When DON'T you want to buy the best one you can afford?

This quote below by Sonic got me thinking - in the realm of collector cars, purely from a financial standpoint, with the goal of being a nice vehicle, not a daily or a donor or a beater with a heater, when DON'T you want to buy the best you can afford?

This is a good detailed buyers guide that actually gives info to interested people.  This is much better than the fluff piece "buyers guide" about the Viper in the last issue that had almost no info in it that most basic enthusiasts don't already know and the only advice was the standard "buy the best one you can afford".  

Its also a secondary rant about buyers guides in general.  Very rarely is it more than a few bulletpoints about stuff that anyone who is remotely into cars would  already know or have researched on their own, or it should be prefaced with "buy what you like" or "buy what someone who knows cars tells you is OK"

The thing with cars is, for the regions we care about (no $200k all original 240Z that fell out of a time warp kind of investor at an auction house kind of cars) the price curve is nonlinear.  The curve from scrap to merely wasted junk is steep, and then it sort of levels out.   Not sure if this is because of junk sellers inflating their prices "because look this guy sold one 'just like it' (way better) for $X" or if because the values of nice examples are depressed "because everyone says their brother just bought one 'just like it' (but way worse) for $X".

It's an interesting phenomenon and the upshot is, repairs to bring the wasted junk up to decent standards will generally cost WAY, WAY more than if you just bought the nicer car in the first place, even if you are a DIYer, unless you get some sort of smoking hell of a deal.

99% buyers guides are garbage. it's like when new cars come out, lazy journalist copy the PR marketing language instead of writing a proper article or researching the vehicle 
 

Forum specific buyers guide for the specific model is always the best. 

Allow or figure out a $$$ value to you for the hobby entertainment that you get out of it.

You don't want to buy the best one on the market, if a different car has potential that you can exploit for both $$$ AND amusement. I love old cars, but have come to the conclusion that I do not like driving them or maintaining them. The value proposition is in the problem solving challenges, so I would never buy a beautiful finished car.

 A solid rust free car with good mechanicals that has hit the end of the owners interest cycle can be a great buy. You will need to tinker and do five years deferred maintenance and a good detail, but if that is your thing anyway, it's a win. You may or may not make money but does it matter?

Maybe you like to do collision repair? A classic with a tap is not worth much because of the cost to repair, but if that is what you like doing, go for it.

Same as above only mechanical issues.

Pete

Did anybody ever stop to think that maybe the Buyer's Guides are a good starting point for non-enthusiast people who might see the GRM Mag on a news stand and be tempted into picking it up? Additionally, they're a way for the advertisers to get a bit of exposure beyond the small advertisements they're paying for. I mean, the helpful advise they are giving to show they might know what they're talking about is right next to their vendor contact information.

Just a thought...

 

Not buying the best I'd recommend if the final vision involves heavy modification like cutting up the exterior for a wide body or the frame for an engine swap.

In my view cars are only original once, even a respray in the OEM color is modified.

Sentimental value. That heap might be overpriced, but its your first car, and you'd pay anything to get it back.

You don't have to buy the best if you know the things wrong are easily replaceable. If it comes to unicorn parts to make it good, then pass on the car altogether. Or stick it out for several years until a unicorn poops on your lawn. 

With collector cars, I'd also add that you're likely to see a better ROI from getting a rarer model that needs a little work (not totally junk, but something that would be a reasonable amount of repair) vs getting a pristine example of a less desirable car for the same money.

I can only see this applying to disposables. For instance, latex gloves go on my hands, I do something, then they go in the trash. I can spend more than the HF models from a brand-name, but they don't last any longer or fit any better or protect any better. Why spend more?

Except the $20 gloves last a lot longer than the $7 gloves and are usually reuseable too.

The HF 9 mil gloves used to be great, but now they're not. I switched to Adenna (iirc).

For me the whole idea of 'best one you can afford' gets complicated when you CAN spend more than you SHOULD and you also want a whole bunch of different cars and you'll never be able to buy the nicest one of all of them, so now what? I've personally decided that i err towards variety over perfection. The nicest stuff I've owned has been frustrating because I felt like I was fighting its decline and if I have a bunch of cars I don't have the sheer amount of energy it takes to keep a bunch of stuff truly nice. One of my big goals for the next few years is getting better storage so that i can buy more nicer things (like, ideally 6-10 instead of 2-3) with a lower stress level. I COULD just do the old trope of get rid of everything and spend all my time/energy on one or two cars, but I honestly can't imagine which 2 cars are worth having only 2 cars. Id simply rather have more cars, and if that dictates worse condition so be it. I have VERY little self-esteem tied up in the curb appeal of my cars anyway. 

I think for most people the best metric is 'does this thing need a type of work that i realistically probably won't do because it's a stretch from where i'm at right now' (on whatever relevant skills/experience you need to do it). I tend to think people should buy what fits their skill repertoire if they actually expect to 'finish it' in a reasonable time frame. Thus the whole appeal of the term 'bolt on'. If you are buying something specifically TO stretch your skillset, don't buy too many different projects and stay focused!

