vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"And it does not cover normal battery performance degradation, so there's that. Chrysler had an ""unlimited powertrain warranty"" a few years ago but it had so many asterisks it really only benefited people who planned on keeping their cars forever, and even then only covered powertrain stuff."
Let's then also look at what the warranty becomes after they fixed a part: A replacement part or Apple Product, including a user-installable part that has been installed in accordance with instructions provided by Apple, assumes the remaining term of the Warranty or ninety (90) days from the date of replacement or repair, whichever provides longer coverage for you. Which means in this case that you have a 90-day warranty after they've fixed an issue. This significantly reduces the likelihood of a same part going bad multiple times in a row. Therefore the chances of that $350 being worthwhile are very much against you. Even if the system does fail in some way, it is likely that the repair would be cheaper than the AppleCare. The chances of running into a repair or series of repairs that pays for the AppleCare and then some are astonishingly low. I would still get it if you were giving it to someone who was significantly lacking in any technology concepts (such as a parent or grandparent) as they are more likely to utilize the extended phone support, especially for smaller things that they might nag you about!
I, for one, am very surprised that Tesla doesn't have a warranty exception for high mileage commercial use.  Tesloop's cars rack up over 75000 miles per year at the low end.  Sure, the data collected is valuable for product durability testing and Autopilot mapping right now, but there has to be a limit somewhere.
There seems to be a contradiction here: Home warranties not worth paper they're written on and: What struck us is that the HWC [...] immediately had the unit replaced. There is a huge difference when you buy the insurance yourself and when a bank forces you to buy one. Because in the latter case, the insurance is not for you, it's for the bank to protect their collateral (which is your asset as well). It becomes obvious when a claim comes up, because the insurer is not negotiating with you, it's negotiating with another large financial institution. And as far as the stereotype of banks being ruthless behemoths goes, in this case you happen to benefit from being on the behemoth's side and the insurer simply can't brush off a bank as much as it can brush off a person like you. As you've put it, a house in Phoenix without AC is not worth much, so the bank could not let that happen. Because in case of another foreclosure they would have to fix the AC anyway.
As a general rule no. Those companies are notorious for: 1) Arguing with you endlessly that any claim you make isn't covered. 2) Going out of business leaving you with a worthless warranty. The exception is when you are selling a home. Buying a transferable warranty may be an effective sales tactic to set the buyer's mind at ease about potential problems with the house.
I had a 2000 Chevy Cavalier until late 2011. It worked well, but was very definitely at the end of its life. This was a low-end car, certainly, but I dispute your claim that cars last 20 - 25 years. Consumer Reports apparently says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle is around 8 years or 150,000 miles. When it came time to replace my Cavalier, I was significantly concerned about car safety and about the ability to handle Canadian winters (-40 temperatures, lots of snow). I chose a Subaru Forester as a good match for me. I could have bought one second-hand, but I wasn't willing to get one as old as five years. Car manufacturers constantly improve safety and features over that time period. The Forester is massively more capable of handling Canadian winters than the Cavalier was. If I was buying a Forester now, I'd want the EyeSight Driver Assist System which Subaru added a couple of years after my model year. The newer models score slightly higher in crash tests, too. That would limit me to 2014 or later models, and I'd be concerned someone selling a 2014 or 2015 knew something I didn't, knew they had purchased a lemon. I didn't need financing for my vehicle. On the other hand, I could have invested the money I saved, so if all I wanted was something to get me from point A to point B, my choice does not make much financial sense. But Canadian winters are brutal and car safety is massively important to me. I'm well aware that I paid considerably for this, and I'm comfortable with my decision.
"What do you ""better equipment than necessary""?   If I want a car that runs 300 miles on a battery charge, I don't want to put a battery that actually runs for 400 miles.  The only purpose of this ""trick"" by Tesla is to charge more money from consumers for what they already own and paid for.  &gt; The side effect is longer battery life and the option to upgrade without needing service.  This my problem and choice as the car owner: if I ignore the warning from the car that I over-taxing the battery and will shorten it's life, then it's my choice.   And ""upgrade without service"" is ridiculous. It better to say ""unlocking existing features in the car you already own""."
