I’ve never really liked the term “pet peeve.” It always sounded like the type of thing a sort of fussy person would keep track of in a little leather-bound journal, and that’s not really who I want to be. But, the word is useful in its specificity: some little habit or detail or practice that just rubs you wrong, and you end up making those annoyances your own special little irritants. They’re pet peeves, after all, and as pets, they need attention and need to be fed. So, that’s what I’m going to do right now, with two automotive pet peeves of mine!
A pet peeve generally is something sort of trivial, not Earth-shaking, and I think that qualifies for the ones I feel a need to share with you today, because, objectively, they’re not big things at all, and I should just get over it.
But I can’t. They don’t stop annoying me. So let me vent them out here, and hopefully I’ll be free!
Peeve One: Rear Windows Are Not “Windshields”
I feel like I encounter this one a lot, and every time I hear it, I wince a bit. And it’s not like it’s uncommon, or not accepted in general use. I know automotive designers like to call it a “backlight” but I always found that a strange and slightly confusing term, though it is better than “DLO” or “daylight opening” which just sounds like what an alien might call a window, were they unfamiliar with the concept.
I think the reason I don’t like “rear windshield” is because it simply isn’t a shield, dammit, not in the way a windshield is. The windshield literally shields you from the wind, from the air you’re pushing out of the way as you drive forward. The rear window? It just doesn’t do that. Well, I guess in reverse it does, a bit, but by that logic we’d call back-up lights “rear headlights” and no one does that.
This is a little thing, I know, but I feel like I can always spot someone who does not care about cars if they call a back window a “rear windshield.” Does that make me a dickhead? Does anyone else understand what I’m talking about here? I hope so.
Peeve Two: Using Clear Bulbs Instead of Amber Bulbs In Clear-Lensed Turn Indicators
Okay, this is a taillight-related peeve, so you know it’s important. I was reminded of this one again when I saw this Kia Soul the other day:
See what’s going on there? This one car is an object lesson in what I’m talking about. When car designers want an amber turn indicator – front or rear – but don’t necessarily want a big amber lens, they will often have a clear lens with an amber bulb inside, a compromise to get the proper color of light without all the bright visual orange some people – especially a lot of designers – seem to want to avoid.
When they do this, there’s a sort of unspoken agreement between you and the designer that when those bulbs need changing, you’ll find replacement amber bulbs and not just throw in some clear bulb, which hasn’t been the legal color of turn indicators since 1962. It’s like the people who don’t play ball here are going to ruin the concept of clear lens/amber bulb for everyone with this bullshit, because this lack of shit-givery is how we get mandated lens colors, people.
And let’s not forget the troubles we went through just getting from white to amber:
It wasn’t easy!
That Kia up there had one amber bulb and one clear one: for fuck’s sake, Kia owner, stop being so lazy! Where’s your sense of taillight dignity?
Man, after writing these out, they really do seem fussy and trivial. But I guess that’s the nature of a pet peeve, right?
Okay, now tell me yours! Make mine seem less inane, please?
For various and sundry reasons, there are currently seven dogs in my house. Only three of them are ours.
That is my pet peeve.
(I love them all, but my house is small. At least it’s a temporary arrangement.)
I hope they aren’t all Great Danes for your sake.
Thankfully, none of them exceed 12 pounds. They’re little Maltese mutts, with the exception of a Cavachon puppy (that is currently biting everything within reach).
I think I’d rather have the Great Danes.
Well, my wife would probably die from her allergy to fur, so little hypoallergenic dogs for us.
That’s a handful.
Sounds like those pets are peeving you.
Next dog we get, I want to name it Peeve. Then I’ll constantly have a pet, Peeve.
Bummer, though, if it turns out to be an annoying dog.
Misusing DRLs has already been mentioned, so here are some of my others:
How about white wheels?
White steelies on Subarus were way cool in the 70’s/early 80s.
They need to make a come back.
My car came from the factory with white wheels. It took a while for me to appreciate them fully.
I do appreciate them more when they are clean. 😉
The PO of my jeep painted my lovely white AMC wagon wheels (with red and white stripe) black. Breaks my heart.