Car buying is a spectrum:

Car to drive----------Project to work on

Buy the closest you can find to where you honestly have the time, tools, talent, and desire to be on that spectrum. The 'buy the nicest you can afford' is a short and easy to remember catch phrase aimed at the masses who realistically fall on the 'car to drive' side of the spectrum. Budget should ultimately be more of a secondary consideration for most people, as not being able to justify spending 'car to drive' money on one, also means not likely being able to justify spending the same (or more) to get get a project into the same condition.

Buyers guides are generalizations. An excellent starting point, even for people who know what they're doing.

Can afford, should afford, and willing to pay are different things entirely. I would not be shocked if I could "afford" an $80k brand new vehicle, with financing that I think I'd be able to obtain. I most certainly cannot make that decision, but I "can" afford it. Technically.  What I should be able to afford is probably around $75 a month for a car payment, or about $5,500 cash payment.  What I'm willing to afford right now is about $1,500, or $25 a month. That is what I have in my budget. 

Then you have to ask, what do you want out of it? The experience of owning said vehicle? Probably don't want the best you can afford, but just one that will be reliable and not kill you with maintenance. A project? Get a project. Do you plan on driving it every day, also autocrossing it, also putting it through concours? If so, then you'll probably want the best one you can afford.

I think it depends a lot on what you want out of the car. I don't want a car that is too nice to drive and worry about - like getting a panic attack if it looks like rain - even if I could afford a really nice example. I prefer them with some flaws. 

I've generally found niche cars are a terrible risk to take for a decent ROI. If you're buying a car because it's your dream and something you've always wanted, spend within reason. I stopped trying to flip performance or niche cars because lets be honest, 97% of enthusiasts who want a clean example of Car X don't have the available means to pay what the car is worth, they use the "well my cousin paid my sister's uncle this much for a similar car" line, and you end up sitting on the car until the right buyer comes along who wants that 1999 Collectors Edition White Pontiac Trans Am with 10k miles for $45k. 

If I was making it a track car. 

@Z31maniac I will be slightly contrary and say it depends on what type of track car. If we are talking track day car then I don't care if the interior is scabby or the paint isn't perfect. If we are talking about a vintage race car that's a different story. To my mind that goes double if I'm turning a street car into a vintage race car, building a car is enough work already without having to fix everything.

There are so many variables with the statement; define "best" & "what you can afford" as an inane example, I think anchovy pizza is the best thing ever whereas most people think it's disgusting.  Even with my racing I currently have enough disposable income to afford a $70,000.00 car, probably $90,000.00 if I gave up racing and sold the racing related stuff. For most people buying a collector/classic is done with the heart and so the "afford" tends to get stretched.

For most people buying a B+ car will make them happy; I think most of us here would prefer a driver level car rather than a museum piece. Personally I don't want to be stressing about every little thing.

I wouldn't (and didnt) buy the best I could afford for total budget reasons. I knew I would want to change stuff anyway so I knocked a few grand off the top of the budget and bought a car that left me room for update some things and catch up on maintenance. So far, it's worked out great!

Well, you look at the car restoration shops...  the people making money at it have rather small margins and dont tend to necessarily do the best jobs.  Lots of stories with cars with great paint jobs, but the mechanical aspects leave so much to be desired its not even funny...

There are ways to make money at it, but it widely depends what your time is worth to you and if you want the absolute best, most factory configuration.

If you want a bunch of speed parts and custom paint, you could probably same money.

Tom1200 said:

For most people buying a B+ car will make them happy; I think most of us here would prefer a driver level car rather than a museum piece. Personally I don't want to be stressing about every little thing.

 

Depends. My daily driver? I really enjoy having a super nice, super clean car. I don't mind parking WAY out from the store to keep it that way. 

But I can also do things like the days I do go into the office, if there is a storm coming (hail) I just run home and finish the day from there so it's not out in the open. OKC gets so much hail many of the car dealerships have covers for the new inventory. 

When the wife says, "If you spend THAT much on a car, I promise you won't get any for a month."

In reply to SVreX :

Only a month?...Does that mean doubling the budget for a two month stint?

As the car was "sex on wheels" does she realize how many months you can hold out?

@Z31maniac my definition of a B+ car is a really nice car but not totally immaculate. It's been about 16 years since I gave up scruffy cars as daily drivers. 

It's a cost/value decision, is the "best" one really worth whatever the $ amount is over one that is good enough? 

Real world example, today we bought a 2017 Mercedes E400 wagon.  $43,800, 25k miles.  There is an identically optioned and colored car also available now that has 9k miles instead, that one is going for $52k.  The 9k mile car is better and I can afford it, but I didn't think it was worth the extra amount it would cost for the benefit.