In Less Than a Year, You'll Regret Not Having Bought These 6 Used Cars
Everyone has one or two things they regret not doing, but losing out on a money-saving deal might be at the top of the list for most of us. This can apply to all kinds of purchases, though most notably cars.
Be Aware:
Read Next: 4 Low-Risk Ways To Build Your Savings in 2025
Each year, new models and makes hit the market, enticing consumers to get the most bang for their buck. However, the used car market is also thriving with discounts and markdowns, all of which should be taken advantage of promptly.
Are you in the used car market? If not, maybe you should after checking out the best used American cars you'll regret not buying by this time next year. Here, GOBankingRates lists some of the best buys this year in the used car market.
Starting MSRP: $49,995
The electric truck market was nothing before the F-150 Lightning came along. Its efficiency hits up to 320 miles in range, its power can reach 580 hp in the extended-range version and tow almost 10,000 lbs. Combine that with this year's federal tax credit and save nearly $7,500.
The smart financial move would be to purchase an F-150 Lightning in the next few months because after that, tax incentives will likely go down and demand could increase, meaning the price will go up.
Trending Now:
Starting MSRP: $106,440
The Tesla Model S Plaid is another cutting-edge electric vehicle that comes equipped with a tri-motor under the hood that can kick up to 1,000 horsepower and reach 0-60 mph in under 2 seconds. That's power and then some.
If you are a gearhead and tech connoisseur, you'll love the cinematic display and automatically downloaded software updates, not to mention the full self-driving capability.
Considered a benchmark in the EV landscape for performance and advanced tech, not buying one now means you could pay more in the future for a Tesla Model S Plaid.
Starting MSRP: $58,590
The electric revolution continues with the first non-gas powered SUV from Cadillac. For those worried about getting stuck on the road, fear not. The Cadillac Lyriq comes decked out with fast-charge capabilities that can get you up to 312 miles of range. That means it's great for long road trips or just driving around town for errands.
Cadillac debuted the Lyriq as a representation of the brand's future, highlighting a transition to an all-electric lineup, with more on the way. By purchasing this vehicle in 2024, you could benefit from not only potential appreciation, but also getting in on the ground floor of a new wave of electric SUVs.
Starting MSRP: $65,895
According to Car and Driver, the Chevrolet Corvette C8 has 'supercar performance, an affordable price tag, and flashy styling' that 'honors the nameplate's decades-old status as an automotive icon–but with a mid-engine twist.'
That twist comes in the form of 495 horsepower that can get 0-60 mph in under 3 seconds. Throw in an infotainment system with the latest technology-including a digital driver display, and performance tracker — for a classic car built for the modern road.
Not buying a C8 in 2024 could mean regretting not having one of the best performance vehicles at a reasonable price on the used car market.
Starting MSRP: $92,495
The 2023 Jeep Grand Wagoneer is an SUV loaded with luxury. That said, it doesn't skimp on the driving experience, powered by V8 engines backed up by off-road capabilities Jeep is known for.
A full suite of features for driver's assistance is just the beginning of the high-class ride. Put it into the mix with the latest tech like the McIntosh audio system and a 12-inch touch screen and you've got a Jeep like no other.
The Grand Wagoneer is one of the most technologically advanced American SUVs on the market that you will want parked in your garage.
Starting MSRP: $59,565
If you are a fan of muscle cars, the Mustang Dark Horse is the next step up. Featuring a 500 hp 5.0L V8 and track-focused upgrades, the Dark Horse is a classic ride powered by unparalleled performance.
It's one of the last non-electric Mustangs out there, with only a few produced to be sold at the market. You might want to own a slice of American muscle car history before it is too late.
More From GOBankingRates
4 Unusual Ways To Make Extra Money That Actually Work
How Middle-Class Earners Are Quietly Becoming Millionaires -- and How You Can, Too
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: In Less Than a Year, You'll Regret Not Having Bought These 6 Used Cars
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
33 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump says he's not planning to extend a pause on global tariffs beyond July 9
WASHINGTON — President Trump says he is not planning to extend a 90-day pause on tariffs on most nations beyond July 9, when the negotiating period he set would expire, and his administration will notify countries that the trade penalties will take effect unless there are deals with the United States. Letters will start going out 'pretty soon' before the approaching deadline, he said. 'We'll look at how a country treats us — are they good, are they not so good — some countries we don't care, we'll just send a high number out,' Trump told Fox News Channel's 'Sunday Morning Futures' during a wide-ranging interview taped Friday and broadcast Sunday. Those letters, he said, would say, 'Congratulations, we're allowing you to shop in the United States of America, you're going to pay a 25% tariff, or a 35% or a 50% or 10%.' Trump had played down the deadline at a White House news conference Friday by noting how difficult it would be to work out separate deals with each nation. The administration had set a goal of reaching 90 trade deals in 90 days. Negotiations continue, but 'there's 200 countries, you can't talk to all of them,' he said in the interview. Trump also discussed a potential TikTok deal, relations with China, the U.S. strikes on Iran and his immigration crackdown. Here are the key takeaways: A group of wealthy investors will make an offer to buy TikTok, Trump said, hinting at a deal that could safeguard the future of the popular social media platform, which is owned by China's ByteDance. 'We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I'll need, probably, China approval, and I think President Xi [Jinping] will probably do it,' Trump said. Trump did not offer any details about the investors, calling them 'a group of very wealthy people.' 'I'll tell you in about two weeks,' he said when asked for specifics. It's a time frame Trump often cites, most recently about a decision on whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the war between Israel and Iran. The U.S. struck Iranian nuclear sites just days later. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the U.S. for 90 more days to give his administration more time to broker a deal to bring the social media platform under American ownership. It is the third time Trump has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court — took effect. Trump reiterated his assertion that the U.S. strikes on Iran had 'obliterated' its nuclear facilities, and he said whoever leaked a preliminary intelligence assessment suggesting Tehran's nuclear program had been set back only a few months should be prosecuted. Trump claimed Iran was 'weeks away' from achieving a nuclear weapon before he ordered the strikes, contradicting his own intelligence officials. 'It was obliterated like nobody's ever seen before,' he said. 'And that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time.' Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Sunday on X that Trump 'exaggerated to cover up and conceal the truth.' Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, told CBS' 'Face the Nation' that his country's nuclear program is peaceful and that uranium 'enrichment is our right, and an inalienable right and we want to implement this right' under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 'I think that enrichment will not — never stop.' Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said on CBS that 'it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage.' Grossi also said his agency has faced pressure to report that Iran had a nuclear weapon or was close to one, but 'we simply didn't because this was not what we were seeing.' Of the leak of the intelligence assessment, Trump said anyone found to be responsible should be prosecuted. Journalists who received it should be asked who their source was, he said: 'You have to do that and I suspect we'll be doing things like that.' His press secretary said Thursday that the administration is investigating the matter. As he played up his immigration crackdown, Trump offered a more nuanced view when it comes to farm and hotel workers. 'I'm the strongest immigration guy that there's ever been, but I'm also the strongest farmer guy that there's ever been,' he said. He said he wants to deport criminals, but it's a problem when farmers lose their laborers and it destroys their businesses. Trump said his administration is working on 'some kind of a temporary pass' that could give farmers and hotel owners control over immigration raids at their facilities. Earlier this month, Trump had called for a pause on immigration raids disrupting the farming, hotel and restaurant industries, but a top Homeland Security official followed up with a contradictory statement. Tricia McLaughlin said there would be 'no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine' immigration enforcement efforts. Trump praised a recent trade deal with Beijing over rare-earth exports from China and said establishing a fairer relationship would require significant tariffs. 'I think getting along well with China is a very good thing,' Trump said. 'China's going to be paying a lot of tariffs, but we have a big [trade] deficit, they understand that.' Trump said he would be open to removing sanctions on Iranian oil shipments to China if Tehran could show 'they can be peaceful and if they can show us they're not going to do any more harm.' But the president also indicated the U.S. might retaliate against Beijing. When Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo noted that China has tried to hack U.S. systems and steal intellectual property, Trump replied, 'You don't think we do that to them?' Klepper and Swenson write for the Associated Press.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Senate Republicans move forward on Trump's tax bill, but final outcome is uncertain
By midday Sunday the Senate had rounded its 12th hour, more than halfway through the clerk's reading of the foot-high bill. There were hours still to go. 'Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill, released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don't realize what's in it,' Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said after vote. 'If Senate Republicans won't tell the American people what's in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The slow-walking points to a difficult days ahead. Advertisement Republicans, who have control of the House and Senate, are closer to passing Trump's signature domestic policy package, yet there is a long and politically uncertain path ahead to get the bill to Trump by the Friday holiday. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press Republicans remain reluctant to give their votes, and their leaders have almost no room to spare, given their narrow majorities. Essentially, they can afford three dissenters in the Senate, with its 53-47 GOP edge, and about as many in the House, if all members are present and voting. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. had sent his colleagues home for the weekend. Advertisement Trump, who has at times allowed wiggle room on his deadline, kept the pressure on lawmakers to finish. But the tense scene as voting came to a standstill for more than three hours let the internal discord play out in public. In the end, Republicans Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky opposed the motion to move ahead, joining all 47 Democrats. Trump noticed. He threatened to campaign against Tillis, worried that Medicaid cuts would leave many without health care in his state. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate version of the bill would increase by 11.8 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034.. Trump badgered Tillis again on Sunday morning, saying the senator 'has hurt the great people of North Carolina.' Later in the day, Tillis said he would not run again in 2026. 'In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,' he said in a lengthy statement. Republicans are using their majorities to push aside Democratic opposition, but have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. Renewed pressure to oppose the bill came from Elon Musk, who criticized it as 'utterly insane and destructive.' Advertisement If the Senate is able to pass the package in the days ahead, the bill would return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. GOP leaders will need almost every one of their members on board. Senator Susan Collins of Maine spoke US Capitol in on Saturday. Aaron Schwartz/Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/Blo Tax breaks and core GOP priorities At its core, the legislation would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments are also causing dissent within GOP ranks. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the environmental rollbacks would amount to a 'death sentence' for America's wind and solar industries. The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Democrats can't filibuster, but can stall Using a congressional process called budget reconciliation, the Republicans can muscle the bill through on a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold needed to overcome objections. Without the filibuster, Democrats in the minority have to latch on to other tools to mount their objections. One is the full reading of the bill text, which has been done in past situations. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., forced a 2021 reading of a COVID relief package. Other strategies the Democrats plan to use include using their full 10 hours of available debate time expected to launch later Sunday. Advertisement And then the Democrats are prepared to propose dozens of amendments to the package that would be considered in an all-night voting session — or all-day, depending on the hour. Vice President JD Vance was at the Capitol late on Saturday. TIERNEY L. CROSS/NYT A roll call full of drama As Saturday's vote tally teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted 'yes.' A short time later, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., drew holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office. Vice President JD Vance joined in. The talks dragged on. Then Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group 'had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.' Associated Press writers Ali Swenson, Fatima Hussein, Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
