Thinking of dropping CP360 CoPilot

[mla_anderson]

Excellent plan! I try to do that too.

Unfortunately, people then come and park next to me.

So far I haven't come up with a way to prevent that...

A bunch of people park over two spots.

Sponsored

 

[MaineAssassin]

This concerned me. Now I am getting an XLT and I don't get adaptive cruise. So if you engage adaptive cruise, not knowing it won't work because of snow, wouldn't you rear end someone, because you didn't know AC was not working and the car didn't slow?

Nope it simply dings at you and says it's disabled till you clean the grill.

 

[DryHeat]

A bunch of people park over two spots.

And don't you love those people?

I saw that this last Christmas when the store lots were pretty damn full. A guy (it's almost always a guy) had parked his precious Audi at an angle across two spots near the store. The spot on his driver's side cleared out and another guy came in and parked at the same angle a foot or so from him.

I wish I could have waited to see the first guy come back. My guess is that he started ranting like, "Look what this idiot did! He's parked at an angle in two spaces -- just like ME! That's not right!"

 

[Arukoru]

For my XLT, the changes aren't really that drastic. 360 only adds blind spot monitoring (partially covered by the spotting mirror on non-360 XLTs) and lane keeping alerts/assist (not super useful unless you're driving a lot of highway miles often). Like all things, I weighed the "lifetime cost" for 360 (around $1000 for 10 years of ownership) and didn't think it was worth it for those two features.

And really I don't have a beef with someone that says hey I don't really drive on the highway often so blindspot monitoring/lane assist isn't as useful for me. I have a beef with someone saying its a rip off and what a waste of money and it does nothing etc (especially when it comes to blindspots/crosstraffic). I am probably a little biased being in Atlanta, I'll take any driver's aid under the sun if it means I get to go home safely. There are just some people who think they are better than everyone else and that leads to danger in my experience.

Also just as an aside where does $1k/10yrs come from? is cp360 not like $540 or something? I don't have my invoice handy but I recall it being in the 500s. Also for reference the current version of netflix is like $1700/10yrs

 

[brnpttmn]

And really I don't have a beef with someone that says hey I don't really drive on the highway often so blindspot monitoring/lane assist isn't as useful for me. I have a beef with someone saying its a rip off and what a waste of money and it does nothing etc (especially when it comes to blindspots/crosstraffic). I am probably a little biased being in Atlanta, I'll take any driver's aid under the sun if it means I get to go home safely. There are just some people who think they are better than everyone else and that leads to danger in my experience.

Also just as an aside where does $1k/10yrs come from? is cp360 not like $540 or something? I don't have my invoice handy but I recall it being in the 500s. Also for reference the current version of netflix is like $1700/10yrs

I guess I don't have "beef" with anyone based on options they choose or how they choose them.

I'd never say don't get 360 if you want it, but I also look at value/cost. For me, that means calculating what I get and how I'll use it by the cost of 10 years of assumed ownership. 10 years is pretty easy to calculate because at a relatively standard 6% return you can expect the initial cost to almost double.

So for my XLT, I personally don't consider the two options that 360 provides to be worth $1k over the long-term. Mainly because I don't think they are truly "safety" features. Maybe if I had the XL, the addition of power mirrors might tip the scales (but probably not). If I had gone with the Lariat I probably would have gone with 360 since you get the addition of ACC and a couple other things.

 

[Arukoru]

I guess I don't have "beef" with anyone based on options they choose or how they choose them.

I'd never say don't get 360 if you want it, but I also look at value/cost. For me, that means calculating what I get and how I'll use it by the cost of 10 years of assumed ownership. 10 years is pretty easy to calculate because at a relatively standard 6% return you can expect the initial cost to almost double.

So for my XLT, I personally don't consider the two options that 360 provides to be worth $1k over the long-term. Mainly because I don't think they are truly "safety" features. Maybe if I had the XL, the addition of power mirrors might tip the scales (but probably not). If I had gone with the Lariat I probably would have gone with 360 since you get the addition of ACC and a couple other things.

Sadly Lariat does not get you ACC, that was like the one feature I really wanted but I can't justify getting the Lariat Lux package.

 

[DryHeat]

Also just as an aside where does $1k/10yrs come from? is cp360 not like $540 or something? I don't have my invoice handy but I recall it being in the 500s.

I could be wrong, but I think what @brnpttmn is doing is assuming that he could invest the $540 and double it over 10 years to $1000. (I think I've seen him make calculations like that before.)

I think that way of calculating "lifetime cost" is too easy to manipulate and misleading.

For example, we get a $1000 cost for CP360 by assuming it will last 10 years. But what if I assume my Maverick will last 15 years? Well, then CP360 has a lifetime cost of between $1300-$1400. Does that make sense?

If you look at things like that, then no one should be buying a Maverick at all. Because if the Maverick lasts 15 years it's "lifetime cost" will be close to $65,000 -- not a very good deal. Oddly, though, it's a better deal ($48,000) if it only lasts 10 years. Again, does that make sense?

I appreciate the value of saving and investing. Without it I wouldn't have the life I have now. But I think it makes more sense to use present value when evaluating purchases.

 

[brnpttmn]

I could be wrong, but I think what @brnpttmn is doing is assuming that he could invest the $540 and double it over 10 years to $1000. (I think I've seen him make calculations like that before.)

I think that way of calculating "lifetime cost" is too easy to manipulate and misleading.

For example, we get a $1000 cost for CP360 by assuming it will last 10 years. But what if I assume my Maverick will last 15 years? Well, then CP360 has a lifetime cost of between $1300-$1400. Does that make sense?

If you look at things like that, then no one should be buying a Maverick at all. Because if the Maverick lasts 15 years it's "lifetime cost" will be close to $65,000 -- not a very good deal. Oddly, though, it's a better deal ($48,000) if it only lasts 10 years. Again, does that make sense?

I appreciate the value of saving and investing. Without it I wouldn't have the life I have now. But I think it makes more sense to use present value when evaluating purchases.

Yes, if you're only looking at the cost, you should never buy anything ever. That's why I made the point to compare those costs to the value gained. As I said it in another thread on this topic, assessing the time-value of money is pretty standard for assessing the costs associated with a capital purchase such as a car (and citied research).

And yes, the lifetime costs of a maverick are probably north of $50-60K, if you're buying it thinking that it only costs $25K you're doing it wrong. Your own calculation of the 10yr vs 15yr is both right and wrong. Yes, owning a car for longer increases the "total cost" of that purchase, but it decreases the per-year ownership costs. So yes, it does make sense that owning your Maverick for 15 years would only cost $4,333/year compared to $4,800/year for 10 years. Buy a new car again at 10 years and the 15 year total cost and per-year costs will be significantly higher than your Maverick's 15 year total cost.

Using just the present value of big purchases can get people--especially younger people--into big financial trouble.

 

[DryHeat]

Yes, if you're only looking at the cost, you should never buy anything ever. That's why I made the point to compare those costs to the value gained. As I said it in another thread on this topic, assessing the time-value of money is pretty standard for assessing the costs associated with a capital purchase such as a car (and citied research).

And yes, the lifetime costs of a maverick are probably north of $50-60K, if you're buying it thinking that it only costs $25K you're doing it wrong. Your own calculation of the 10yr vs 15yr is both right and wrong. Yes, owning a car for longer increases the "total cost" of that purchase, but it decreases the per-year ownership costs. So yes, it does make sense that owning your Maverick for 15 years would only cost $4,333/year compared to $4,800/year for 10 years. Buy a new car again at 10 years and the 15 year total cost and per-year costs will be significantly higher than your Maverick's 15 year total cost.

Using just the present value of big purchases can get people--especially younger people--into big financial trouble.

You are mixing apples and oranges. We are talking about how you value purchase cost, not total cost of ownership (TCO). The $1000 value you assigned to the $540 purchase price of CP360 is a much simpler thing than TCO.

You are just looking at the $540 you would spend today and saying "Well, that will grow to $1000 in ten years." Ok... but isn't 10 years pretty arbitrary? Why not look at 20 years and call it $2000? Or 40 years and call it $8000?

I use the present value (PV) of money as a more concrete standard -- its value today. So $540 in your hand today has a PV of $540. And (no surprise) having $1000 ten years from now has a PV of about $540.

What you are doing is not really a cost calculation. It is a motivational technique. By looking at the $540 and telling yourself that -- if you don't spend it -- you will have $1000 in ten years, you are motivating yourself to not spend.

But don't go off the deep end. Don't tell yourself that the purchase cost of a Maverick should be valued at $48,000 if you keep it for 10 years but $60,000 if you keep it for 15 years. That way lies madness.

 

[brnpttmn]

You are mixing apples and oranges. We are talking about how you value purchase cost, not total cost of ownership (TCO). The $1000 value you assigned to the $540 purchase price of CP360 is a much simpler thing than TCO.

You are just looking at the $540 you would spend today and saying "Well, that will grow to $1000 in ten years." Ok... but isn't 10 years pretty arbitrary? Why not look at 20 years and call it $2000? Or 40 years and call it $8000?

