May 2008
When to downsize your car
Consumer Reports finds that sometimes waiting can be better for your wallet
With the national average gasoline price hovering at about $4 a gallon, many consumers are trading in their larger vehicles for smaller models with better fuel economy.
While that is a good goal, making the switch too soon could cost you more in overall owner costs than you'll save at the pump,
according to a new Consumer Reports study. It is clear from reviewing our car owner cost data that downsizing pays off in the long run-as long as the timing
is right.
It's understandable that many drivers want to cut their fuel expenses and reduce their negative effects on the environment as quickly as possible. In fact, recent sales figures show that sales of large SUVs and pickup trucks are down dramatically, while small cars and hybrids are gaining popularity. General Motors' Hummer division, for example, announced that sales were down more than 45 percent in April 2008, compared with the corresponding month last year. Meanwhile, U.S. sales of the Toyota Prius hybrid jumped almost 54 percent over the same period.
But CR's study shows that it often doesn't pay right now to downsize if you've only owned your vehicle for three years. Because of the trend in consumer downsizing, we have explored the potential costs of keeping a fuel-thirsty, 3-year-old vehicle versus the potential costs of trading it in for a new, economical car. In the tables on the following pages, we present the estimated owner costs of both options over the next 12 months to illustrate the financial impact of each.
Owner costs vs. fuel savings
Ultimately, the hidden costs of car ownership might be the factors you are least likely to focus on when driven to downsize, but they can have a major effect on your finances down the road. Two important factors to consider when trading in for a new car: your finance charges and the cars' depreciation.
Consumer Reports' study shows that if you still owe on your vehicle loan, then it might not be worth downsizing to a smaller vehicle after only three years, even if the new car's fuel economy is much greater. Remember, with a traditional loan, interest makes up a larger percentage of your monthly payment initially, scaling down over time. Consequently, less is paid to the principal of the loan in the first year than the last. If you trade in part way through your loan period, you may find you have less equity, or trade-in value, in the model than expected—limiting the potential down payment on the new vehicle.
The other main hurdle affecting your car's equity is depreciation, or the value a vehicle loses over time. According to CR's owner-cost estimates, depreciation makes up, on average, about 48 percent of an owner's total vehicle costs in the first five years. Fuel costs are only about 21 percent, on average. And the greatest depreciation occurs in the first three years. After that, depreciation begins leveling off.
So, if you trade in a 3-year-old vehicle, you begin the wild depreciation ride all over again with the new vehicle—rushing from the most expensive period of ownership into the same phase in the next vehicle. Making that change forfeits the benefits of longer-term ownership—lower average annual costs. On the other hand, if you've owned your car for four or more years, that initial depreciation is amortized over a longer period.
So, according to CR's analysis, the amount a typical, payment-making owner could save in fuel costs by trading in early at three years, even with a big jump in miles per gallon, is significantly less than the amount the person will save in depreciation by keeping the vehicle another two years. After five years, trading in for a smaller car makes more economic sense.
Crunching the numbers
To better understand the economic impact of downsizing early, we analyzed a number of scenarios based on different types of vehicles, including sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. For each type, we chose a typical large model and progressively smaller, more economical alternatives that would be logical choices for downsizing. The selections were made assuming compromises that drivers could comfortably accept, moving from one model to the next in line. The alternatives were selected factoring in CR's overall Ratings, fuel economy, and likely driver needs. For example, we thought that an owner of a three-row SUV, such as a Chevrolet Tahoe or Ford Explorer, would still probably want the capacity to carry seven passengers when needed.
Financial models are based on our owner-cost data, which includes:
Those numbers were configured for the used, 3-year-old (2005) models being traded in and the new 2008 models. Cost figures
are rounded, but cost per mile figures are based on unrounded numbers.
We applied the value of the older, 2005 model as a down payment for the new 2008 model. Because the loan term was cut well short of the 60-month mark, the finance charges and depreciation left little equity for the down payments. Each scenario applies the trade-in values without additional cash, and therefore cannot be compared against other models. (Full, comparable owner cost information is available for new cars in the model pages, along with pricing data, to online subscribers of ConsumerReports.org.)
Looking at the total owner costs for the 12 months that comprise the 2009 model year—the fourth year for the 2005 models and the first year with the 2008 models—we expose risks for trading in early. Trading after three years would be more favorable if the 2005 model was paid for, either with a shorter-term loan or in cash.
As we found, the less-tangible costs are where the complexity and surprises come in. After all, depreciation and interest charges slowly erode your vehicle's worth, whereas fuel economy slaps you in the face with every fill-up. Were we to present the figures for the following year, the owner costs would decrease for the new models.
In the end, our analysis of each scenario shows that it's less expensive to tough out another year or two with a gas guzzler than to trade in too early. With fuel prices in constant flux and depreciation potentially increasing on some vehicles, clearly this is a moving target, but based on current figures, here is what we found...
