ok.. i know it makes no difference either way but it just occured to me that i think they played me like a fool.. When I was 17 my parents bought me a Cadillac CTS.. Of course I went and tricked it out with rims, system, and what not.. anyway one of the isntalls that the place idd was causing a drain on my battery and every know and then my battery would die out and whatever.. anyway one time i brought the car into the dealer the service guy that worked the desk, not the manager just a clerk, told me he was going to take my CTS home with him and then driving it back in the morning.. he said that he was going to test it and see if it started the next morning and whatnot.. but now that i think about it its like why the hell did he have to drive my car all the way to his house, thne park it on the street, and then bring it back.. i was like ok whatever at the time,,.. but now im pissed.. i mean this guy lives in a shitty town where cars getted robbed all the time.. plus from the dealer he worked was a good 30 miles and what not.. was he really allowed to just take my car that was in for service to go home.. park it on the street and then drive it back the next day.. i mean no offense but if this guy didnt take his car home then he probably used my car if he had to go anywerhe and what not.. nothing happened but i mean if it did would hte dealer pay for damages and whanot..

i seriously doubt that...

doubt what?

Well, why did you let him take it home?

doubt it was a dealer sanctioned thing
aka no he shouldnt of been able to do that.
but by you giving him the ok yea he was alowed

Actually, I have heard of this before. Usually only with real problem child cars though, where no matter what, the problem doesn't happen at the dealership and the customer keeps bringing it back.

First, no 17 year old needs a new Cadillac especially if their parents bought it for them.
Second, the dealership doesn't sponsor this type of activity but you gave him permission.
Third, how do you know what part of town the guy lives in?
Fouth, please use proper grammar. I could barely make out some of the things you were saying.
and Fifth, if nothing happened why are you pursuing the matter?

I can't see why any dealer would allow your car to be driven by an employee other than for a test for insurance reasons. If something happens to that car they are certainly on the hook and I bet the insurance policy has a clause to cover this. When I had my Eagle Talon turbo, I allowed my very trusted mechanic to take the car for a few days. He had one as well and the car was having an issue that was intermitent. I ASKED him to take the car and use it as his own for a few days in hopes that the problem would happen and he would find what I was talking about.

Again, I asked that he do this. He didn't TELL me he would use the car as personal transport.

What's the difference between driving it home, and just leaving it on the lot overnight and testing it first thing in the morning?

If it's a mechanic you know and trust, it's not a problem.

Otherwise it's a disaster waiting to happen.

I wouldn't allow that. But I don't trust dealerships. I have my own wrench.

This was 4 years ago right?...

Why the worry if nothing happened and it was a long time ago?


Either way, don't let them do that shit to you.

yeah, carping about something that happened 4 years ago is kinda lame. It took you that long to get pissed?

Service writers are not allowed to do that. The first and foremost reason for this is that they are not a tecnician and are in no way capable of properly diagnosing the problem, regardless of how long they drive it. Only techs are allowed to do so, and only on car's that exhibit symptoms that can not be replicated during work hours. Usually it must also be a repeat concern. It's rare that it's needed but it does happen. For something like a battery drain issue though, an overnight road test would most definitely not be needed, since it could be replicated just as easily by driving hte cra during work hours and allowing it to sit overnight in the lot. No need to drive the car home and back. Now something like an intermittent EVAP code which requires alot of driving would be acceptable since there may not be time to drive it during the day.

First, no 17 year old needs a new Cadillac especially if their parents bought it for them.
Second, the dealership doesn't sponsor this type of activity but you gave him permission.
Third, how do you know what part of town the guy lives in?
Fouth, please use proper grammar. I could barely make out some of the things you were saying.
and Fifth, if nothing happened why are you pursuing the matter?

LOL

So true

If I was a Cadillac service tech, I'd offer to drive everyone's car.

Dealers do that all the time but usually it's the service manager that does it. If that problem happens only every know and then sometimes that's the only way to find it. If you didn't want him to do that just say no.

First, no 17 year old needs a new Cadillac especially if their parents bought it for them.

Are you saying you'd rather have your kids in a unsafe jalopy? I'd rather spend my hard earned money to put my inexperienced son or daughter in a safe car. I have plenty of wealthy business partners who have bought nice safe expensive cars for their children.