I use the present value (PV) of money as a more concrete standard -- its value today. So $540 in your hand today has a PV of $540. And (no surprise) having $1000 ten years from now has a PV of about $540.

What you are doing is not really a cost calculation. It is a motivational technique. By looking at the $540 and telling yourself that -- if you don't spend it -- you will have $1000 in ten years, you are motivating yourself to not spend.

But don't go off the deep end. Don't tell yourself that the purchase cost of a Maverick should be valued at $48,000 if you keep it for 10 years but $60,000 if you keep it for 15 years. That way lies madness.

I'm not mixing anything. Purchase cost is part of TCO, not a separate classification. No one was talking explicitly about the purchase cost, the comment was how much you're "saving" by not getting 360. It's not accurate to say "wow I get this great feature for 10 years" (value) for just $540 (cost) without considering what you'd get for that $540 over the same time (savings).

Using the 10 year timeline standardizes the cost to the benefit across the ownership of the car. Without that standardization, you're over stating the value and understating the cost, and that's why you can get in trouble doing consistently (everything looks like a deal!). Sure, it's also probably smart for a 20 year old to do the calculation for 40 years. Even if that's not technically standardizing the costs to the benefits, it helps with what you call motivation because that $540 is worth so much more to 20 year old than it is to us.

There's no "deep end" here. Simple calculations to help people better understand the costs of their purchases. It's also not madness to suggest the longer you own a car the more it costs--those costs are relevant for comparing the alternatives (e.g., no car, luxury car, beater car, etc.).

I'm not sure what the big deal is. In my OP I simply stated my method for making the decision because I thought it was relevant. It's a pretty standard to include time-value of money in cost:benefit analysis.

 

[DryHeat]

No one was talking explicitly about the purchase cost, the comment was how much you're "saving" by not getting 360.

Don't be silly, of course you were talking about the purchase cost. You posted about "how much you're 'saving' by not getting 360." And you calculated your "$1000 savings" by starting with the $540 purchase cost and assuming that $540 grows at 6% over 10 years.

There's no point in denying that. I mean, you say it again in the quote below...

It's not accurate to say "wow I get this great feature for 10 years" (value) for just $540 (cost) without considering what you'd get for that $540 over the same time (savings).

Using the 10 year timeline standardizes the cost to the benefit across the ownership of the car.

I get it that you think spending $540 for CP360 is actually a $1000 cost because the car will probably last 10 years.

But wait... wouldn't that mean that if I spent $540 on something that only lasts one night (say, a hotel room), then that would only be a $540 cost? You must see how ridiculous that is.

If you want to advise people to spend less and save more, that's fine. But these bogus "cost" calculations based on initial price grown over the life of the asset make no sense.

 

[icegradner]

I for one didn't opt to get 360, but only because I knew that anything with more chips with delay my order even more than it likely will be already. I think it would be nice to get my truck before 2024.

 

[jbpoole]

So, let's say that a person elects not to spend $500-600 on CoPilot360. And that they are an experienced, skillful and cautious driver. Then, the unthinkable happens. They make one serious mistake while driving and end up as a fatality. All is lost, except the $500-600 saved by not buying the CoPilot360 which may have prevented the crash.

 

[TSAINTS1115]

So, let's say that a person elects not to spend $500-600 on CoPilot360. And that they are an experienced, skillful and cautious driver. Then, the unthinkable happens. They make one serious mistake while driving and end up a as fatality. All is lost, except the $500-600 saved by not buying the CoPilot360 which may have prevented the crash.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

 

[brnpttmn]

Don't be silly, of course you were talking about the purchase cost. You posted about "how much you're 'saving' by not getting 360." And you calculated your "$1000 savings" by starting with the $540 purchase cost and assuming that $540 grows at 6% over 10 years.

There's no point in denying that. I mean, you say it again in the quote below...

I don't even know what you're nitpicking. You're seriously trying to play gotcha because I used the word "cost." JFC.

I get it that you think spending $540 for CP360 is actually a $1000 cost because the car will probably last 10 years.

You most certainly don't get it. Not sure how else I can explain it.

But wait... wouldn't that mean that if I spent $540 on something that only lasts one night (say, a hotel room), then that would only be a $540 cost? You must see how ridiculous that is.

You can do whatever you want, but at no point have I said you should do this. I budget discretionary expenses differently.

If you want to advise people to spend less and save more, that's fine. But these bogus "cost" calculations based on initial price grown over the life of the asset make no sense.

I didn't advise anyone to do anything. Go back and check my OP on this. I was explicitly saying this is how I PERSONALLY determined the cost:benefit for this specific decision. You are free to do it however you want. Now, feel free to kindly kick rocks.

Sponsored