Today's Paper Digital FAQ Obits Newsletters ✅NWA Vote Covid Classroom Coronavirus Cancellations NWA Screening Sites Virus Interactive Map Coronavirus FAQ Crime Razorback Sports Today's Photos Puzzles
ADVERTISEMENT

DEAR CAR TALK: My husband and I have an ongoing disagreement about when to sell or trade-in his 2016 Toyota Tacoma.

I say with the reliability of these trucks, he would be better off financially to keep it and let it roll to 200,000 at least. By the time he pays for new licensing, higher insurance and the depreciation of new vehicles once they are driven off the lot, he would end up losing money by trading it in so early.

He claims it is better to turn it in when the mileage is still low, under 150,000 or so, so that he will receive more money on his trade-in for a new truck. Besides, "he likes new trucks."

Can you do the math and let me know who is right? I would prefer you say I am.

Virginia

DEAR VIRGINIA: You're right. If you're just considering economics, the best thing you can do is buy a car and then drive it until it's no longer reliable or no longer serves your needs — or until your neighbors shame you into replacing it. Or, as my brother would say, "drive it into the ground" (his picture is still in the dictionary next to that phrase).

We've done the math. Generally speaking, paying for repairs on an older car is cheaper than making payments on a new car.

However ... I think the key phrase in your letter is "he likes new trucks." So he probably knows his economic argument is nonsense. The guy just wants a new truck.

And economic policy aside, it might be good marital policy to let him have one. After all, a middle-aged man trading in a truck for a younger model is not the worst thing that's ever happened in a marriage, right?

So, assuming it won't create a financial hardship, you should consider saying to him: "Frank, your economic argument makes no sense. Just like most of your arguments. But if you really want a new truck, I think you should get one because I love you and I know it'll make you happy."

Once he comes to, I think he'll be pretty delighted. And hopefully, he'll return the goodwill when you tell him you've already signed a contract for an in-home spa with a built-in whirlpool, sauna and personal masseuse.

Good luck, Virginia.

DEAR CAR TALK: I have always been a fan of the Kia Soul's styling. I recently rented one and was nervous about how close to the actual rear of the car the back seat is. There's not a ton of room between the backseat and the rear window. It seems like this car and others like it are putting the rear-seat occupants in a vulnerable position in the event of the car being rear-ended.

I have never seen any data on a car's safety in a rear-end collision. Are there standards? Are modern cars like this safe?

Thanks for your entertainment all of these years!

Steve

DEAR STEVE: If you get the Soul, make sure you're always the one who drives.

It's a good question. The National Traffic Highway and Safety Administration rates rear-passenger safety but only for side impacts.

They simulate someone blowing through a red light at 38 mph and plowing into the side of your car. And for that test, the Kia Soul does well. But they don't really test rear-end collisions.

It certainly makes intuitive sense that the less mass you have behind you to crumple and absorb the energy of an impact, the more force may get delivered to the body of the rear-seat passenger, relative to cars with trunks or large cargo areas. So I think it's fair to be concerned.

But this could make you feel a little better: From what we can find, about 28% of all collisions were rear-end crashes. But, only about 6% of all crash fatalities were from rear-end crashes. That suggests that the rear seat — in general — is a relatively safe place to be.

And with the spread of collision warning sensors and automatic emergency braking, I would imagine the number and severity of rear-end collisions will decrease in the future.

But rear-seat safety is not as good as it should be. Why? Because, in general, car safety is measured by how well the front-seat passengers fare.

It makes some sense that the big safety organizations (NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) focus on front-seat safety since more people travel in front seats than rear seats. But the result is that front-seat safety has improved a lot over the past few decades, and rear-seat safety has lagged behind.

So while manufacturers, eager to score well in the published safety ratings, added strategically-placed air bags up front, along with seatbelt pre-tensioners (to cinch a person into proper position before a crash) and load limiters (to strategically release seatbelt tension during a crash to protect bones from being broken), that stuff hasn't been universally applied to back seats.

That should change when NHTSA and IIHS start publishing rear-seat crash results. We've been waiting for that for years, and it keeps getting delayed.

Meanwhile, only about a third of vehicles have those crucial safety features in the back (pre-tensioners, load limiters and rear side airbags), and you have to research individual cars to figure out if the car you're interested in has them.

From our research, the companies that seem to be ahead of others in this regard are Nissan, BMW, Ford/Lincoln, Toyota/Lexus, Porsche, Audi and Mercedes.

But check before you buy.

Ray Magliozzi dispenses advice about cars in Car Talk every Saturday. Email him by visiting

cartalk.com

Sponsor Content

Comments

COMMENTS - It looks like you're using Internet Explorer, which isn't compatible with our commenting system. You can join the discussion by using another browser, like Firefox or Google Chrome.
It looks like you're using Microsoft Edge. Our commenting system is more compatible with Firefox and Google Chrome.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT