The Small Cars | ArticlesBase.com
My boyfriend has a BMW Z3. I have a Jeep Liberty. Both are highly impractical vehicles. At the time when I purchased my jeep, I had already been the previous owner of a Jeep Liberty (which had been given to me as a gift), and so I was just continuing in a pattern of sticking with something that I was used to. The Jeep provided me with comfort and room when I made the long drives from North Carolina to New York and also had plenty of space for toting around groceries, sporting equipment and other things that I often wound up carrying around such as people.
On the other hand, when my boyfriend purchased his car, he did so because he needed a new car after having totaled his other car in an accident (which it was determined was not his fault) However, if you get into an accident, the first car that you start thinking of shouldn't necessarily be a sports car- especially a Z3! Now a couple, I have found (perhaps not surprisingly), that our vehicles are not wholly practical. For instance, on the one hand, whenever we want to go somewhere with friends, we have to take my car simply for the fact that you can fit more than two people in it. Actually, pretty much anywhere we go that even has the hint of possibility of us buying something or bringing something other than ourselves back to our final destination, warrants us taking my car. An avid golfer, when my boyfriend meets up with friends to play golf, he has to either meet them at their homes and take their car or simply meet them at the golf course because he cannot fit more than just his golf bag and himself in his little two-seater vehicle.
It's frustrating to be the owner of a car that is so impractical, and it is doubly frustrating to be dating someone who also drives a car that is impractical. While his car may get slightly better gas mileage than mine, it is only because it is smaller. And when all is said and done, he may not be doing that much better than me on gasoline. Because his car is smaller, it runs out of gas more quickly. Additionally, his car requires that he fill it up with premium gasoline versus regular unleaded (which is cheaper). On the flip side, my car is bigger and so you would think that the gasoline would last longer, right? Wrong. Because my car is bigger, it is also heavier and takes more energy to get it to move. Also, because it is bigger, it takes more gasoline to fill it. Why, since gasoline prices have gone down, I now only pay $50 every single time that I am at the pump versus the almost $80 I paid a few summers ago.
If I had to do it all over again, I would not opt to purchase an SUV. Instead, I would look for something more practical such as a more fuel efficient sedan. I think the mistake that most first-time car buyers make is that they buy with their eyes and not their minds. Had I been thinking more clearly at the time of my purchase, I would have known that for someone who does quite a bit of long-distance driving as well as around-town commuting, a vehicle that got really great gas mileage should have been at the top of my list- not necessarily one with a lot of head room. For my boyfriend, perhaps he should have been looking at something that was slightly bigger and could carry more than just himself and a bag of groceries.
About the Author:
Cross Country Shipping Cross Country Transport
Nazi Zombies on? COD : World at WAR !
Irrespective, it's still a pernicious and stupid tax. Where's the Audimers Piguet tax, or the Richard Mille tax (even a basic Richard Mille watch will set you back about 100,000-00 euros, and all it does it tell the time just like a $1,000-00 Seiko will . . . very pretty though), or the Hatteras 100 tax, or the Case of Grange tax?
Another of my 'objections' is the application of the term 'luxury'. A Lotus Exige Sport 240 (list price $149,990-00) is certainly an expensive vehicle. But, is it a luxury vehicle? Most people (unless they are saddo, long-term motor sport enthuiasts / competitors like me who are happy to drive around in what is essentially a race car with number plates), if compelled to drive a vehicle like that (or any number of Ferraris) would kill to get out of them. They're noisy, cramped, harsh riding, demanding, difficult to drive 'monsters' . . . hardly 'luxury' (for the Lotus, carpet is an option). Now, a Bently Continental GT or a Maybach . . . that's a totally different proposition.
Thing is, too, I know plenty of people for whom their Lotus / Ferrari / Porsche / Maserlamborini is their only major asset. They've rejected the 'whole house ownership in the burbs' thing in order to buy what is — for them — essentially a fine piece of sporting equipment. It's no luxury living on Vegemite sandwiches day to day so that you can afford to run the car at the next Ferrari Club track day. Gee, even a Subaru WRX Sti or Lancer Evo 10 cops LCT. Luxury cars? Try driving one between Sydney and Brisbane and see.
When the LCT first arrived on the scene back in 1980-something, the thereshold was about $28,000-00. That was close enough to Porsche money back then and would almost have bagged you two and a bit top-model Commodores. $57, whatever – 00 now gets you one VE SS Commodore and an invitation to the release of the new HSV. It does get you a Tarago, a Territory, possibly an FG Falcon Ghia but little else. True, it might get you almost three frugal tin and plastic boxes, built somewhere in Asia and bereft of much in the way of sparkling dynamics and actual quality . . . but they're not really cars anyway: they're fridges (or some other appliance).
New blog post: VW Golf TDI: I’m putting my money on gas mileage. Sorry Nissan Juke.