By themselves they may not do much but they add up into both gas consumption and reliability issues. Really do read your owners manual. Nobody knows your car better than the people who built it. What's best for my car may not be best for your car and the best way to make sure your car is working as intended is to take an afternoon with your manual and a cup of your favorite beverage. Afterwards you will know how all the features of your car works. ""Take care of your car and it takes care of you"" is the principle I'm working with. A car you're happy with will make you more calm behind the wheel and leads to higher quality of your driving decisions. Both you and your fellow commuters will benefit from this, even if they may never take the time to thank you."
You could be living in a different city, have a different commute, and maybe you'll need a minivan to haul kids around or live in a place with bad winters and want a 4-wheel-drive. You'll also need to be prepared for the additional expenses that generally come with expensive cars, such as higher insurance and maintenance rates, and parking could be costly if you live in an expensive city. The other option, of course, if the car is truly something you need, want, and can afford, would be to save up a sizable down payment and finance the rest so you can get the car sooner. Finally, there's nothing wrong with saving your money for 6.5 years, building up that fund, and then reevaluating what makes the most sense for you at that time. Maybe it will the car, maybe something else, but the nice thing about having savings is that it gives you more options.
The answer is very simple. Part of the luxury is having the cutting edge technology with the very latest features. The price premium is not just from increased build quality; it's simply a perception. Additionally, 10 years takes its toll on a car. The smooth suspension gets rougher over time, and all the little features start to break down. Part of the price of that car factors in the expense of expected repairs. That's true of every car, but the repairs are more expensive when there are lots of gadgets to break down, especially on imports.
And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its ""150-item inspection you can rely on"". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its ""forecourt price"", ""private selling price"", ""part exchange price"", and ""auction price"". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]"
I've been told by staff in my local car hire agency that they get such big discounts that they actually make money selling the cars, so they replace all their cars every six months (in the UK the number plate indicates when the car was registered, in six month periods). This suits the manufacturers, because it means they can offer a lower-cost product to price sensitive customers, while charging more to people who want something brand new. For example, you could buy a brand new Fiesta for £14,000 or a 6 month old version of the same car with a few thousand miles on the clock for £12,000. This means if you only have £12,000 then you can afford to buy a nearly new Fiesta, but if you can afford a bit more then Ford will happily take that off you for a brand new Fiesta. Ford sell an extra car, and if the car hire company only paid £11,000 then they make some profit too.
A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals.
There are lots of good points here already, but something that hasn't been mentioned yet is what would happen if the purchased items break or are somehow defective? Depending on the warranty and how trustworthy the company is, there could be an advantage to not having fully paid for the item yet when a defect is discovered, as it might incentivize the company to be more attentive to your warranty claim, since they are faced with knowing that you could stop making payments if they don't act in a timely manner. Note I'm not suggesting you stop making payments in this case, just that companies (and banks) are oftentimes more willing to work with you when you owe them money.
In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now that if you rolled your odometer back the car was serviced somewhere, had inspection or whatever and it is on a report. If seller was found to do this they could face jail time and obviously now their car is almost worthless. Why do I mention this? Because you can take a look at 2011 cars. Those with 20K miles go for just a little more than those with 100K miles. As an owner you will start incurring heavy maintenance costs around 100K on most newer cars. By buying cars with lower mileage, keeping them for a year or two, and reselling them before they get up in miles, you can stay in that magic area where you can drive a pretty good car for $200-300 a month. Note that this takes work on both the buying and selling side and you often need cash to get these cars (dealers are good about siphoning really good used cars to employees/friends). This is a great strategy for keeping costs down and car value up but obviously a lot of people try to do this and it takes work and you have to be willing to settle sometimes on a car that is fine, but not exactly what you want. As for leasing this really gets into three main components: If you are going to do EVERYTHING at a dealership and you want something new or newish you might as well lease. At least then you can shop around for apples to apples. The problem with buying a new/used car from the dealers in perpetuity isn't the buying process. It is the fact that they will screw you on the trade-in. A car that books for 20K may trade-in for 17K. Even if the dealer says they are giving you 20K, then they make you pay list price for the car. I have many many times negotiated a price of a car and then wife brought in our car separately and I can count on ZERO fingers how many times that the dealership honored both sides of the negotiations.
