years.
Both the truck and fifth wheel will be worth less than 50% in five years.
 
You guys are thinking base price on those '56 and '57 Fords. Remember, cars came just about totally stripped in those days. The most popular Ford in 1956 was the Fairlane 4-door "Town Sedan", with a base price of $2,093. In those days wagons tended to be the most expensive body style, above convertibles. The Country Squire 3-seat wagon, had a base price of $2,533. The T-bird was $3,151.

As for my grandparents' '57 Ford? It was a Fairlane 500 Victoria 4-door hardtop. The Fairlane 500 was the top line Ford series that year, and "Victoria" was what Ford christened their hardtop (No B-pillar, for those not in the know) coupes and sedans. Hardtops required extra beefing up to compensate for the lack of a B-pillar, although the compensation was rarely enough. They often ran $100-200 more than their pillared counterparts.

Anyway, that '57 Fairlane 500 Victoria had a base MSRP of $2404. But wait, there's more. Or, less. For that base MSRP, you got a 223 CID inline 6. Manual transmission. No power assist for the brakes or steering. No heater. No radio. I'm not sure about blackwall tires and monotone paint. Being a top series, it might have at least had whitewalls.

My grandparents got the V-8. But, not the 272. Not the 292. They went full-bore and got the 312 "Thunderbird" V-8, with 245 hp gross. Plus the automatic and all that other stuff that was optional. Throw on tax and tags, and even with some haggling, that $2404 could have easily bloated to $3500. If the car had been equipped with power windows, locks, and a/c, it would have easily topped $4,000. A/C was usually a $450-500 option in those days, and that made it more of a plaything for the rich. It was common in Cadillacs, Lincolns, Imperials, maybe an upper echelon Buick or New Yorker. But not so common in the more medium-priced cars (Olds, Mercury, DeSoto, Dodge, Pontiac), and quite rare in low-priced cars like Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth.

1957 proved to the the last year of unbridled faith in "Longer/Lower/Wider" in the auto industry, and a recession in 1958 helped usher in a backlash against those behemoths, a whole new generation of small cars and, for a brief time, it held the line on car prices.

For example, a 1957 New Yorker 4-door sedan had a base MSRP of $4173. Ten years later, in 1967, a New Yorker 4-door sedan started at $4208.

As for my grandparents, they traded that '57 Ford on a '61 Galaxie Victoria 4-door hardtop. Different name, but basically the same place in the Ford hierarchy. The auto makers in those days had a bad habit of bringing out a new name for the top model, and then moving the old name down a notch, maybe move the name below that down. and at the very bottom, retire a name. That '61 had a base MSRP of $2,664. I'm not sure if it had any more standard equipment than the '57. Same base engine, the 223. I'm not sure when they made a heater standard...probably not until the feds forced them to. Anyway, I remember Granddad saying that '61 was also around $3,500. However, I don't know which V-8 he ordered. There was a 292, 352, and a 390 big block. Somehow, I don't think he ordered the 390, but who knows?

He traded the '61 on a '63 Mercury Monterey. I remember he said the Monterey was around $3500, but he got it for the '61, plus $1200. With the Monterey you got a 390 big block standard. However, that year, there was a Monterey and a Monterey Custom. I don't know which one he bought, but I do know it was another 4-door hardtop, and it had the "Breezeway" rear window, which rolled down for ventilation, but he wanted it to haul long items, such as lumber, ladders, etc.
 
I am all for taking out a loan vs paying cash when we’re being offered interest rates sub 1%. Debt is not always bad. We’re not ER yet, but it seems like it would be especially attractive when the alternative is withdrawing a big chunk of $ that may have tax consequences on top of it.
 
My dad bought the stripped down '57 Ford, 4-door, 3 on the column. I still remember seeing it brand new in the garage, I was only 4 years old, and it is among my earliest, albeit foggy memories.
Dad was 6'2", and often over 230lbs, Mom was 4'11" and under 100lbs. Somehow they both managed to drive that car. I was black and blue in the chest from my mom's child restraint technique, although she probably saved me a few teeth along the way.
I think we had the car about 6 or 7 years, which seems like forever when you are 4 years to 10 years old. My memory of the old car was the springs poking out of the front bench on the driver side, with exposed foam, and that crater stuffed with a couple of pillows so my mom could see over the dash.
We always had the oldest nastiest cars in the neighborhood.
After Dad retired, they drove a nice Lexus, and lived in a condo on the beach in Bonita Springs, so those early days of scraping along and not squandering money needlessly on fancy cars paid off eventually.
I should have paid closer attention.
 
after doing a 5-yr loan, for the first time, and staying under water for WELL into it, swore I wouldn't go more than 4 again. driving back and forth across country every year, don't want to keep a vehicle more than the (original) extended warranty will cover
 
after doing a 5-yr loan, for the first time, and staying under water for WELL into it, swore I wouldn't go more than 4 again. driving back and forth across country every year, don't want to keep a vehicle more than the (original) extended warranty will cover


I dunno, there's nothing inherently wrong with a 5-year loan, especially if it's your first car, and you're young and still ramping up your retirement savings....but especially if you keep the car for 10-15 years, and once it's paid off you put that "car payment" into CDs to pay for your next car in cash! ;)
 
If one is going to buy a car with a 5-7 year loan geting a reliable one is even more important. Otherwise one will be stuck with loan payments and repair bills at the same time. Not so good.

