How much of your net worth does your car represent?

[eta2020]

Then buy a used one.

I, on the other hand, feel that I have gotten my money's worth (the depreciation) during the 150,000 miles we have put on it. We have been to every State at least once and most National/State Parks. We could not have done that without expense of some kind. My guess is the RV reduced that outlay about 2/3s by saving on (M)Hotel/restaurant cost.

(And, FWIW, I could most likely put another 150K miles on it without major cost before divesting.)

It is spending money on experience (even though it is a vehicle)....good thing to spend money on IMO

 

[Kimo]

You won't regret it.

Oh! I do have one caution: If the both (or either one) of you have an issue with "personal space," then a Class B will definitely be challenging. However, if you enjoy each other's company, then this is a big plus.

Thanks and no problem there, we worked and lived together for over 30 years, we are good!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sasset]

.3% Have a 10 yo Jaguar with only 46000 miles. Plan to keep a few more years

 

[sengsational]

0.6%. Two Japaneese cars with about 100K miles each.

 

[Katsmeow]

I am a bit surprised by the numbers significantly below 1% -- for those people who own vehicles. Either you have a huge net worth or the vehicles are really beaters.

For example, with the proverbial $1 million net worth some numbers I saw thrown around:

.2% - $2000
.3% - $3000
.6% - $6000
1% - $10000
.013% - $130 !!!!

I personally wouldn't feel safe driving a car that was a real beater. There have been huge safety improvements in cars over the last 10 years or so and my safety is important to me.

I don't consider vehicles as a significant part of my net worth but I want something safe and that I enjoy driving.

 

[jon-nyc]

Either you have a huge net worth or the vehicles are really beaters.

Those are not mutually exclusive.


But seriously, economy cars can be worth less than 10k in a pretty short time. It doesn't have to be a beater to be worth less than that (to use your example).

 

[eta2020]

0.6%. Two Japaneese cars with about 100K miles each.

Two 4 year old Honda Civics with 100k each are probably worth 12k combined.

That is 0.6% from 2 Million dollar NW.....which is not unusual sum of money.

Those are safe cars IMO

 

[aja8888]

I'm in my second midlife crisis....(not disclosing, but happy).

 

[scrabbler1]

About 0.7% for my 7-year-old Corolla which has 26k miles. When I bought it new, that value was about 2% of NW. But NW has risen (not surprisingly) while the car's value has fallen (not surprisginly).

 

[Katsmeow]

Two 4 year old Honda Civics with 100k each are probably worth 12k combined.

That is 0.6% from 2 Million dollar NW.....which is not unusual sum of money.

Those are safe cars IMO

I wouldn't prefer to drive one from a safety standpoint. In their weight class of cars, I do think they are safer than others. But, I don't like that weight class of cars. They also don't have many of the more advanced safety features.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I don't consider vehicles (or any electronic stuff, or jewelry, or similar things--worth much more to me than to any buyer) as part of our net worth so would have to add them in to figure it and really the cars are an expense more than an asset. Like children but more reliable.

Our perfectly maintained 10 year old Acura mdx, as solid and safe for me as any brand new vehicle, has a blue book value of $6k to $8k. Not getting rid of it til it gets at least another 100,000 miles on it. Our 2008 Honda Civic is in the same value range with 70k miles; that one we will probably trade in for a new hybrid in the next year or two. Love the Civic but if we went down to one car today it would be the mdx.

 

[RonBoyd]

$0. I don't count my car as part of my net worth.

Yeah, it is like asking "How much of your net worth do your groceries represent?"

 

[M Paquette]

Way less than a tenth of a percent. Tiny, actually. It's all in choosing the right vehicle and keeping it forever.

 

[luckydude]

DW and I have a 14-year-old Camry and an 8-year-old minivan. The former is a beater and the latter is in decent shape. They are 0.1% of our NW but are not counted as part of NW. We plan to drive both until they die (or we die, whichever comes first).

I view my beater as a perfect cover among a sea of new and luxury vehicles on the streets. Most cars give me wide berth at parking lots and I don't have to worry about getting carjacked or having bad guys trailing me home.