Ignoring that liability car insurance is usually a state mandated requirement and that all banks require full coverage, there are quite a few reasons to buy it. No matter how much money you have, you can't really guarantee that you can recover financially from an accident.  Yes, you can buy a new car.  But what happens if you are sued because the other driver died or is now in a long term coma?  The legal costs alone would financially bury most people. It's even worse if you are rich.  Let's say someone rear ended you.  If you had no insurance (again ignoring the legality here), you can bet their attorney would take a look at your considerable financial assets and do whatever it took to get as much of that as possible.  The legal fees alone of defending yourself at trial would likely far outstrip everything else. And that's just one little situation.
I'm probably being unduly harsh, but I only have my experience to draw on.   Windshield wipers that the dealer could never get to work right  Replacing brake lights every couple of months - dealer couldn't fix   Am electronic 4wd system that fails twice, necessitating a transmission replacement at 30k miles.   This was a brand new vehicle, all under warrant protection  I used to travel a lot for work, with a lot of rental cars, and driven a lot of different cars. The GM products just always seemed a little more rattley with the worst seats for me. I had the misfortune of driving a Cruize in Europe for a few weeks and I've felt church pews that were luxurious compared to that thing - though the diesel motor (Opel made) was nice.   I compare that to the Toyotas I've driven for a couple hundred thousand miles with nothing but maintenance, and that's where I struggle.   Maybe they are better. But my experience hasn't gotten there yet.
As others have addressed the legality in their answers, I want to address the idea of the dealership being 'a middleman'. A dealership serves more of a purpose than just 'middlemanning' a car to a consumer. Actually, they consume a great deal of risk. Let's remember that a dealership is really an extension of the OEM, albeit independently owned and operated, the dealership must still answer to the brand they represent, if people have a bad experience with a dealership, a customer might go to another of the same brand, but more often than not they will go to the competition out of spite. Therefore, it's in the dealership's best interest to represent the brand as best as possible, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. While the internet has made a certain part of a salesman's role null and void, and since this is a finance (read money) Q/A site let's take a moment to consider the risk assume and therefore the value added by a dealership: Test Drive. A car is a huge purchase, and while it's okay to buy a pair of shoes online without trying them on, a car is a bit different of course, we want to make sure it 'fits' before we shell out several thousand dollars. Yes, you (meaning consumers) can look at car pictures and specs online, but if you want to see how that vehicle handles on your town's roads, if it fits in your garage and/or driveway, then you need to take it for a test drive. It's not feasible for OEMs to have millions of people showing up to car plants for a test drive, right? Scalability aside, some business that is handled in automotive plants are confidential and not for the general public to know about. A dealership provides an opportunity for those who live locally to see and experience the car without flying or driving wherever the car was assembled. They provide this at a risk, banking on the fact that a good experience with the vehicle will lead to a sale. Service. A car is a machine, and no machine is perfect, neither will it last forever without proper service. A dealership provides a place for people to bring their vehicles when they need to be serviced.