White wagon wheels are cool on the right vehicle.
What if I stop 10 feet behind the car ahead and do not roll forward until the light turns green?
(Palpatine voice) And now, you will die.
I’d rather you do that than slowly inching forward.
I have an uncharacteristically high level of anger towards too much camber. It feels like a personal affront. I really do try and think rationally about it and that the car world is a hobby that should allow all types of people to enjoy their cars the way they like. It just looks and seems so wasteful. My second one is not that original but it’s when I notice that someone is just not quite tuned in to traffic and when I catch up to them to see them completely immersed in their phone with a goofy grin on their face. I have grown to hate Houston because this is never enforced and an insanely high percentage of drivers are doing this.
I’ve just never understood it – I guess it’s to make your car look like a cartoon maybe? To each their own, but always seems to me a fairly lopsided dollar to enjoyment ratio.
All I had on the shelf was an 11fiddyseven bulb. The turn signal still worked, geez…
Figured it was a taillight issue.
Cars that do not automatically turn on all nighttime lights at night/dusk.
I see people driving with their “daytime driving lights” all the time at night, thinking they are driving legally but without any taillights. If they went on automatically, people behind them would know they were there, fewer accidents.
Don’t most cars come with a “automatic” choice that:
My 2003 Toyota doesn’t have an “automatic” choice: “Off” selection puts on the daytime drive lights AND turns on the nighttime lights when programmed to do so, though it was built in Canada where I think it is required.
I hardly ever “turn my lights on” because of it, only when the road signs say to do so because of potential fog, or when I feel the need to be seen (sun in front of me, the car behind me might not know how close I am to them, etc.)
I always just turn the lights on or off myself (albeit my current car doesn’t have an auto setting, even though it was available with one). And I always have my headlights on.
I had a rental 2023 Corolla and even with an auto option available, I just didn’t like walking away from the vehicle with the lights still on. So I flipped them off manually.
Most cars do have an Auto setting but the Toyota’s I’ve managed don’t, and I see tons of Priuses with no lights on in the dark because you have to remember to turn them On as the car will beep at you to turn them Off when you get out.
Subarus have turned their headlights off with the ignition for at least 30 years. In my opinion, that’s just the way it should work. No need for sensors. If the car is on, the headlights are on. In all of those thirty years, anybody caught driving a Subaru at night with their lights off was just being stupid.
Part of the issue is the fact that on many modern cars, the dashboard lights are on when the DRL is on. So people get in the car at night, turn it in, and see their instruments all lit up and a happy glow from the front of the car, and away they go.
mu car doesn’t have DRLs nor are the dash lights on when the car is running, so I always remember the turn on the lights-but I will readily admit it doesn’t occur to me when I get in a car with drls, because it looks like the lights are already on
I ran into this a few months ago in my parent’s car, my car doesn’t have drl or a lit up dash without the lights on, so I didn’t realize that I was driving without taillights for close to 20 miles before I got pulled over. thankfully the cop was very understanding about the situation. An interesting side not is that it honestly felt like the lights were dimmer when I turned on the actual headlights, than when I was just driving with the drl, which I didn’t appreciate.
I was driving behind a car with a janky spoiler the other day. The spoiler was completely blocking the CHMSL brake light. It was wired to the headlights instead of the brake lights so it was on all the time and it was impossible to tell if the car was braking or not.
people that touch touch the brake pedal just enough to get the light to turn on but not enough to slow the vehicle down every time someone within 3 miles uses their brakes
Corollary: people who ride way too close to others, necessitating constantly touching the brakes to seemingly maintain their too-close distance.
I admit to doing this on the freeway to deactivate the cruise control to coast ahead of a slowdown, but if you’re talking about city driving, I’m with you.
Doesn’t your cruise have a deactivate button you can use instead of tapping the brakes? Just hit resume when traffic speeds up again. Less brake wear and annoying flashing brake lights.
Probably, but it’s not a universal feature in terms of placement, so I’ve never learned it, whereas the brake pedal works in every car. But honestly, now that I’ve heard it’s irksome, I’ll locate Cancel in the regular car and make an effort to change habits.
