In your situation, I like the idea of setting aside a healthy down payment into a special account, now, then adding the price of the monthly payment on a new one, for at least six months, better a year ... (possibly even two?). Then taking the kitty to buy, rather than a new one, a quality vehicle that's a year or two (possibly three?) old. Do you folks know some mechanics? Talk to them, to find out some things that you can check for, to weed out some prospects. Also get an idea of who might be willing to check out some candidates for you, then take some to them to check. If one listens to the motor,and takes one quick look, then tells you to get that piece of crap out of there - give him/her 10 bucks. If s/he checks another out a bit, then turns it down - give him/her 20 bucks. If the mechanic checks one out quite carefully and you give that person $40.00 ... ... and you get a really good vehicle after having paid less than $200.00 ... ... and you save one trip to the garage - you're money ahead! For me? I haven't bought a new vehicle for over 35 years. Figure to buy one 5 - 10 years old for under $5,000. (haven't paid close to that, for several years). Recent Mazda was almost 20 years old, $2,500.00 before tax, licence transfer, drove it 5 years. Current '05 Chev. was bought last summer, $3,800.00 or so, including taxes, licence, paid in cash ... as I'm 84, it may well be my last vehicle. You have some funding set aside for emergency/ies, kids' education, your retirement, etc., do I assume? If you don't boss your bucks ... there's a good possibility that'll they'll boss you. And often if you don't boss them in the short term ... their bossing will likely hit you, after a while. ole joyful

I only mentioned the "nuclear bomb" as a wild, obvious example of something the government doesn't want in the hands of private citizens, followed by several more down-to-earth examples that were more relevant. (Actually, I'm not even sure whether it's illegal to possess or use a nuclear weapon, although I assume it is). I wouldn't support any restrictions on SUV ownership; indeed if such a thing existed it would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an SUV as opposed to a tall station wagon or a van. But I do support mandates that require reasonable fuel economy, adequate safety for both its occupants (meaning crashworthiness and vehicle stability) and other motorists (limited weight, standard bumper height etc.). The problem with 4WD off-road vehicles is that they are inherently poorly suited for routine on-road driving. In order to provide the needed ground clearance and wheel travel for off-road use, an SUV must have its body raised well into the air, creating a high center of gravity, and in turn a high susceptibility to rollovers. The most capable off-road vehicle available, the Hummer, counteracts this tendency by being very wide, but its width makes it an impractical vehicle for normal roads (and parking spaces). Another approach is to use a hydraulic suspension that can lower the vehicle by several inches at highway speeds, and raise it for off-road or inclement weather use. That is what the Range Rover uses, but it adds about $2000 to the cost and thus isn't widely available. But another serious problem has no easy workarounds. In order to climb or descend steep grades, vehicles like the Jeep or Land Rover must have high bumpers to prevent them from scraping the ground when you begin the ascent or reach the bottom of a steep grade. These high bumpers don't line up with normal car or van bumpers, causing considerable damage to any car they hit. And since heavy SUVs have lots of momentum, that damage is compounded. It doesn't help that SUV brakes and cornering ability are generally subpar compared to cars, again because of the combined effects of weight, high center of gravity, and tires optimised for digging into muck. All of which are good reasons to avoid this type of vehicle unless you really need the off-road capability. No, I don't want the government telling me I don't drive on dirt trails enough to warrant buying an SUV, but I'm also responsible enough to buy a vehicle better suited to my needs if I only drive on public roads. And that goes double if I use my car to transport children. Most buyers of SUVs never take them off-road. Asked why they bought them, they cite roominess, 3 rows of seats, luggage space, bad-weather traction, and the good view of the road ahead from the high seating position. All of these things are available from a 4WD station wagon (except the high seating position) without the negatives associated with off-road trucks. Or you can get a mini van, which is considerably roomier than a like-sized SUV and offers the same high seating position, but with better gas mileage and stability. Some even offer 4WD. Responding to the marketplace, many auto manufacturers are introducing vehicles that look like SUVs but are actually built on car platforms with lighter overall weight and lower center of gravity, rather than the old-school SUVs that are essentially modified pickup trucks. In addition to their safety and environmental advantages, these quasi-SUVs offer a smoother, quieter ride and a more car-like driving experience. As for those reported 100mpg cars, they don't exist, nor is there any conspiracy amongst the auto or oil industries to suppress them if they did. There have been numerous people over the last few decades who've claimed the technology exists to build a 100 mpg car. Of these, exactly zero have produced a viable blueprint for such a car, much less built a working prototype that achieved 100 mpg. The auto industry has spent billions of dollars trying to develop more fuel efficient cars, and they would jump at any technology that could produce such high mileage (especially Ford, which just reported a $5.1 billion loss for the past year and would welcome anything that could boost sales). The best gas mileage currently available is from the Honda and Toyota hybrid electric/gasoline engines, which are good for about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight. But nearly every aspect of that car was compromised in order to deliver high gas mileage. The car seats only 2 people, has no real trunk, lacks air conditioning, and has a maximum capacity of 385 lbs., including luggage. The Toyota (and an upcoming hybrid-powered Honda Civic) are more practical, but their mileage is about 10mpg less. The hybrid engine adds thousands of dollars to the car's price, yet Honda and Toyota lose money on every car they sell. So why do they make them? Because selling a few thousand 50mpg cars allows them to sell additional big, gas-guzzling Lexuses (which have high profit margins) whilst keeping their corporate-average fuel economy above the Government standards. Surely they would build 100mpg cars if they knew how, even if they lost money on every one. Or they would apply that technology to their SUVs so they would get better mileage and thus not face sales restrictions. I don't know how the oil industry would react to ultra-efficient cars, but there's little they could do to stop manufacturers from building them.