It's understandable that many drivers want to cut their fuel expenses and reduce their negative effects on the environment as quickly as possible. In fact, recent sales figures show that sales of large SUVs and pickup trucks are down dramatically, while small cars and hybrids are gaining popularity. General Motors' Hummer division, for example, announced that sales were down more than 45 percent in April 2008, compared with the corresponding month last year. Meanwhile, U.S. sales of the Toyota Prius hybrid jumped almost 54 percent over the same period.
But CR's study shows that it often doesn't pay right now to downsize if you've only owned your vehicle for three years. Because of the trend in consumer downsizing, we have explored the potential costs of keeping a fuel-thirsty, 3-year-old vehicle versus the potential costs of trading it in for a new, economical car. In the tables on the following pages, we present the estimated owner costs of both options over the next 12 months to illustrate the financial impact of each.
Owner costs vs. fuel savings
Ultimately, the hidden costs of car ownership might be the factors you are least likely to focus on when driven to downsize, but they can have a major effect on your finances down the road. Two important factors to consider when trading in for a new car: your finance charges and the cars' depreciation.
Consumer Reports' study shows that if you still owe on your vehicle loan, then it might not be worth downsizing to a smaller vehicle after only three years, even if the new car's fuel economy is much greater. Remember, with a traditional loan, interest makes up a larger percentage of your monthly payment initially, scaling down over time. Consequently, less is paid to the principal of the loan in the first year than the last. If you trade in part way through your loan period, you may find you have less equity, or trade-in value, in the model than expected—limiting the potential down payment on the new vehicle.
The other main hurdle affecting your car's equity is depreciation, or the value a vehicle loses over time. According to CR's owner-cost estimates, depreciation makes up, on average, about 48 percent of an owner's total vehicle costs in the first five years. Fuel costs are only about 21 percent, on average. And the greatest depreciation occurs in the first three years. After that, depreciation begins leveling off.
So, if you trade in a 3-year-old vehicle, you begin the wild depreciation ride all over again with the new vehicle—rushing from the most expensive period of ownership into the same phase in the next vehicle. Making that change forfeits the benefits of longer-term ownership—lower average annual costs. On the other hand, if you've owned your car for four or more years, that initial depreciation is amortized over a longer period.
So, according to CR's analysis, the amount a typical, payment-making owner could save in fuel costs by trading in early at three years, even with a big jump in miles per gallon, is significantly less than the amount the person will save in depreciation by keeping the vehicle another two years. After five years, trading in for a smaller car makes more economic sense.
Crunching the numbers
To better understand the economic impact of downsizing early, we analyzed a number of scenarios based on different types of vehicles, including sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. For each type, we chose a typical large model and progressively smaller, more economical alternatives that would be logical choices for downsizing. The selections were made assuming compromises that drivers could comfortably accept, moving from one model to the next in line. The alternatives were selected factoring in CR's overall Ratings, fuel economy, and likely driver needs. For example, we thought that an owner of a three-row SUV, such as a Chevrolet Tahoe or Ford Explorer, would still probably want the capacity to carry seven passengers when needed.
Financial models are based on our owner-cost data, which includes:
- Depreciation (calculated from CR's Auto Price Service data)
- Fuel costs (based on 12,000 miles a year, Consumer Reports real-world overall fuel-economy test results, and our estimate of the national average gasoline price for May 2008, $3.75
a gallon)
- Interest on financing (national average rates from 2005 and 2008, applied to 60-month terms)
- Insurance costs (derived from quotes and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety data)
- Maintenance and repair (based on survey responses from 675,000 Consumer Reports and ConsumerReports.org subscribers)
- Sales tax (using the national average)
We applied the value of the older, 2005 model as a down payment for the new 2008 model. Because the loan term was cut well short of the 60-month mark, the finance charges and depreciation left little equity for the down payments. Each scenario applies the trade-in values without additional cash, and therefore cannot be compared against other models. (Full, comparable owner cost information is available for new cars in the model pages, along with pricing data, to online subscribers of ConsumerReports.org.)
Looking at the total owner costs for the 12 months that comprise the 2009 model year—the fourth year for the 2005 models and the first year with the 2008 models—we expose risks for trading in early. Trading after three years would be more favorable if the 2005 model was paid for, either with a shorter-term loan or in cash.
As we found, the less-tangible costs are where the complexity and surprises come in. After all, depreciation and interest charges slowly erode your vehicle's worth, whereas fuel economy slaps you in the face with every fill-up. Were we to present the figures for the following year, the owner costs would decrease for the new models.
In the end, our analysis of each scenario shows that it's less expensive to tough out another year or two with a gas guzzler than to trade in too early. With fuel prices in constant flux and depreciation potentially increasing on some vehicles, clearly this is a moving target, but based on current figures, here is what we found...