And their close cousins, the brake tap-dancers. Yeah, I try to maintain a wide distance from Those People.
This could be due to adaptive cruise control. My wife’s Mazda while using radar cruise is a lot more liberal with the usage of brakes than I would be.
I’m alone on this. If your engine is a 5.0 liter, don’t say, ” five point oh.” It’s five liters. Has anyone ever asked you for five point oh dollars? I think not. Besides, the better people say, Three Oh Two.
Does it help any that it’s actually 4.9?
I was hoping someone would point this out.
She’s real fine, my four point nine! Giddyup, giddyup, four point nine! I’ll allow it.
But I must insist on calling it a six and three-quarter engine. Else how must the plebes know that it is better than theirs?
Unnecessarily and inaccurately converting imperial displacements to metric. Like calling a Ford 302 a 5.0, which it isn’t, or talking about a 5.7 liter small block Chevy. Just wrong.
Worthless Bumpers! Low profile tires on everything! Software Defined!
My next purchase will be a classic.
Does Consumer Reports still use their “Bumper Basher” to test out bumpers on new cars? If so, have any blown up yet?
I don’t Know. ADAS sensors, and lighting will take a costly hit on most.
I can imagine! For me, that was what was best about having 5mph bumpers. I wonder if they could help protect the sensor imbedded in them.
Not the point, I know, but damn that’s a sweet Z.
Have you taken a good dump today?
I’ve been so busy at work, I still haven’t had time for my Morning Dump today, which is why I clicked on this instead… sounded like a quick 3 minute read.
Really big wheel spacers on pickup trucks that cause the wheels to stick out several inches into the next lane.
…with long spikes for lug nut caps.
Really? Even in Pennsyltucky, I only see semis with those on the front tires. I don’t think I’ve seen pickups with those. (Still plenty of obnoxious mods on many pickups…but not spiky hubcaps.)
Those are more common – but I’ve seen them on gender-affirming vehicles out in the yellow yard sign areas of central VA.
Gawd I hate that! I made sure every truck I own has mud flaps o them to make sure nothing splashes up on the cars behind me.
May the life force bless you!
Thank you.
Even before 1962 this only applied to the front indicators, not the rear as on that Kia.
Sorta like the some genius articles here!
I hate the DRL’s of some cars that blink OFF when the turn signal on the same corner blinks ON!
Even if the DRL is the same light as the turn signal?
Oooh goodbad one. It instantly makes the car look broken in my eyes.
Pet peeve, oooh where do I start…?
Probably bad modifications to exterior lighting. Whether it be the worst – hyper-flashing CHMSLs (“third brake light”) which is also evidence that the purchaser got taken advantage of at the selling dealership by paying for the addition of an FMVSS-violating modification to a safety device – and tinting/smoking rear lights (#”I tint my taillights so they work less”), to folks using off-road ONLY lights while on the road.
For factory cars, it’s cars without amber rear turn signals. Also excess (read: almost any) chrome especially just as a bauble/greebling, black roofs, fake floating roofs (that is where they slap some black paint or vinyl on part of a pillar and call it done), and headlights/taillights that are part of the bumper cover where bulb replacement is not only difficult, but also at risk of damage even in a mild collision.
I hate those flashing cyclops brake lights with the heat of a 1000 suns. Just keep ’em steady on as designed.
People who sit in the left lane of a 2 lane highway, matching the speed of the car in the right lane, and feeling justified about it because they are either doing the speed limit, or even slightly exceeding it. It’s a PASSING LANE. Also people who slow waaaay the hell down, and then get into the turning lane at the last possible second. Just slow down in the turning lane for christs sake.
Left line is for crime! GTFO!
I see left lane campers all the time! If I can pass you on the right, doing a little over the speed limit, and still get over well in front of the next obstacle… GET YOUR FUCKING ASS OUT OF THE LEFT LANE!!!! The left lane is like the bathroom, go in, do what you need to do, and get out. You don’t spend all day in the bathroom, do you?
Wankers do, too.
I have two cousins (siblings) who camp out in the fast lane oblivious to all other traffic. I refuse to ride with them. I’ll drive, I’ll drive! Gaw, annoying.
