Midsize Sedans 2.0

hotrod54

I put 332,300 miles on my '03 Sonata. Before that, I put 200,000 on my Caddy Sedan Deville, before that, 264,000 on my Crown Vic, before that, 250,000 on my Volvo wagon, before that 224,000 on an Escort, before that, 298,000 on another Escort, currently have 68,000 on my 07 Sonata since mid November...there were many more cars but I won't list them now...now that's some motoring. :shades:

zzzoom6

actually, 18 months ago, I had 4k worth of rebates so mazda incentives have been around for quite a while. the fact that these rebates despite being around for many many months aren't reducing the resale in Kelly Blue Book suggests that a heavily discounted car can help protect a buyer from really bad resale values. Either that or a Mazda6 is like wine...it gets better with age :P Or perhaps it speaks to how boring most of the midsize cars have become.

I think I'll stick with my original theory... those who have decided to buy a used car don't usually do a lot of research as to what kind of discounts were available when the car was originally bought. I know many people who have bought used cars that were just a couple thousand of what they could have gotten new with much lower interest rates and a longer warranty. Granted, these are a saleperson's dream, but being in sales for quite some time, I know that most consumers are not very well researched and if you try to help them get informed their eyes glaze over. Which is probably why a manufacturer's reputation plays such a big role when it comes to buying cars despite the truth that the reliability between manufacturers differ by only a couple percent over five year periods for most cars in this segment according to consumer reports and JD Powers.

lilengineerboy

I put 332,300 miles on my '03 Sonata. Before that, I put 200,000 on my Caddy Sedan Deville, before that, 264,000 on my Crown Vic, before that, 250,000 on my Volvo wagon, before that 224,000 on an Escort, before that, 298,000 on another Escort, currently have 68,000 on my 07 Sonata since mid November...there were many more cars but I won't list them now...now that's some motoring.

Holy mackerel, you aren't kidding. I can't imagine owning a car in the 3s, and I've had cars in the 2s already. That is some motoring.

benderofbows

I, for one think much of this has become a "game" for the participants. Not so much in managing fuel economy as bragging rights. Also, most of their moves seem downright dangerous to me. I would not attempt most of the things they do....not worth my life for whatever fuel economy gained. Oh, coasting seems harmless enough but what if a powered move becomes necessary? By the time one realizes they are in neutral and remembers to engage drive the need for the powered move has passed..to what harm?? Not for me!

Target, I made a short video to show the techniques I'm using to test the max fuel economy of my new Honda (basically slow accelerations with 2500 RPM max, letting speed drop on hills, and a lot of coasting). As you'll see, they aren't really dangerous. I'm keeping up with the slow lane of traffic most of the time. Watch how when I coast, the cars next to me keep going only to have to slam on their brakes shortly after to reduce speed down to the limit or to stop.

I this true "hypermiling"? Maybe. Will I see results that are worth the effort? I don't know. Is driving like this fun? Not really. Will my next video be more exciting? I hope so!

The video also shows how smooth and quiet the car is, for those who don't care about fuel economy. Turn up the volume and you can hear the turn signal and barely hear the engine.

Maybe when I've burned this tank of gas and thus finished this little experiment, I'll make a video of a full acceleration run so everyone hear can see and hear that experience.

Link to video on CarSpace

captain2

those who have decided to buy a used car don't usually do a lot of research as to what kind of discounts were available when the car was originally bought
this may be true depending on the acumen of the buyer - but also it is true that the vast majority of later model cars are traded in or sold to dealers not sold 'private party' and certainly not at anything close to KBB 'retail'. Those folks will know precisely what you or anybody else likely paid for a car - it is their business to know, and they will base anything they would pay for your car based on that. Rebates do, in fact, reduce any car's resale values as well as its initial cost. Even sold private party, banks have things called 'loan values' that would protect them from loaning too much, so therefore, the chances are that even if you can find somebody to pay a few thousand more than what your car is really worth, the guys with the checkbook are not likely to go along with it.
The whole concept of ever getting even close to what you paid for an 18 month old car that is not in high demand anyway, just doesn't happen! But you are welcome to believe your KBB/Edmunds/NADA 'retail' values if you wish, or you can fall prey to that oldest trick in the book, and let the dealer sooth you with a high trade-in allowance on an overpriced newer car.

zzzoom6

since you're such an expert on car resale values I'll just call you :surprise: . do you think Kelly Blue Book gives prices that would make the reader happy? and who do you think actually buys Kelly Blue Books? since dealers would be their biggest group of customers, wouldn't Kelly Blue Book be more inclined to print values that are more favorable to them? the point is, Kelly Blue Book is often used as a referrence by buyers, banks, and dealers not because it is often wrong...but because it gives a good guide as to what the market will bear.

the biggest thing is, you don't know what I paid for my car nor the discount I got on it. if you are assuming that I just got the 4k rebates and that's it, you'd be wrong. so my argument still stands... if you get a good deal on a car, that will help make depreciation much less of an issue (though to be sure, buying a new car should never be considered an investment). losing 10% in value (based on private party value by KBB) for a Mazda6 that I bought 18 months ago and have put 20k miles on it is amazing which is probably why you're doubting this. but believe it or not, Mazda6's can be had for amazing deals which is probably why the #'s are what they are. in the end though, I like my car way too much to sell it even if the resale value is awesome. it's just another thing to be happy about my Mazda6.