"Welcome to Personal Finance and Money. This answer will depend a lot on what is most important to the buyer, for example, whether it is important to always be in a newer car, to save money, or strike a balance between the two. There are trade-offs and I don't think there is one right answer for all circumstances. Leasing Leasing does make financial sense for at least two types of people I'm aware of: The company I work for provides company cars to sales executives, which we lease. We lease because it wouldn't be appropriate for a salesperson to meet a client in a car that clearly appears used. Similarly, I know people who value being in a newer car all the time, and for them, leasing makes more financial sense then buying a new car every 2-3 years, and selling their old car which is now 2-3 years old and has depreciated significantly. They understand that they are paying more to always be able to be in a newer car. I used to work with a manager who, every time the new model of the car he owned came out, would see the car and buy it on the spot, even though he already owned last year's model, and he didn't need two cars. He just couldn't help himself; he felt he had to have the new model. It's no use sermonizing about how he ""should"" learn to save money by just being content with what he had. In reality, if he is going to buy the new model every year no matter what, he should lease rather than buy. From my experience, I would only recommend leasing if you would otherwise be buying a new car on a regular basis, and the lease would be less expensive. This is probably the most cost effective way to maintain the highest possible quality, but would cost much more than buying and holding a new car or buying a value used car. I don't see reliability as much of a factor here since the seller will have a very good idea of how much maintenance will cost, but you will pay a premium to be able to pay a fixed cost for maintenance instead of risking a worse-than-average experience.
"This was a huge question for me when I graduated high school, should I buy a new or a used car? I opted for buying used. I purchased three cars in the span of 5 years the first two were used. First one was $1500, Honda, reliable for one year than problem after problem made it not worth it to keep. Second car was $2800, Subaru, had no problems for 18 months, then problems started around 130k miles, Headgasket $1800 fix, Fixed it and it still burnt oil. I stopped buying old clunkers after that. Finally I bought a Nissan Sentra for $5500, 30,000 miles, private owner. Over 5 years I found that the difference between your ""typical"" car for $1500 and the ""typical"" car you can buy for $5500 is actually a pretty big difference.  Things to look for: Low mileage, one owner, recent repairs, search google known issues for the make and model based on the mileage of the car your reviewing, receipts, clean interior, buying from a private owner, getting a deal where they throw in winter tires for free so you already have a set are all things to look for. With that said, buying new is expensive for more than just the ticket price of the car. If you take a loan out you will also need to take out full insurance in order for the bank to loan you the car. This adds a LOT to the price of the car monthly. Depending on your views of insurance and how much you're willing to risk, buying your car outright should be a cheaper alternative over all than buying new. Save save save! Its very probably that the hassles of repair and surprise break downs will frustrate you enough to buy new or newer at some point. But like the previous response said, you worked hard to stay out of debt. I'd say save another grand, buy a decent car for $3000 and continue your wise spending habits! Try to sell your cars for more than you bought them for, look for good deals, buy and sell, work your way up to a newer more reliable car. Good luck."
Back when I was 25 and living near Kansas City, I would put 500-700 miles on my car almost every weekend traveling to other places like Omaha, St. Louis, Iowa City, occasionally Minneapolis, once to Fargo, and one longer trip all the way to Virginia... There's a whole lot of nothing out there so road trips are quite naturally long. They're also quite attractive and I still wouldn't miss an opportunity to get up and drive somewhere for the weekend. But, I have spent less money on cars in my entire lifetime than you have on this single car. I preferred then, and still do, to buy older cars for a few thousand dollars (or even less) and drive them until they die or can no longer pass inspection. Changing the oil is usually the most maintenance I'll do. Since I've spent so little on each car, I don't really care if it suffers some minor damage, or even gets totaled in an accident (which fortunately has never happened), so I would only carry the mandatory liability insurance. This is going to be much cheaper than the full coverage you will have on your car. If something did happen I would just go buy another junker. One such car I bought cost me a grand total of $150 excluding gas and gave me almost 10,000 miles until its transmission fell out. Another that I paid $100 for had difficulty getting over 60 miles an hour, but it did those 500-mile trips almost every weekend for two years before the engine threw a rod. This might not be something you want to do. Perhaps you don't want to be seen driving what one of my exes called a ****mobile because people will misjudge you. But consider that billionaire Sam Walton (of Wal-Mart) could afford any vehicle he wanted, but drove an old pickup truck. I present it as an option because it works for me, and might work for you. And my ex liked my old cars, especially the 1983 Mercury Zephyr station wagon with enough space in the back for a full size bed... Thus you have one possible way to cut your expenses significantly. The only thing left to deal with is parking and its attendant security issues.