Why do you care if “because they are either doing the speed limit, or even slightly exceeding it”?
Surely YOU’RE not speeding and expecting people otherwise following the law to move over for your law violating. Because that would make you even more of an asshole.
Yes, I expect people to move over and allow others to speed. This is required by law in all 50 states, and I expect you to follow all traffic laws. Worth noting that speeding in order to pass is 100% legal in many situations.
The passing lane is for passing. If you aren’t passing, and it does not matter how fast or slow you are driving, get out of the passing lane.
“This is required by law in all 50 states,”
Bullshit when it comes to California. CVC 22400 proves otherwise:
“No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law”
Driving the speed limit is in compliance of the law. So those driving the speed limit in the left lane are NOT required by law to yield.
“and I expect you to follow all traffic laws”
I see; “Rules For Thee, Not For Me.
“Worth noting that speeding in order to pass is 100% legal in many situations”
Again wrong. According to those very same laws you demand others follow not only is speeding illegal so is passing someone doing the posted speed limit.
That means someone driving the posted speed limit in the right lane puts that left lane completely off limits to you and to everyone else. So you’ll be violating BOTH laws.
“The passing lane is for passing. If you aren’t passing, and it does not matter how fast or slow you are driving, get out of the passing lane.”
There’s “travel” lanes and there’s “passing” lanes. In my state of California ALL lanes are considered travel lanes. Other states do define lanes differently and have different ideas of what a speed limit is BUT generally speaking an absolute speed limit is inviolable and exceeding it illegal.
Some states do make a VERY brief exception to allow a pass of a person whom is driving just under the speed limit in the right lane but that exception does not apply if that person is at the posted (absolute) speed limit. In that situation you are expected to follow at a safe distance only.
So again I ask: Why do you care if “because they are either doing the speed limit, or even slightly exceeding it”? Because by those very same laws you demand others follow you are not allowed to pass anyway.
I don’t live in California (thank god), I live in Washington. In Washington, you are to keep right, except to pass. And you know what? Regardless of the law, me passing somebody in the lane that is meant for passing inconveniences absolutely nobody. You sitting in the left lane preventing others from moving more efficiently is not only inconvenient for other road users, but can be dangerous. Blocking the free movement of traffic causes platooning, causes road users to bunch up, following distances to shorten, and may cause some to drive more erratically out of frustration (passing on the right, weaving, etc).
You have no real justification for sitting in the left lane when you are traveling at the same speed as traffic in the right lane, except for maybe some misguided sense of justice. I don’t even know why you are arguing the point.
Because it vastly improves the flow of traffic, and in spite of allowing others to speed (gasp!), this improves overall safety. If it’s so important to you to enforce speed limits on multi-lane roads, you should be willing to become a police officer, or at the very least be satisfied with reporting all the speeders passing you while you do the speed limit in the right lane to the local authorities.
God forbid I do 5 over the limit on the freeway
Ideally yes.
Damn, I think you may need to move from CA for your health. In my experience nearly everyone there does a minimum of 10 over on the freeway… or traffic is so heavy it’s a parking lot. It’s either one or the other, very binary.
I hate the clear bulb in clear lens thing too, which made me note that there are hardly any new vehicles sold in America today which have amber lenses on the rear turn signal. Nissan Altima is the only current example I can think of, and I’m a nerd for this kinda stuff so I actually pay attention.
Nissan Altima and Buick Encore are the most recent ones that I’ve seen, both used amber lenses until 2022. The Mitsubishi Outlander Sport is another one that might be as recent, but I haven’t figured out what year they stopped selling that particular model.
2025 Altima still has em. Looks like the Encore does too.
People who don’t signal turns until after they’ve already braked.
People who refuse to move towards the curb to turn right – or as far over to the left as possible to turn left – but need to stop in the middle of the road before they turn.
My pet peeve…people who put smoke colored covers over their taillights and headlights. Why would you want to make your lights dimmer so that they look “better” in the daylight? Come on…..