 

[Sunset]

0% , as I don't include it in NW, like most folks.
Cars are just an expense like electricity.

 

[photoguy]

I personally wouldn't feel safe driving a car that was a real beater. There have been huge safety improvements in cars over the last 10 years or so and my safety is important to me.

I was wondering about this because I drove my 95 accord for nearly 20 years. It still had ABS, airbags, etc. so I wasn't quite sure why it would be less safe than a modern car (maybe no stability control?). However this report suggests that vehicle age has a huge (correlational) impact, much bigger than I thought it would be:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811825.pdf

(Note: it's not quite the whole story because the data is a little wonky as they only include accidents where a fatality occurred which biases the results. There could also be unaccounted factors such as older vehicles tending to have older tires which leads to more accidents as opposed to the car being inherently less safe).

 

[jon-nyc]

...
(Note: it's not quite the whole story because the data is a little wonky as they only include accidents where a fatality occurred ...).

Then why aren't the percentages all 100?

 

[photoguy]

Probably because there could be multiple people in the cars and only 1 has to die.

 

[NW-Bound]

I won't bother to look up the values of my 4 vehicles, as the newest one is already 10 years old (but has only 25K miles).

But what's important is what shows up in Quicken in the expenses. For the last 4 years, ever since I used Quicken for tracking, the operating costs run around $7200/yr. That to me is more important.

The above includes all maintenance, licensing, insurance, repair, and as it also includes fuel for the 9-mpg motorhome, that is not too bad.

PS. I also have a few old motocycles, dirtbikes actually, that I keep up in my "mountain" home to ride the forest trails. Many people pay more for their bicycles than for each of my bikes.

 

[jon-nyc]

Probably because there could be multiple people in the cars and only 1 has to die.

Right, that makes sense.

 

[jon-nyc]

Though 26% would seem way too low, that would imply an average of 4+ people involved per fatal accident.

 

[eta2020]

I was wondering about this because I drove my 95 accord for nearly 20 years. It still had ABS, airbags, etc. so I wasn't quite sure why it would be less safe than a modern car (maybe no stability control?). However this report suggests that vehicle age has a huge (correlational) impact, much bigger than I thought it would be:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811825.pdf

(Note: it's not quite the whole story because the data is a little wonky as they only include accidents where a fatality occurred which biases the results. There could also be unaccounted factors such as older vehicles tending to have older tires which leads to more accidents as opposed to the car being inherently less safe).

Safety ratings

I can easily buy every 4 years brand new small car that has BEST TSP+ safety rating. And during those 4 years that car will on average be insignificant part of my NW.

I don't need Suburban to be safe and small BMWs are not really safer or bigger.

BTW I OP also don't count car as part of NW.

 

[Sunset]

I was wondering about this because I drove my 95 accord for nearly 20 years. It still had ABS, airbags, etc. so I wasn't quite sure why it would be less safe than a modern car (maybe no stability control?). However this report suggests that vehicle age has a huge (correlational) impact, much bigger than I thought it would be:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811825.pdf

(Note: it's not quite the whole story because the data is a little wonky as they only include accidents where a fatality occurred which biases the results. There could also be unaccounted factors such as older vehicles tending to have older tires which leads to more accidents as opposed to the car being inherently less safe).

Besides the new safety features of a car, one thing leading older cars to be more dangerous is rusting/metal fatique. I once jacked up a 12 yr old car and the full frame beam dented in. I suspect if living near the ocean or in Winter States that use salt, that the effect is more pronounced.

 

[Totoro]

There is also the "crumple zone", not sure how to describe it.

But more recent cars are much better in absorbing and deflecting collision energy away from and around the passengers. Better crumpling of the steel frame is one way to do that.

Another item may be side impacts. It's only quite recently that crash tests have started looking at side impacts more explicitly as they found out they are very common and also deadly. And as usual, what you measure improves.

 

[RobLJ]

A little over 2% but we have two relatively new vehicles (one is 3 months old) that I hope will last another 8-10 years.
Subarus are high on the safety ladder and the AWD is great for the mountain cabin.
We didn't want to have to buy early in retirement and the plan is July 2015.