this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
371 points (99.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43939 readers
439 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I saw this post and wanted to ask the opposite. What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for? Preferably more extreme or unexpected examples.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sxan@midwest.social 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Hard disagree!

Are you saying that you've owned both cheap and expensive cars, and that your favorites have always been the cheap ones? That they've been more reliable, more comfortable, better-riding, and better-driving? Or, at least, no worse than the expensive ones?

Yes, more expensive cars are more expensive. They often have a higher cost of ownership. And, sometimes, brands really fuck up and cut corners they shouldn't, and result an reputational harm that takes years to recover from, long after they've fixed the production issues (c.f. Audi in the early 00's). But, IME, it's usually worth it, if you can afford it.

[–] zagaberoo@beehaw.org 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Cheap cars definitely are more reliable if you pick the right brands. On all the other points it just doesn't make enough of a difference to me to justify the enormous cost increase.

Our $10k used Camry is still kicking ass over ten years later and hasn't ever needed work more extensive than replacing leaking struts. The reliability truly is astounding.

EDIT: But, let's not talk about my camera-buying habits lol

[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 6 points 10 months ago

let’s not talk about my camera-buying habits lol

Ah, that's the perfect hobby if you really hate having money πŸ˜…

[–] sxan@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Our 2016 (new) BMW has never had a major issue. Our 2014 (new) Volvo - which cost half what the BMW did, has almost never not had something going wrong with it. We bought a new Altima many years ago that was less expensive than the Volvo; we had it for several years and it was fine, but it was still in the shop more than this BMW (but less than the Volvo).

The issue isn't so much reliability, but what it costs when there is a problem. Fixing the Altima would certainly be cheaper than the same repair of the BMW. The Volvo TCO is higher than the BMW or the Altima.

I also think you have to be comparing similar years. My sister - who's 20 years younger than me - is still driving a 1996 Nissan 240SX, and it's in great chat wasn't a "cheap" car when it was new, but still. I think cars from last century were more robust.

[–] zagaberoo@beehaw.org 5 points 10 months ago

The repair cost is ultimately the most significant, that's true.

We'll have to see how statistics play out in the long run: that's where the non-anecdotal evidence for Toyota's supremacy comes from.

[–] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

There's not going to be a huge difference between something like a Toyota and a Mercedes other than cost and reliability. You're paying for the brand.

[–] toybastard@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I disagree as well. I think it'd be pretty obvious to anyone who's sat in each the difference in comfort, ride quality, material choice, technology, and drivetrain refinement between a Corolla and an AMG.

I would still buy the Corolla though for the reliability - or better yet, a Lexus which kind of has both.

[–] psud@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This person has never driven a Merc.

There's a difference between Toyota and Lexus

[–] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

You can buy a decent spec Highlander for $40k.

[–] Thevenin@beehaw.org 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Mercedes is an outlier. Try comparing Toyota with Lexus, Nissan with Infiniti, Chevy with Cadillac, or Ford with Lincoln. In all of these instances, the luxury marques have equivalent or better reliability than their economy counterparts.

Of course, whether or not the reliability and features are worth the cost is a different question entirely. (I generally lean towards no.)

[–] cobra89@beehaw.org 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lol I don't think the reliability difference between Lexus and Toyota is measurable. If anything I see way more old Toyotas on the road than I do old Lexuses. But that may be just because less were produced.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Lexus is made by Toyota, just an fyi. To your point, a lot more vehicles are built with the Toyota badge than the Lexus badge. Options and creature comforts separate the two. Most (maybe all) of them share the same platform with each other.

[–] cobra89@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

Lexus is made by Toyota

I'm well aware :) I don't think that really changes anything of what I said though. Them being owned by the same parent company doesn't really change anything other than the company culture of reliability, but even so Toyotas are more well known for their reliability. Luxury cars are also inherently less reliable just due to the fact they have more parts and also newer technologies for the luxury aspect that sometimes haven't had all the kinks engineered out yet.