It peeves me to no end that my 1987 BMW included a system to notify the driver that one or more of the brake lights were out, yet 35 years later there are cars on sale that have absolutely no warning system to let the driver know if they have a brake light out. For most drivers this is a difficult component to check because it requires two people – one to apply the brake and one to observe the lights. Brake lights are such an important safety item, yet it seems like OEMs can’t spend the $0.10 to have some kind of monitoring doodad to notify the driver. Why this safety item hasn’t been mandated like so many others have is also just crazy to me. I don’t drive that much, but literally every time I do I see multiple vehicles with at least one brake light non-functional.
Also, that a-hole thing GM does where their cars turn on the reverse lamps when the car is locked/unlocked. Reverse lamps should ONLY be used when the car is on and in reverse gear.
My mother in law’s late 90s Buick Park Ave had that too. It’s the only car I’ve seen that on, and wish other cars would have it as well.
Old Volvos also had that feature. It’s not foolproof, though – I once got pulled over for having one brake light, the CHMSL, after driving my old 244 down a few rutted roads. (Those taillight connectors were infamous.)
GM’s reverse-light activation drives me nuts regularly, too.
I want to thank luxury pickup drivers with those massive shiny grilles and bumpers for letting me check my taillights via the rearview mirror!
I also enjoy looking at myself on my motorcycle when I’m stopped behind them…the blurriness makes me fantasize that I really do look as dashing as I think.
Heh, GM does actually give you the option to turn this off. It’s called “Entry Lighting” and I hate to admit this, pretty damn nice when I’m in my driveway. Mine are currently set to 30 seconds, which typically isn’t an issue. They have the option of being left on for MINUTES though, which is incredibly stupid.
Yes! If they want more light in the rear they should use the license plate lights like so many other manufacturers.
License plate lights don’t really light anything up besides the plate though, by design. So I get the thinking, but the amount of times I’ve stopped in a parking lot waiting for a GM rig to back up is far too many times.
Depends on how they’re configured. Typically if they face downwards they also illuminate the ground behind the vehicle, which is great for seeing stuff behind you when reversing (in addition to the rever lights), as I experience on my own vehicles. My brothers and dad have had multiple F-Series trucks where the bumper-mounted rear license plate lights (on both sides of the plate) put out enough light to also illuminate the tailgate a bit.
With LEDs becoming more standardized for automotive lighting, there’s more than enough brightness and placement options to use license plate lighting as a courtesy light.
With the highly notable exception of Pontiac in the ’80s, where the license plate lights would also back-illuminate a glowing decklid P O N T I A C, if you were cool enough to own the right model.
Well conversely my E30 showed a brake light out on the check panel when they were both just fine, so I now ignore it. Pick your poison I guess.
THIS! My E61 has told me the “left rear brake lamp malfunction” for the whole 8 years I’ve owned it, but the light works fine. It’s a burnt socket that is causing it, but I’m not replacing it.
in some cars (subaru?) if the turn signal clicking goes 2x faster than normal – that means a brake light is out.
That happens on cars where the tail/turn bulb is combined. Not always the case on many automobiles.
I mean, there’s two easy ways to check the brake lights with one person.
One (typically in suburban or urban areas) is to back up facing a shop with a big window in front, ideally after sunset, and checking the reflection.
The second is just turning it on, leaving it in park, and putting a toolbox or other heavy object on the brake pedal, and getting out yourself.
Midwesterner here and I find I usually have an ice scraper in the car that is about the right length to wedge between the brake pedal and the seat when I need to check brake lights.
One of my Aston Lagondas has a bundle of fibre optic stuff that runs from the rear lights to the dashboard, where they illuminate little lenses between the CRT displays so I can tell which indicator is flashing and whether or not the brake lights work. No, they don’t work.( the stupid warning system that is) the brake lights work some of the time, usually when the engine doesn’t. My pet peeve is probably Aston Martin Lagondas.
Amen. I was driving home behind my wife in our minivan (first time we’ve had to meet up with 2 cars in a while) and found out that both brake lights were gone with no warning from the car. The CHM light was still fine, so it was better than nothing, but I got a little nervous about how long we’d been driving around without ’em.
I’m the annoying guy who makes the “roll down your window” motion at the stop light to yell to you that you’ve got some lights out, too.
Design-wise, I’m not loving the trend of blacking out all your badging. It’s not making your Tahoe look any tougher, or your Audi any sleeker.
Driving-wise, people who don’t understand merging. Guys. Zipper. And STOP BRAKING WHEN MERGING.
People who stop at the end of the on-ramp. Grrrrrrr
Yeah, I’m literally slowing down to let someone merge in font of me and the merging car slows down with me instead of speeding up and actually merging onto the highway. As his lane is running out, my passenger seat supervisor is screaming “Why don’t you just let him in!!!”
How about any package that has different versions of the usual badges? My mom bought a Jeep Compass recently, and the “altitude” package description proudly cites “premium gray badges” as one of the features. Does this actually make a difference to anyone?
I think people should rock whatever they want! I guess I really am more aiming at people who just want their car to look more intimidating I guess?
people who don’t understand how to do a zipper merge
I merged with a zipper once; it was not pretty.
Painful lesson. Always tuck before you zip.
Button Fly Jeans are a thing for a big reason.
Franks and beans!!!!!
I have to admit I was one of them until recently. As a Californian I think it’s a requirement for me to get angry at people using the zipper merge lane all the way to the end before cutting over. But I have since seen the error of my ways and now understand that those people using the zipper lane until it ends are actually doing it correctly.
Are they? Because if someone doesn’t let them in they either come to a complete stop and have to wait till someone else stops traffic to let them in or they force their way in which could end badly.
Or they end up somewhere they’re not supposed to be which also tends not to end well.
Well in a perfect world the people in the lane that’s not ending also understand how zipper merges work and let the merging people in. Some states even officially advocate and have instructions on how zipper merges work (my own state of CA not being one of them, sadly). But do I realize theory and reality are not the same thing.
Here’s a guide from the state of Minnesota.
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/zippermerge/#:~:text=So%20I'm%20supposed%20to,can%20orderly%20take%20turns%20merging.
Ah. That only applies when traffic is moving slow. When its fast Minnesota recommends you merge earlier:
“When not to do the zipper merge
When traffic is moving at highway speeds and there are no backups, it makes sense to move sooner to the lane that will remain open through construction. The bottom line is to merge when it is safe to do so.”
The key here is “merge when it is safe to do so.” Everyone is going to have a different opinion based on experience, situation and available information.
Fair point. Living in Southern California where traffic is always a thing my mind pretty much only thought about this in context of being in traffic.
And Colorado
https://www.codot.gov/travel/zippermerge
Utah Motor Vehicle Code 41.6a.903
(2) An operator of a vehicle shall use the zipper method when merging at a congested merge point.
(3) A violation of this section is an infraction.
other drivers for whom concepts such as stop signs and rights-of-way are routinely ignored thru either ignorance or arrogance (sometimes both).
Yeah, here’s a pet peeve that genuinely pisses me off. Whenever I take my T-bird into the shop they always shake their heads and gravely tell me “you know, these repairs are going to exceed the value of the car.”
Yeah. I know. It’s a rusty V6 Thunderbird from 1990, its resale value is 43 cents and a case of beer. I bought it for $2300 and have already put north of $10k into it. You are not doing anything by telling me that, RANDY.
Why have you put over 10k into a rusty V6 1990 Thunderbird?
Randy is right to be concerned and make sure that you are aware of the economics of the situation. I think a lot of people, not fully understanding the economics, end up dumping silly amounts of money into junkers.
Some people love their car, regardless of what it’s monetary value happens to be.
Or it’s economics:
Because it will cost far, far, far more than the $2300 maintenance job that’s needed to instead replace my car with anything approaching the style, comfort and luxury of the car I already own.
No it won’t. That’s literally the issue here, the $2300 maintenance job is worth more than your car.
I’m pretty sure that replacing my Mercedes convertible (which still gets compliments despite it’s age, scuffs, etc.) with something comparable that’s pre-owned is going to cost something north of $25,000 – payments would run me in the $600-700/month range, plus maintenance?