Had I bought my 85 Pontiac with a 7 year loan, I would have had three to four years of ever increasing repair costs on top of my monthly payments. The car was bad enough. The thought of making payments on it while I also paid to get it repaired, is just horrible.
 
I just paid cash for a 4 year old car with 18k easy miles on it. Traded a 10 year old, 100k car to help finance.

While I can appreciate the benefits of financing when the spread between the loan rate and the interest rate on cash is significant, my thoughts are these: 1) I hate debt and making payments on anything and 2) paying cash keeps me from spending too much.

Feeling the immediate pain of pulling money out of savings does more to reduce the costs of car buying than earning a few coins on interest rate spread ever could. And, it feels like a victory to pay cash when for years I too was on the monthly payment treadmill.
 
While I can appreciate the benefits of financing when the spread between the loan rate and the interest rate on cash is significant, my thoughts are these: 1) I hate debt and making payments on anything and 2) paying cash keeps me from spending too much.

Feeling the immediate pain of pulling money out of savings does more to reduce the costs of car buying than earning a few coins on interest rate spread ever could. And, it feels like a victory to pay cash when for years I too was on the monthly payment treadmill.

Yes, if the discomfort of having debt outweighs any other issue for you, it's the right decision to pay cash. Though it's much more than a "few coins on interest rate spread" for us. Try several hundred dollars annually through the life of the loan.
 
Yes, if the discomfort of having debt outweighs any other issue for you, it's the right decision to pay cash. Though it's much more than a "few coins on interest rate spread" for us. Try several hundred dollars annually through the life of the loan.



If you have the discipline not to buy more car on credit than with cash, then yes you could benefit. But if buying on credit leads you to spend even a few thousand more on a car than you would by paying cash (e.g. more options, later year model, etc), then any savings through financing is likely an illusion. It’s mighty tempting to “upgrade” when you’re talking a few thousand dollars spread over several years. For me, paying cash lessens that temptation.
 
If you have the discipline not to buy more car on credit than with cash, then yes you could benefit. But if buying on credit leads you to spend even a few thousand more on a car than you would by paying cash (e.g. more options, later year model, etc), then any savings through financing is likely an illusion. It’s mighty tempting to “upgrade” when you’re talking a few thousand dollars spread over several years. For me, paying cash lessens that temptation.

We aren't tempted to spend more regardless of how we pay. We're interested in absolute costs, not just how much the payments are.
 
Yes, if the discomfort of having debt outweighs any other issue for you, it's the right decision to pay cash. Though it's much more than a "few coins on interest rate spread" for us. Try several hundred dollars annually through the life of the loan.

Absolutely! We bought a new car in Dec 2015. We planned to pay cash but the manufacturer was offering 1.9% financing so we accepted it.

If I go to Portfolio Visualizer and enter an investment equal to our $30,291 loan in Jan 2016 and fixed monthly withdrawals equal to our $530 monthly payments and my 60/35/5 AA at the end of Sept 2019 my investment balance is $13,787.

My loan balance is $7,836.... so my few coins is $5,951. IOW, I could pay off the loan from the investment balance and still have $5,951 left! and that is after the portfolio made all the monthly car payments!

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com...&allocation3_1=5&total1=100&total2=0&total3=0
 
Last edited:
I'd take a 2% or less loan...even for 7 years on a new vehicle.

I'd be sure that it had gap insurance...even if I had to buy that separately.
 
How much does gap coverage run? I never considered it but it seems reasonable if you’re gonna take a loan that long.
 
I am all for taking out a loan vs paying cash when we’re being offered interest rates sub 1%. Debt is not always bad. We’re not ER yet, but it seems like it would be especially attractive when the alternative is withdrawing a big chunk of $ that may have tax consequences on top of it.


Debt is all bad especially when you borrow on a new car that depreciates 20% as soon as you drive it off the lot.
 
Debt is all bad especially when you borrow on a new car that depreciates 20% as soon as you drive it off the lot.

Agree with pb4uski. Not all debt is bad. More importantly, there is no connection between depreciation and debt. It does not make any difference if you pay cash, that car still depreciates 20% (from your example) as soon as you drive it off the lot. If you buy a $50K car with cash and you have to sell it the next day, you’re still out $10K. I guess if you borrowed the money you’d be out a bit more because there was probably loan fees that you had to pay up front. However, if depreciation is your concern, buy a used car. If making the best financial decision is your concern, there are times when debt can work very well in your favor.
 
Another example of good debt is when there's a discount off the purchase price for financing the vehicle, with no prepayment penalty. We took advantage of that once, when we'd intended to pay cash. I can't even remember the loan rate now, but for financing at least $5,000, we got $1,500 off the purchase price. We paid the loan off within a few weeks.
 
Back
Top Bottom