On #s 15 & 16, I think it's important to point out that often the alternative to refi and the like is simply pay down the principle! Especially if you're early in the mortgage, every nickel you pay toward the principle means the balance of the loan's interest on that nickel goes into your pocket. Ol' Joyful, I'll need some of your expertise here, but could you figure a rough calculation of an average type house loan, average refi costs applied to the current loan and how that would compare in the end? I think it'd be interesting. Also, said before, but often people think they "need" a new car and don't consider if they put some money into the old one, it'd save in the long run. Remember, new cars have higher insurance and license costs so there's more than the initial price to consider. I would take a bit of issue too with the convenience store avoidance. You could actually save money if wise. Often, convenience stores sell eggs, milk, bread etc at very low prices, often far less than the markets. Plus it's not a special trip, saves time plus there can be (tho not guaranteed - it's up to you) fewer impulse buys. The longer you're in the grocery store, stats say you'll spend more. Again, it's how savvy you are, but be careful. #18 (Shudder) Buyer's Brokers are seldom a good thing. Let's face facts, no real estate agent/realtor or the like works FOR the buyer! Who pays them? The seller. How do they get paid more? By "benefitting" the seller. There's no way the buyer benefits from realtors. The fewer the better in most cases. Why? Because you can often negotiate the realtor fees. If you have one realtor taking the entire commission, it's far easier to negotiate them down than to negotiate with multiple agents and try to negotiate down when they're getting 1/4 or less of the commission. Beware of this statement and check into these claims. You're far better off to have a good real estate attorney on your side. S/He'll be working for YOUR benefit. Mine found problems in the paperwork and embarrassed the daylights out of the stack of realtors, closers and the like at my closing! It was hilarious! Now as for the inspector, yes, that can be worthwhile, but don't use one recommended by the realtor (kickbacks) and make sure you know what they're inspecting, their qualifications and the like. A good alternative can be a trusted friend with qualifications. Hire like any professional. Realize, though, that the inspectors DO NOT GUARANTEE the house! So if they overlook something, it's not their fault or responsibility and they won't be doing anything for you so know what you're getting. A title examination, especially of abstract properties, can be very important especially if you don't know how to read an abstract. Torrens is less problematic. Buying a home brings up a pandora's box of potential problems and far too many to go into here, but there's some things to be careful of. #21 Consumer Reports is a pet peeve of mine. They're often very biased in their reporting. Plus, keep in mind that they do not "test" ALL models and versions, even of similar products! Do you realize that the washer you buy at Home Depot is different than the one you buy at Best Buy and they're both different than the one you buy from a mom-n-pop dealer? That can have significant differences in the specs and needs. One can have cycles and features the other doesn't. Don't get caught up in the CR myth. Read their magazine with a shaker full of salt and do far more research than CR. You'll be doing yourself a favor. That's enough for now. There's more opinions coming, I'm sure! :) Happy saving all! Enjoy the frugal season!

Except it was on my radar but I couldn't convince DH. Can't win them all. Being married to to a retired energy engineer, this is the kind of thing my DH loves. You don't want to know how many remotes we own, and -- yes -- he's a Star Trek. It's not just a stereotype. My neighbors are buying EV's and learning that charging is a disorganized wild west. I believe that. Again, that's why Canada is allowing itself 14 years "to get there". I cannot see how this is even remotely feasible for the near future here in the US. Not everyone lives in a nice suburban home with a garage. Don't you think Canadians live in cities and apartments too? I'd assume city dwellers own fewer cars /rely more upon public transportation. You don't have to have a garage to have a charger. My mom has a hybrid, and she has a charger on the side of her no-garage house. A LOT needs to take place before electric cars become law. Agree, but we have no control over whether it becomes law ... the discussion is how to prepare your own house: if, when, what, how? Those are the questions.