captain2

the resale value is awesome
Mazdas, in particular, have no history of 'awesome' resale values although I believe that they will generally hold better than essentially the same car with a Ford logo on it. That 'Japanese car' perception perhaps. Furthermore, the 6 has not been showing anything remarkable from a reliability standpoint, I guess giving some creedance to the thought that they can build 'better' cars in Mexico (the Fusion) than they can in this country (the 6)?

benderofbows

ALG (Automotive Lease Guide) has some good info on depreciation.

ALG Depreciation Ratings

They seem pretty accurate to me, with a few small surprises, but then again I'm no expert.

Click on the press release link for more information about the ratings.

captain2

thanks for the reference - and a good reason why the lease cost and/or the cost-to-own something like a Camcord can be LESS than other 'cheaper' cars.

jeffyscott

Edmunds hasn't caught up with the effects of that absurd 4 grand rebate yet (and 5 years from now).

No offense, but I'm gonna go with the opinion that edmunds knows more about average car prices than you do.

There has never been a $4000 rebate on the 2007 Mazda6. The largest rebate has been $2000, so far and is currectly at $1750. Some (but not all) buyers, such as myself, have gotten well below invoice less the rebate...we will experience even less depreciation than the average buyer.

Right now edmunds gives a TMV of $18,736, including the $1750 rebate, on my exact car. For the comparable Accord the TMV is $20,614. These figures represent the average buyer's price. The difference is $1900. So my point stands that there are likely very few people who did not save well over $1000 by buying a Mazda6 instead of a comparably equipped Accord...and are likely to experience less depreciation cost (measured in dollars) in the Mazda6 than they would have in the Accord.

jeffyscott

Looks like they are using the same data as I am, the press release says: The ALG™ Depreciation Ratings will incorporate ALG econometrics and Edmunds.com's "True Market Value®" .

This rating is most certainly based on percentages. Using the edmunds figures in my previous posts the Accord is predicted to depreciate less in percentage terms, but the Mazda6 is predicted to depreciate less in terms of dollars.

jeffyscott

I just looked on CarMax (they don't negotiate price, right?), every 2006 Mazda6 in my region is priced higher than what I paid for my 2007. The closest is a base model (so less equipped than mine) priced at $250 more than I paid.

captain2

the 4k number (actually $3750.00) comes from post 3206 and is confirmed by zzoom's claims on what he actually paid for his car quite awhile ago. Since I have not shopped the 6 personally I can't confirm or deny either claim - if true, though , a 20% up front discount on a $20k car puts it about 10% under 'invoice' before the haggling even starts and further will have negative effects on its value down the road. Therefore your $1000.00 savings (should be more than that when compared to even the outgoing 'old' Accord/the 'new' Camry or Altima) may not be savings at all.

jeffyscott

Note that I said there has been no more than $2000 rebate on the 2007.

I am not going to debate you, I will continue to stick with my belief that edmunds (and carmax) know more about what cars sell for than you do.

captain2

priced at $250 more than I paid.
guess CarMax either thinks (or knows) that there are just bunches and bunches of idiots out there? Maybe there are - but in the case of any reasonably intelligent buyer thinking of spending maybe $15 or $16k on a car, I am sure as hell going to go look at new ones, get this 'great' price and then run on back to CarMax and tell them they are asking a few grand too much. Wouldn't you?

benderofbows

Carmax had several used 2006 Accords on the lot for more than I paid for my brand new 2007. And of course, their prices are "no haggle." Does that mean their high-priced Accords won't sell? Of course they will. Would that be a good deal for the buyers? Only if they are happy with that price.

I think the important aspect of TMV and ALG ratings is that they use AVERAGE transaction prices. Some people here got great deals on Mazda6s and Accords, but we are in the tiny minority... I bet more people paid closer to sticker.

jeffyscott

$250 more than I paid is still $2250 less than what the average buyer is paying for a new one, per edmunds TMV. Many people will be satified with a newish used car, if they believe they are saving a couple thousand bucks over new.

The point is that the average residual value that edmunds reports may still be correct, even if it seems to you to be too close to what some buyers paid for a new Mazda6.

captain2

$250 more than I paid is still $2250 less than what the average buyer is paying for a new one.
It is really hard to find anybody that doesn't like to at least think they got a better deal than somebody else. This a function of all our egos, and $2200.00 is a lot of extra discount on a car that you are contending that everybody else is paying that much too much for. Suggest that there is more to this story, perhaps a unusual color, option combination, a demo, something that had been on the lot too long, or even a special order car that the dealer already had some money on. If you are going to assume Edmund's TMV (and resale estimates) are even close to accurate (a real stretch IMO in these days of outlandish rebates), then your purchase price seems even more unlikely.

jeffyscott

None of your speculations are correct. The edmunds TMV is what it is, I see no reason to believe it is any more inaccurate for a Mazda6 than it is for an Accord. There is nothing unusual about my car and it had 7 miles on it. There is also nothing that unusual about the price I got, a number of people have gotten similar or better deals, while others have paid significantly more.

The fact is that the Accord's higher resale value is offset by its higher purchase price. It does not matter how you figure it. If you start with invoice less rebates, rather than TMV, for the models I looked at that will still show the Accord at about $2300 more than the comparable Mazda6. This is more than double the difference in edmunds predicted value after 3 years.

If you don't believe that the initial purchase prices are affected by expected future values, then you must believe that only Accord buyers know about their higher resale values. One who is buying a Mazda6, Ford Fusion, Sonata, or whatever is just as likely to be aware of the higher resale values of Accords and Camrys and therefore will seek to pay significantly less than those cost, in order to offset this difference.

Kirstie_H

The black clouds have rolled in to cast their pall over this discussion. Let's move on to more inclusive and less combative conversation, please.

benderofbows

Jeffy,

Since you believe Edmunds TMV to be accurate, have you checked the Edmunds TCO or "True Cost to Own" figures? They are based off of TMV and include depreciation, financing, insurance, expected maintenance and repairs, etc.

Comparing similiar models, Accord LX has the lower TCO at $0.44 per mile versus the Mazda6i SVE at $0.47 per mile.

Now, that is a difference of $0.03 per mile, which at 15k miles per year is $450.

It is up to the individual consumer to decide if that is significant to them or not.

A Malibu LT 4 cyl has a TCO of $0.49 per mile, or $750 /year.

urnews

Are there any Aura owners on this forum? Does anyone have any experiences to share about this Saturn? Just curious.

thegraduate

TCO = DOA

jeffyscott

I think the TCO is a useful starting point and guide to what to look at on the financial side, but one should adjust for their own circumstances. For example they show a much bigger difference in insurance costs than I would expect, since I pay less than $450 per year total. I would also adjust for myself based on driving about 1/2 of the miles that edmunds uses.

But yes it could very well be that the Accord is cheaper overall, after considering all things. It does get a little better gas mileage for one thing.

I've said before that the differences in net costs, considering initial purchase price and resale value, seem to be pretty small and should not likely be a significant factor for most. IOW, I don't think there is any reason to fear that the resale value is going to kill you if you do not buy an Accord or Camry...you will likely save enough up front to offset anywhere from a little more to a little less than the resale value difference. (In the case of the Mazda6 I lean toward believng you will save a little more )

I would feel the same way about a few cents per mile difference in operating costs. That it is not a significant enough difference to concern me. If someone else is concerned about this I would suggest adjusting the edmunds figures to fit their actual circumstances and see what the difference is then.

BTW, I think the Accord SE is more comparable to the Mazda6 SVE...doesn't matter in this case as the cost per mile is the same as the LX.

dairyshick

This brings up an interesting observation I've made over the past few months - - For every person such as ourselves who know that MSRP isn't what you should be paying (99% of the time), there are many others that will walk away paying MSRP on a car, or more, not even having a clue that they could have paid thousands less.
I know this isn't ground-breaking news, but it really amazes me how few people know that so much money can be saved by even the smallest amount of bargaining. It can even be the difference between a stepping up to a nicer class of cars depending on the situation.

captain2

many others that will walk away paying MSRP on a car, or more, not even having a clue that they could have paid thousands less
true or not, a very very difficult thing to fathom on a purchase of this magnitude. Maybe I am assumming too much intelligence for the average American carbuyer?

benderofbows

Absolutely, one should adjust for their own circumstances.

In my case, because of my local dealers (only one Honda dealer and one Mazda dealer in town), the Accord ended up being the cheaper car to purchase. Of course, experiences will vary, as in other cities the Honda dealer might be snobby and the Mazda dealer might be easy to deal with, or there may be more than one dealer per make. We have two Ford and two Chevy dealers in town, but I wasn't as interested.

I am less than impressed with our local Mazda dealer. There's another one about 30 miles away, but I'd rather buy local, and the Accord proved to be a worthy alternative, to me.

elroy5

Resale value is highly dependent on what kind of shape the car is in. When I was about to sell my 12 year old Accord I decided to go on Kbb.com and print out a for sale sign with the equipment list and all the details on the car. When I punched in the information, and got the suggested price, I started making my own simple sign that said "For Sale". IMO, KBB does not allow enough variation for the condition of the car. The difference in price between "MINT" condition, and TOTALLY CRAPPED OUT was not big enough. They seem to care more about mileage, than they do about the actual condition of the car. I easily got $1200 more than KBB said it was worth.

andres3

with 100,000 miles should be priced similarly to a lesser (comparably equipped and sized) vehicle with 50,000 miles.

Logic being Honda's last over 200K while other cars are just happy to go 100K.

I think that is the main driving factor behind resale value. Miles mean little to Honda/Toyota midsize cars.

moparbad

Residual value is based on MSRP for the initial price and predicted market price on the back end.
What was the MSRP on the Mazda6 that you paid $16,200 for?