It’s more sensible to just budget $2500-3000/year to keep the old one running.
https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/the-new-math-of-driving-your-car-till-the-wheels-fall-off-9c23b7bc?st=q3st9xdpjufdsve&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
If you think so I hope you have collectors insurance with that as your agreed on value, otherwise you’re going to get a lot less should something happen to your car.
“It’s more sensible to just budget $2500-3000/year to keep the old one running.”
Ouch!!
I think I spend maybe $600 per annum for fluids/rubber/parts to keep two older Japanese cars on the road. Most years its just oil changes and wiper blades.
Are you sure you wouldn’t rather have a Lexus?
Lexus never built a 4 seat soft-top convertible.
I know my insurance payout would be far lower than replacement cost (Well, for a newer one with fewer miles) – after all, it’s a 15 year old car with 120K+ miles on it.
But we have rental car coverage for the interim, and the payout would be a down payment on a newer pre-owned E Class cabriolet.
Perhaps I should look into collectors insurance – tho I suspect my car may be too young?
$2500 is an average annual maintenance bill at the local German specialist – I don’t DIY. Last year it was a lot less, this year it’s a bit more due to the new set of Vredesteins on order.
$3000/year maintenance is still less than 5 months of a $700/monthly payment.
The economics are deciding whether to fix the T-Bird or buy a new or a newer car.
A new car will cost a ton more than that repair right now, while a slightly used car will need to be thoroughly checked out so that after STILL paying a ton more that you don’t put too much more into it.
My time is worth some money, and I don’t think my research on used cars is all that useful to me. So wasting time.
Oh, and that new car needs to last 20 years like my current one, so I don’t have to go through buying new cars every five years, because I HATE that experience. That will take some research as well.
I can’t believe you are actually trying to defend dumping $10k into a rusty 1990 Thunderbird as the smart financial decision lol. Getting a different(not necessarily newer, but necessarily less rusty) car is CERTAINLY the cheaper move, and I think you know that, because I choose to believe that you aren’t stupid.
I say this as somebody who drives cars about the same age, does not have to replace them every 5 years, and does not have to dump $10k into them in repairs(or even $2k for that matter).
What kind of Autopian hates buying cars?
Well, he already put $10K. Another $2K is merely protecting that investment!
Also, not a member, yet. Highway robbery at that price.
Because I love it. I don’t have a rational reason- I could have sold it and bought a Honda Fit, but I really don’t want to. This car got me through some of the darkest moments of my life. I like to say that I’m keeping it until I kill it or it kills me.
This is the way.
My newest vehicle is 14 years old, and I’ll keep all them as long as I can b/c they make me happy. That’s their true worth to me.
That’s exactly it. I’d love to eventually get a second car so my T-bird doesn’t get subjected to being dailied through Canadian winters, but it’s never going to be a replacement.
I dailied my Mustang for a decade, then picked up my Focus as a better year-rounder vehicle.
Love ’em both for what they are, and just like with your ‘bird, Ford will not likely make another car like the Focus any time soon, so I’m keeping her for the duration.
I appreciate when somebody has a deep and long lasting love for their car, even if it’s irrational. Too many cars are unloved and don’t live as long as they should.
Fair enough. But some of us own a Honda Fit, which we love just as much.
Absolutely no offense intended! I just use a Fit as an example because I almost *did* do that.
That’s mechanics code for “why have you brought such a shitbox into my nice shop?”
Which is fair, but as long as my money’s green I don’t see why it’s their business, especially when I’ve told them this car is for life.
Some mechanics don’t want to work on old vehicles. Stuck fasteners, brittle plastic parts, and other systems that might break are no fun, especially if they are working for book rate. When I call a nice BMW shop to work on my ’76 2002 I start by saying that it’s clean, well-maintained, and not a rusty rat.
I feel for you so I’m giving you their side. It’s also possible that they are just setting your expectations, although in a rather offensive way.
But… we have the customer that wants everything fixed…. do not call, just fix it. It is a very fine line for us, as service writers. Do we take them litteral, or should we call them to give them an idea on dollar amount? It’s amazing how many times “fix it” turns into a freak out on repair cost.
Randy’s a dick!
Oh… I know the love of an old Ford … Bronco II owner here, love it, won’t sell it. You made me actually laugh out loud.