I'd rather have my kids safe, and a new Cadillac, or just a brand new car is much better than anything even 5 years old.

Oh, as for the dealership being allowed to take your car home? No, I've never been to a dealership where thats even remotely possible. But years after the fact you can't really do anything about it.

A lot of kids can't handle getting a new car like that. It screws up their attitude.

I'm glad I had a jalopy. I had to learn about cars to keep it running, and I appreciated the hard work involved in earning the money for a better car later.

A lot of kids can't handle getting a new car like that. It screws up their attitude.

I'm glad I had a jalopy. I had to learn about cars to keep it running, and I appreciated the hard work involved in earning the money for a better car later.

I went to a real preppy high school. A lot of the kids got brand new cars from their parents for their 16th birthday. They were all the stuck up, arrogant type.

I am very glad that I bought my own car with a little assistance from my parents, but I did pay them back. It makes me feel oh so much better about owning it, even though I did sell it after 8 months! Same with my Cadillac. I paid for it all. And it makes me feel so good knowing that my hard work bought me it!

First, no 17 year old needs a new Cadillac especially if their parents bought it for them.
Second, the dealership doesn't sponsor this type of activity but you gave him permission.
Third, how do you know what part of town the guy lives in?
Fouth, please use proper grammar. I could barely make out some of the things you were saying.
and Fifth, if nothing happened why are you pursuing the matter?


I agree with everything you said Stoney!

Number one, you gave him consent. But, by default, the dealer in my area makes me sign a work order before doing work on the car that states in writing my complaint on the vehicle. It states somewhere in there something like "I give the dealership permission to drive my car on all roads, highways, etc to diagnose the problem."

Are you saying you'd rather have your kids in a unsafe jalopy? I'd rather spend my hard earned money to put my inexperienced son or daughter in a safe car. I have plenty of wealthy business partners who have bought nice safe expensive cars for their children.

I'd buy them a Ford Pinto, one wrong move and BOOM;)!

Actually I think a teen needs something safe to drive but there are plenty of safe, used cars that you can purchase for less than $10,000 rather than spending $30,000+ on a new Cadillac. The poster mentioned that he tricked it out with all the crap (otherwise known as "bling"). Now THERE is an accident waiting to happen!

I have plenty of wealthy business partners who have bought nice safe expensive cars for their children.


I know many of those also but it doesn't make them better drivers. Having some high-end BMW or Mercedes won't protect them if they decide to try and top it out. The first thing I'd have my son/ daughter do is take a defensive driving course...then maybe I'd get them a nice car:D.

A lot of kids can't handle getting a new car like that. It screws up their attitude.


I'm with you 110%, Elvis. Teenagers already have an over-inflated ego, why make it worse?

I agree with everything you said Stoney!

Excuse me Chad...:D??

Are you saying you'd rather have your kids in a unsafe jalopy? I'd rather spend my hard earned money to put my inexperienced son or daughter in a safe car. I have plenty of wealthy business partners who have bought nice safe expensive cars for their children.

I'd rather have my kids safe, and a new Cadillac, or just a brand new car is much better than anything even 5 years old.

You don't need to have a brand new car to have a safe car. My '92 is plenty safe even though it's 14 years old. It's got ABS and an Air bag, what more could you need? I think all of the '97 and newer Caddies have side curtain air bags too, and all american cars newer than '94 have dual air bags, and by that time, *most* cars had ABS standard (or atleast optional).

When I was 14 years old my dad brought home a '63 Thunderbird on a trailer. Rolled it off the trailer into a spot behind the barn and said "If you can make it run, you can have it. Happy birthday." One month, a helluva lot of reading and scraped knuckles and learning and asking him for help and to answer questions, I fired up her bad ass FoMoCo 406 ci Big Block. I learned sooooooo much by having that car that ever since that day my dad was confident if I broke down in anything, I'd be able to do any roadside repairs imaginable. I appreciated that, in the long run. Not only did I learn how to make it go and why, but I learned values of hard work and money and time spent and got to spend time with dad. Granted, that's not for everyone as not everyones interested in working on or playing with cars, but it worked great for me. I never got to drive the Thunderbird on the road because I was never old enough to have a license. When I turned 16, my dad basically did the same thing again, with a '66 Lincoln Continental that he payed four hundred bucks for, and my uncle painted it for my birthday with me hanging on the whole time, watching and learning. At 18, I got the insurance bill as a birthday present. :D

You should be home doing your homework....


F

You should be home doing your homework....




I was, I got frustrated and came on here! lol!

Are you saying you'd rather have your kids in a unsafe jalopy? I'd rather spend my hard earned money to put my inexperienced son or daughter in a safe car. I have plenty of wealthy business partners who have bought nice safe expensive cars for their children.

I'd rather have my kids safe, and a new Cadillac, or just a brand new car is much better than anything even 5 years old.

Oh, as for the dealership being allowed to take your car home? No, I've never been to a dealership where thats even remotely possible. But years after the fact you can't really do anything about it.

Your going to two differnt extremes. On one end is an old unsafe jalopy and on the other is an expensive brand new Cadillac. There are other NEW cars just as safe that are much less expensive and arent an upscale brand. I'm not hating on the dude having a Caddy at 17...just saying your argument doesnt make much sense. I agree with putting kids in a safe car...but there is a large medium inbetween a jalopy and a Cadillac. CTS's and other expensive brands arent the only safe cars in the world.

Your going to two differnt extremes. On one end is an old unsafe jalopy and on the other is an expensive brand new Cadillac. There are other NEW cars just as safe that are much less expensive and arent an upscale brand.I agree with putting kids in a safe car...but there is a large medium inbetween a jalopy and a Cadillac.

Exactly! I don't need a $53,000 msrp to make me feel safe in a car! I'd feel perfectly safe behind the wheel of a $1500 '84 Buick Electra just due to the sheer size of that thing. I agree, an old jalopy is not a good car for a kid, but the definition of a jalopy is very vague. When I say jalopy, I mean something old, with lots of problems that is unreliable and really shouldn't even be on the road anymore. If it's a decent old car, in good working order, I'd gladly give it to my kid. Your first car doesn't have to be glamorous, but it should be something you like and want. Something that you don't have to spend a lot of money on because let's face it, when you're in high school, working part time, you don't have a lot of money, and you don't wanna spend that money fixing up your car.

I've learned there are three major things parents want for their kid's first car. They want reliabilty, fuel efficency and safety. My parents wanted those three, but they would rather have me get a smaller 4 cylinder car for the fuel efficency than a big V8 Cadillac for the safety, but hey, it's my money, not theirs. The kids want something that will make them look cool and go fast. I got the best of both worlds because both of my cars were reliable, and safe and decently fun to drive and look at. Now they may not have garnered all the ladies attention, but does that really matter once you're out of high school?

We often overnight drive customer's cars. Service writers don't because they are not qualified to know what's wrong in the event of a failure.
I agree that leaving a car sit overnight at the shop should be the same as taking it home. I have driven customer's cars home myself, in this shop it's usually one of the shop foremen. It's NEVER done without direct consent from the customer.
As a minor you would not be authorized to give them consent. It would have to be from the person who's name is on the title as the primary owner. I don't think minor's can own a car can they?

Right above the signature line our RO's say this ".... and herby grant you and your employees permission to operate the car herein described on streets, highways, or elsewhere for the purpose of testing and/or inspection...."

And finally... did they fix the problem? If so, and nothing happened to the car, then what exactly is your beef?

Excuse me Chad...:D??

Speedy, stoney..same difference. ;)

Point of the matter, I agree with you.

Well you don't even have to take the vehicle off the dealer lot to have it get into trouble. We've had multiple conversion vans get broken into at the Chevy dealer where I work. Now granted, they aren't customer's vans, they're cars for sale, but when we get a conversion van in for work, we have to park it in the garage at night, same with corvettes too.

True, I used to put all the Vettes inside in the shop I worked in out in CA.
I had forgotten about that.
I had to get them all out in the morning too.

My Dad had a '57 Ford convertible hardtop. Worth a fortune today. Anyway the Mechanic took it out on the road to test it. He totaled the car. Dealership insurance paid for it. So my dad took the money and bought a new '58 Buick. I think I threw up. He coulda got another convertible hardtop!!:mad: Dealers carry insurance for accidents.

Personally, I'd rather have the '58 Buick over the '57 T-Bird. Those '58 Buicks are gorgeous!

Personally, I'd rather have the '58 Buick over the '57 T-Bird. Those '58 Buicks are gorgeous!

It's not a t Bird but a full bodied Ford dude. Campared to a Buick...the Buick sucked big time!!

It's not a t Bird but a full bodied Ford dude. Campared to a Buick...the Buick sucked big time!!


Oh you mean like a Fairlane 500 or whatever it was called?

http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2003/tcmaf/ford5701.jpg

1958 Buick Limited Riviera Four Door hardtop:
http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2000/boc_2000/buic5801.JPG

Sure, the Ford is much more sleek, and doesn't have nearly as much chrome, but I like the Buick more, I personally think they're better looking, plus they have the coolest tailfins IMO!

Your going to two differnt extremes. On one end is an old unsafe jalopy and on the other is an expensive brand new Cadillac. There are other NEW cars just as safe that are much less expensive and arent an upscale brand. I'm not hating on the dude having a Caddy at 17...just saying your argument doesnt make much sense. I agree with putting kids in a safe car...but there is a large medium inbetween a jalopy and a Cadillac. CTS's and other expensive brands arent the only safe cars in the world.

The occupants in a brand new 2006 Hyundai Elantra will fair better than the occupants in a 1980s or 1990s car.

I never said it has to be a Cadillac, just something new is much better than something old. The cars from the 80s were unsafe, and especially such as cars from the 80s and early to mid 90s have got 10+ years on them the quality of their crash worthiness is quite reduced.

Trust me you will be much happier to have your children in something new.

However I will say the more expensive cars are much safer, and while it may not be what you want for your children I personally will put them in the safest car money can buy. It makes no difference to me if its $100,000 or $20,000. They get the safest car.

As for young people getting a ego problem from mom and dad buying them a nice car? In all seriousness, that mostly their parents fault. I know a 16 year old girl (the daughter of one of my business partners) who drive s 2002-03 Lexus RX470. I know another that drives a brand new RangeRover.

Safe is the point, money to me is no object when it concerns my children.

Here are three pictures of successive generations of the Mitsubishi Galant. (Only car I could find consecutive pictures for).

The first picture shows the 1994-1998 models, the second picture 1999-2003, and the third picture 2004-Present.

**Note** The same test was performed on each car.

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/safety/crash.test.scores/95.mitsubishi.galant.500.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/safety/crash.test.scores/99.mitsubishi.galant.2.500.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/safety/crash.test.scores/04.mitsubishi.galant.500.jpg

Yeah, so? That just goes to show that Galants aren't crash engineered well.

Yeah, so? That just goes to show that Galants aren't crash engineered well.

I'm not going to fight and bicker about it. Your 1992 Deville won't fair as well as you think in a accident. Anything from the early-mid 90s (and older) is not engineered well. One model change as shown and you survive the crash with little to no injuries.

If you think they aren't engineered well here is a picture of a brand new 2007 Cadillac DTS.

2007 Cadillac DTS
http://www.safercar.gov/graphics/2006/06DTS-f.jpg


2004-2005 Cadillac Deville
http://www.safercar.gov/graphics/2005/04Deville.jpg

Looks about the same as the newest Galant pictured.

Either way new cars are leaps and bounds ahead of cars even 5 years older.

Well it's no lie that new cars are better crash engineered than the cars of 10 years ago, but if you compare the '90s cars to the '70s and '80s cars, they are a vast improvement with modern features like crush zones and all that stuff. I'm just glad to be navigating something with an air bag and ABS.

Gee, all I can add to this is a real-life incident.

4:00pm on a clear, dry day, going 30 mph in my '88 FWD Deville, back in 2003. PINHEAD in a 2001 Honda Civic decides to see how he'd fare going up against North American pig iron and makes a left hand turn DIRECTLY in front of me. I had virtually no time to come to a full stop - in fact, I just barely had time to put my foot on the stop peddle before impact.

It wasn't pretty. That Honda EXPLODED into large and small chunks all over the road, both lanes littered with it's demise.

PINHEAD got his bell rung for free that day. His airbags DID NOT deploy (something the cop made note of), so his noggin got a goodly sized goose-egg, along with some chipped teeth. His car pieces (at least the larger chunks) had to be taken away by 2 towtrucks - both flatbeds. The rest of it was swept up and taken away, presumably to the dump.

And the '88 Sedan Deville? It wasn't too great either, but at least it started and was able to be driven to my bodyshop, albeit only going straight or making left hand turns. Right hand turns were out of the question.

Moral(s) of the story?

1) There will always be PINHEADS behind the wheel of the car coming at you.
2) Age of your vehicle does not guarantee a safer level of ridership.
3) Safety applications (airbags) are not infallible and COULD fail at the worst possible time - when you need them the most.
4) At the end of the day, the more pig iron surrounding you the better.

DO NOT KID YOURSELF THAT JUST BECAUSE YOUR CAR IS NEWER, MORE EXPENSIVE OR FULL OF THE VERY BEST HI-TECH SAFETY DEVICES, THAT YOU ARE INVINCIBLE.

As a ridiculous aside - and a damning example of human pathos - PINHEAD had just made his last payment to the bank that very day on his pride and joy - as you all know, banks insist on full, unencumbered insurance coverage on any vehicle they have loaned you the money for.

To celebrate this auspicious occasion (and to save a few bucks), he had collision and comprehensive coverage taken off his insurance policy. That very day.

So in essence, he trashed what was at the time, probably a $12,000 car - for nothing in return. Couple that with what his insurance had to pay to fix my car (over $5 grand, easy) plus the fines for failing to yield right of way, driving in a reckless manner, not in control of his vehicle, etc.,, and the cop's comments were so applicable: "You've just bought yourself a whole truckload of whup-ass today, fella!)

His soon-to-be-skyrocketing insurance premiums were the least of his worries.

Somewhere I have a pic or two of that accident. If I can dig them up, I'll post them here.

Great story Frost as usual! See, size matters! 12 million airbags will help, but there's only so much a small car can do before it cracks (figuratively, hopefully). That's why I'd feel so much safer behind the wheel of say a... '77 Lincoln, with 4600 lbs of iron to protect me, a 6 foot long hood and doors that are 8" thick, than I would behind the wheel of a brand new Mini Cooper, even though that's got 6 air bags, ABS, EBD and all that other jazz.

I'd prefer to be piloting a Brand New S-Class Mercedes versus a '77 Lincoln, or a new Mini Cooper. There are huge benefits to be driving a safer, or even just newer car. "All that jazz" helps average drivers avoid serious accidents.

I'd prefer to be piloting a Brand New S-Class Mercedes versus a '77 Lincoln, or a new Mini Cooper. There are huge benefits to be driving a safer, or even just newer car. "All that jazz" helps average drivers avoid serious accidents.

How about not being stupid? Our intuition today is to throw money at the problem instead of fixing it. Yes most new cars are safer than ones made 5 years ago but is there a place where we say enough is enough? How about taking a defensive driving class and save that extra $5000 for a family vacation?

I know plenty of rich, spoiled kids that have been given Hummers, Corvettes, Mustangs, Lexuses (Lexi?) etc etc and they are much worse drivers then kids who bought their own car for $4000 or $5000. The rich kids are more likely to get into an accident because "Hey, if I wreck this car my daddy will buy me another" mindset. And trust me, I'd say 3/4 of them already had a crash that seriously damaged their car while the other kids that bought their own car had a lower rate of accidents (I believe below 1/4).

Isn't the whole point to prevent an accident before it happens?

Interesting debate...

Not sure why I am jumping into this mess, but....

The physical appearance of a car that has been crashed has little to do with how it protected the occupant.
The crash test is not to see what the car looks like, if so it wouldn't have to have the dummy in it. The real test is what happened to the dummy during the crash. Showing pictures is great but without real data we still don't know anything.
The older larger cars used the "bigger is better" design model and they concentrated on making the car ridgid and strong which actually transfers more of the impact to the driver. The newer cars use space age materials and processes that allow the car to absorb the impact to protect the driver. That means what's left looks like mincemeat.

There is no axiom that says "newer is better" either. It all depends on the design and the actual collision. They can't do crash testing for all types of accidents and you could easily get in one they haven't thought of and get hurt really bad in a car that would give you 5 star protection in a head on collision.

People rely too much on "safety systems" driving like total idiots because they know they are surrounded by air bags, have speed rated tires and anti-lock and stability systems to protect them.
If you ask me, if you want people to drive safely, take the air bags out and put metal spikes that shoot out if you are in a collision. I know I'd drive a heckuva lot more carefully if I knew that getting in a fender bender meant I'd be eating metal. (okay so that's a joke, but you get my point).

And finally I am not sure what any of this has to do with a dealership employee driving your car home overnight. :D :chill:

I had some idiot lady t-bone me, she ran a light...
she hit me in my best friends car, he had my 97 ETC for his gfs prom
his was a 1980 Chevy Mailbu
I THANK GOD EVERY DAY that my friend lent me that car rather than his 95 Neon or id probably be dead....
http://i3.tinypic.com/2d98jzr.jpg
http://i2.tinypic.com/2h35vfo.jpg
Moral of the story...
GIVE ME THAT STEAL CAGE ANYDAY OF THE WEEK OVER THAT PLASTIC ECONO-BOX
She hit me at about 40 mph in her Nissan or some import i forget SUV about the size of a Lincoln Aviator
Her car was smashed all the way to the rad, her air bag didnt deploy and she wasnt wearing her seat belt. however she only suffered minor bruises.

I had some idiot lady t-bone me, she ran a light...
she hit me in my best friends car, he had my 97 ETC for his gfs prom
his was a 1980 Chevy Mailbu
I THANK GOD EVERY DAY that my friend lent me that car rather than his 95 Neon or id probably be dead....
http://i3.tinypic.com/2d98jzr.jpg
http://i2.tinypic.com/2h35vfo.jpg
Moral of the story...
GIVE ME THAT STEAL CAGE ANYDAY OF THE WEEK OVER THAT PLASTIC ECONO-BOX
She hit me at about 40 mph in her Nissan or some import i forget SUV about the size of a Lincoln Aviator
Her car was smashed all the way to the rad, her air bag didnt deploy and she wasnt wearing her seat belt. however she only suffered minor bruises.

Yea, I'd have to say, I would much rather be in my '88 Cadillac Brougham or my 92 Buick Roadmaster if I got in an accident then some little new car. Hmm, Brougham vs. new little car = kaboom

I know plenty of rich, spoiled kids that have been given Hummers, Corvettes, Mustangs, Lexuses (Lexi?) etc etc and they are much worse drivers then kids who bought their own car for $4000 or $5000. The rich kids are more likely to get into an accident because "Hey, if I wreck this car my daddy will buy me another" mindset. And trust me, I'd say 3/4 of them already had a crash that seriously damaged their car while the other kids that bought their own car had a lower rate of accidents (I believe below 1/4).

I think that kids who get the nice cars (like the ones you mentioned Speedy) often think that with all of that technology in their car will prevent them from an accident, which is why they drive them so hard and so fast, which, in the end, is what causes the accident, being stupid and wreckless.

I was just gonna say that no amount of money can keep a bad driver from hitting somebody. The car can only do so much. It's not gonna prevent an accident that's already occuring. If someone forgets to signal and check their mirrors and blind spots, and turnes into the car in the lane next to them....there's no newfangled safety feature that's gonna keep those two cars from making contact. All that'll prevent that is the driver. Sure some cars will have more airbags, and better crumple zones, but it's a moot point if the person behind the wheel is an idiot. Doesn't matter what kinda car it is....it's still gonna get up.

Yep, agree 110% about making the kid buy his/her first car on their own. Hell, I did and took damn good care of it - It was a 10 year old Austin Mini with an 850cc engine, front wheel drive and probably the unsafest car out there at that time.

Tin can sheet metal, noxious exhaust fumes in the interior, couldn't get out of it's own way if it had to, it was so under-powered.

But it was MY first car that I bought with money earned the hard way - by the sweat off my brow. And that is what made it so special and so important to me, that I WANTED to take extra-special care of it. Hell, if it got buggered up in an accident, it wasn't going to be replaced any time soon, because I couldn't afford it.

Pride of Ownership = responsible attitude

Pride of Ownership = responsible attitude

Yeah exactly. Even if I traded in my deVille for that '93 Accord (I almost did last year), I'd still be proud to own that little ol' Honda just because my hard work paid for it!

