For those with good credit and looking for a car during pandemic

[Anonymous]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-lenders-try-to-lure-borrowers-with-generous-termsfor-some-11588411...

[AllZero]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-lenders-try-to-lure-borrowers-with-generous-termsfor-some-11588411801?mod=hp_lead_pos9

---

Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, there is a pay wall.

[Shooting-For-800]

There are some crazy deals right now for sure.

[Anonymous]

---

@AllZero wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-lenders-try-to-lure-borrowers-with-generous-termsfor-some-11588411801?mod=hp_lead_pos9

---

Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, there is a pay wall.

---

Maybe someone would kindly provide a synopsis? 

[Anonymous]

Well, if you currentl have an email address, you should be getting all kinds of great offers. Buying a new car? One offer was like 4 months before the first payment is due. lol

That's in addition to teh great low rates!

[sarge12]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-lenders-try-to-lure-borrowers-with-generous-termsfor-some-11588411801?mod=hp_lead_pos9

---

Unfortunately most, myself included, can't read the article in the link. I have seen better offers though. High unemployment often causes many to be hesitant to take on long term debt for high priced assets like houses and cars. Incentives are added to entice these reluctant individuals. It is a matter of survival for the auto industry that can't keep producing cars if the percentage of consumers who will buy a new car drops way below normal. To a large degree, the auto industry are victims of their own success. 

      50 years ago cars were seldom making it to 100,000 miles, until major engine and transmission issues made trading it in almost a necessity. Today there are cars that survive to see 1 million miles, and warranties on the drivetrain of 100,000 miles is common. They may be made of thinner metals today, and are much lighter, but tighter engine tolerences and better technology has resulted in more average miles. The thinner metals also allow the body to absorb more of the energy released during collisions as well, which makes accidents more survivable.

     In spite of the common belief to the contrary, cars today survive with many more miles than in the past, and collisions are way more often survivable. They did not start using easier crushed, thinner metals just to save money on materials. They did it to allow the body of the car to absorb energy that the passengers used to absorb, in the heavy thick metal cars of the past.

[DaveInAZ]

---

@AllZero wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-lenders-try-to-lure-borrowers-with-generous-termsfor-some-11588411801?mod=hp_lead_pos9

---

Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, there is a pay wall.

---

And the WSJ would have to pay me to read their krap.

I'm sure there's great deals on new cars & financing for even those with not so good credit these days. Fortunately my 2003 Kia runs just fine, although I did have to cover the check engine light with a piece of duct tape, after a year and a half I got tired of seeing it.

[Anonymous]

---

@sarge12 wrote:

     In spite of the common belief to the contrary, cars today survive with many more miles than in the past, and collisions are way more often survivable. They did not start using easier crushed, thinner metals just to save money on materials. They did it to allow the body of the car to absorb energy that the passengers used to absorb, in the heavy thick metal cars of the past.

---

This crash test video absolutely proves what you said is true: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test 

""It was night and day, the difference in occupant protection," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "What this test shows is that automakers don't build cars like they used to. They build them better."

Still no competition on which one has more style, of course. lol

[sarge12]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@sarge12 wrote:

     In spite of the common belief to the contrary, cars today survive with many more miles than in the past, and collisions are way more often survivable. They did not start using easier crushed, thinner metals just to save money on materials. They did it to allow the body of the car to absorb energy that the passengers used to absorb, in the heavy thick metal cars of the past.

---

This crash test video absolutely proves what you said is true: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test 

""It was night and day, the difference in occupant protection," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "What this test shows is that automakers don't build cars like they used to. They build them better."

Still no competition on which one has more style, of course. lol

---

No argument on that. Many classic cars of the past are rolling works of art, and are asthetically pleasing in ways very few cars made today will never be. That does not of course include some of the six and seven figure super cars that cost more than an average house. In the 50's these ridiculously heavy cars were more often than not just beautiful to look at. They also often had trunks that could, and sometimes did, easily have room for several bodies with space to spare. I bought an old buick electra 225 once that had a trunk I am sure could double as a swimming pool...just huge. When I was a child, I also went many places in the back of a pickup truck, and that was not even uncommon. I do so miss those days when children normally ran free, rode bikes without helmets, and many other dangerous activities everyday. I am almost 62 in case you wonder. First car, 1966 chevyII Nova.

[DaveInAZ]

---

@sarge12 wrote: I am almost 62 in case you wonder. First car, 1966 chevyII Nova.

---

I'm almost halfway through 68. First car, 1965 Triumph Spitfire.

My parents always had big Chryslers, I called them American Land Yatchs, because you just seemed to float over the road. In my Triumph you felt the road.