> Anyone concerned about the overall cost would never choose 72 months, but the majority of people only care about that the number for each month.

There's no golden rule about ideal finance term lengths. It could make a lot of sense for an individual to elect to maximize near term cash flow in exchange for a higher total cost.

After all, in car dependent societies the chief value of a car is to get you to your place for work so you can earn money to support yourself.

Car prices also don't scale down infinitely, so it's not like you can always find a practical car for yourself that you can pay off in 48 months.

Similarly, if overall costs were the only thing that mattered, I'd have no mortgage on my house, but then I just wouldn't have a house, so I instead have a 30 year mortgage.

Are we really trying to compare financing a house to financing a car? I have an issue with that for one main reason. Your house doesn't move and subject to the irrational decisions of other houses moving at high rates of velocity within mere feet of each other. Also, your house is pretty much (if you maintain it) only going to increase in value. Your car will never increase in value within any rational expectation. I seriously doubt that in 25 years (time required to be considered classic) that collectors will be looking to buy restored Chevy Cruise, Ford Escape, or Toyota Corolla from an auction house.

> Are we really trying to compare financing a house to financing a car? I have an issue with that for one main reason. Your house doesn't move and subject to the irrational decisions of other houses moving at high rates of velocity within mere feet of each other.

No, but plenty of other unplanned things happen to houses. Otherwise why have homeowners insurance?

> Also, your house is pretty much (if you maintain it) only going to increase in value.

That depends on your timescale. Can you wait 10 years for a house not to be underwater? A whole lot of folks from 2008 couldn't - including people who were current on their mortgage but needed to move for work. Also plenty of locations go into secular decline and the houses lose real value even with maintenance.

2008 situation was a weird one with crooked finance companies screwing a whole lot of people. sure, some blame can be placed on those taking the loans, but that's quite a bit of victim blaming to me.

the concept of people buying houses and moving every couple of years is something that I always thought strange. i don't care what kind of loan you took out, there's no way that can be sustainable. emergencies happen, and there are somethings that can be done to help, but using 2008 as a torch bearer seems off to me.

I can confirm this - I got a 72 month loan on my current car when my finances were a lot worse and it was pitched to me as making it affordable. The price every month now is incredibly sustainable, but I have this suspicion that I'm way overpaying for what I bought.

Honestly, everything about that purchasing experience has taught me to steer clear of dealers unless I'm ready to buy on the spot and have done my own homework.

There's a lot to consider with financing a car that isn't necessarily obvious to most people. We've all heard that the car depreciates in value significantly the second you drive it off the lot. With a 72 month note, you are upside down on the note for a much much longer time. Since it is a car, there is a greater than zero chance of getting in a wreck. It could be a situation that after insurance pays off the deemed value, you are still owing the financing company for a car that you can no longer use. This is why gap insurance is important for the longer term financing.