It largely depends on the parents. The kids of whose parents I know are mature and work hard. Still I'd rather have the income to provide my kids the car of their choice rather than force them to pay for a $2000 1990s car.

Why should money be a limit on providing your children a new car? That doesn't mean just because mom and dad simply bought them a car that they automatically become selfish brats who race and destroy the car.

I for one won't let money be a factor in my childrens decisions.

Why should money be a limit on providing your children a new car?

Many simply can't afford it. Money doesn't grow on trees and there is not a single reason that a teenager needs a new car...period.

$20,000-$30,000 for a new -whatever- is complete stupidity, why not buy them a nice used car? You can save thousands upon thousands by going for a nice, 3 or 4 year old vehicle.

Many simply can't afford it. Money doesn't grow on trees and there is not a single reason that a teenager needs a new car...period.

$20,000-$30,000 for a new -whatever- is complete stupidity, why not buy them a nice used car? You can save thousands upon thousands by going for a nice, 3 or 4 year old vehicle.

Its ok if you choose to put your kids in used vehicles. However don't be angry when others like myself choose to put our children in the vehicles of their choice.

I'd rather not save thousands at the expense of my children. Again if money is all that holds me back from providing for them I WILL do anything to overcome it.

I'll give you my "first car" story...

Back when I was 14, and a freshman in high school, my first car was the #1 thing on my mind at all times. Earlier that year, The Fast and The Furious came out, so after seeing that, I vowed to myself that I would get a '68-'70 Dodge Charger R/T as my first car....you know, because that's reasonable. :p Anyways, I told my dad that when he was driving me to work one day and he just laughed and said "Chad, there is no way you are getting a Charger, or any sort of a old muscle car for your first car!" So I thought what else is quick and sporty? I'd hate to say, but the early '90s Prelude was a favorite of mine then, along with the '93-'97 Mazda MX-6. Told my dad about that, "no, I want you in something a bit bigger.", So then I really took a liking to the 3rd gen Firebirds, especially the '87-'92 models. I thought, hey, it's bigger than a MX-6 and newer than a Charger, and it's still cool, sexy and fast!" Told my dad about that, he said "no way, you're not getting a sports car, you'll just get too many tickets!" So I thought "hmm, what else has a V8 and is still decently quick???? Cadillacs!" (that's how my Cadillac love affair started, if any of you were wondering...)

So in the spring-summer of '03, when I was 16 and had a job (two of the three requirements from my parents to buy a car) I looked at a few Cadillacs in my area. a triple yellow '79 Sedan deVille (Rick!!), and a triple navy blue '87 Brougham. I really liked that Brougham, 61k miles, very little rust, pretty good overall condition, clean velour interior, and it was only $1,000! I told my dad about this, telling him that I could easily afford it and I had a reason to own a car, (but no licence), and he said "no, too big, too old, and that car's been for sale forever, something must be wrong with it!"

Well anyways, When the time (finally!) came for me to get my first car, back in april of '04, my parents really wanted me to get something fuel efficent, safe and reliable. I had $3,000 saved up that I got from working at three different places. I had searched around for Cadillac deVilles (like the one I own now), but they said no because they're too expensive to repair, and not that reliable. (They didn't know much about Cadillacs at all before I bought mine) But my parents knew how much I loved the large american cars, so my dad recommeded the '91+ Park Avenue/ Ninety Eight. "Great 3800 V6 motor, very reliable, very good on gas, and it's like a Cadillac, but cheaper!"
But being your typical rubber burnin', hot roddin' 17 year old male, I wanted something faster, something with that V8 I desire, and something that is rear wheel drive (for those big smokey burnouts!!) but what is big and luxurious and American with a potent V8? and rear wheel drive??? "How about a Caprice? Blah! No! How about a Roadmaster? Hey! Now that's like it!" "Grandpa and grandma owned a Roadmaster, theirs was good, that's what I should get"
Dad liked it because it was a Buick, it had the super reliable 350, and it was super safe, and I liked the LT1 power and Buick luxury and style. So I bought my '95 on April the 14th 2004, with 138,600 miles on the odometer. I paid $3,450 for it, $3,000 was cash straight out of my bank account, and $450 from my parents for the final bit plus the licence and registration fees. I paid them back within 4 months.

They refused to buy me my own car because it would spoil me. Think about it, it's like a $3,000 christmas or birthday gift! That's outrageous! Plus in all honesty, they don't have the resources to throw down $3,000 on their oldest kid's first car. Can you imagine how jealous/ envious my younger brothers would be? If they bought me my own first car, they'd have to buy both of my little brothers one, and that's $9,000 and 2/3s of that would be spent in two years, as my brother just turned 17 this year. He bought his '96 Sentra for $2,000 from our next door neighbor. All that money he had saved up, and FWIW, it's got 65k on it, and is in very good mechanical condition. I trust that car more than I do mine sometimes!

I've never said its not proper for your children to purchase their first car by themselves. I purchased my first car (actually a 1991 S-10) with mine. My parents cosigned a loan several years ago so I could get a brand new car, which was much safer than that rusty S10 or anything of that era including the large GMs.

My brothers have each bought cars from hard earned money. However just because you spent your own money on the car doesn't mean its any better if you still take things for granted.

I will still say its ok if anyone here chooses to put their kids in a used car or wants them to work for 6-12 months (or longer depending on the vehicle) to buy a nice used car. I've also said that its easy to find a good used car, but I recommend it to be as new as possible. The more integral safety features like side impact beams, airbags, crush zones, and more... benefit you more than you think.

Does that mean no one should ever consider a early 1990s Cadillac, or any older vehicle? Not by any means. Does that mean everyone here should buy their children a $50,000 Cadillac for their first car? Not by any means.

To each his own. My children will know work ethic, integrity, honesty, etc etc... However I won't let money force me into a position where I can't help them in any aspect of their life. Including purchasing a automobile.

I dunno about a parent buying their kid a car, if my parents had a lot of money (or all of it) in the car, I think they would get a say as to what I got. I think if they bought me a car, it would be what they wanted, like an Accord, Camry or Altima, not what I really desired to have.

My dad said your first car should be something decent, cheap and reliable, but not something you dream about owning or something that's overly expensive. Even if I had the money to afford the car, he'd never let me get a Mercedes Benz for my first car (or 2nd...maybe even 3rd) just because it's gonna be very expensive to fix, maintain and insure. He's the same way about his cars, he doesn't want something opulent, fancy or quick. He just wants something very reliable, comfortable, safe, cheap and fuel efficent. He drives a '97 Lumina right now, and he's pretty happy with that car. Just to give you an idea of my father, he's got three cars he'd really like to have right now, an '04 Impala LS with the 3800 V6, a Mazda 6 with the 3.0 V6 or a Dodge Magnum with the Hemi or the 3.5. Not bad cars, but nothing I'd kill to own. He generally doesn't like Cadillacs, he's alright with mine but he generally doesn't like luxury cars, big cars and expensive cars. Cadillacs are all of the above, and my father absolutly despises the Northstar..too expensive, too risky and god forbid if the headgasket goes, you'll be up the creek! He's not too big on my 4.9...he'd probably like it best if Cadillac had the 3.8 or 350 in their cars, he's not in a Cadillac mindset. And my mother absolutly hates Cadillacs, views them as the ultimate old person's car and will never see it any other way. She will not ride in my car, and it'll be a cold day in hell if she ever drives it by her own will! Typical Toyota owner! Haha!

Well I digress, if you can buy your kid a nice car you'd feel safe and be happy with, all the power to you. I knew a lot of kids who had cars purchased by their parents, some were gracious and thankful, some were not. It's their problem, not mine. But if the kid doesn't have a job or has no money for what ever reason, the parent will have to buy them a car, and that's a different story alltogether.

Chad, why the switch to the Caddy, other than it's a Cadillac.

Chad, why the switch to the Caddy, other than it's a Cadillac.

You mean from the Buick? Besides the nameplate and all that's involved with that, I wanted a FWD V8 car, I liked the styling, among other reasons, I liked that it's the only car to use the 4.9 V8, no other division of GM ever had it. But between the Cadillac and a Lincoln at the time? I never considered any Lincoln simply because it's a Ford, and they didn't offer anything in my price range that was FWD other than that horrid 3.8 Continental! The 4.6 Continental was (and largely still is) out of my price range.