Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Depreciation: Foreign vs Domestic Vehicles
I understand depreciation values as published by the the "official" people who do such things are based on MSRP compared to resale numbers. My guess is that American makers price their vehicles artificially high so they can offer big discounts and rebates.
It might not make much sense unless you realize it allows the money guys at GMAC (and Ford and Chrysler) to finace their highly discounted vehicles and use the rebate as a down payment.......essentially their creating no-down-payment vehicles that qualify way more buyers. Perhaps to their credit, the foreign makers don't seem use this creative financing. Good or bad it makes American vehicles appear to depreciate like crazy.
Seat-of-the-pants experience, my two Toyotas (an '00 Solara and an '01 Sienna, both loaded up) were the worst "stinkers" I've owned, re-sale-wise.......both close to 35% below my buy prices after 2 years. My buy price vs resale after 2 years on a '94 Jeep GC....20%, '96 Tahoe....19%, and '98 Expedition....20%. I suggest you watch the bottom line and ignore the hype.
It might not make much sense unless you realize it allows the money guys at GMAC (and Ford and Chrysler) to finace their highly discounted vehicles and use the rebate as a down payment.......essentially their creating no-down-payment vehicles that qualify way more buyers. Perhaps to their credit, the foreign makers don't seem use this creative financing. Good or bad it makes American vehicles appear to depreciate like crazy.
Seat-of-the-pants experience, my two Toyotas (an '00 Solara and an '01 Sienna, both loaded up) were the worst "stinkers" I've owned, re-sale-wise.......both close to 35% below my buy prices after 2 years. My buy price vs resale after 2 years on a '94 Jeep GC....20%, '96 Tahoe....19%, and '98 Expedition....20%. I suggest you watch the bottom line and ignore the hype.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That is not even really arguable.
Just to take YOUR example, you are talking ONLY 35% in two years. That is good. The Ford Tauruses that I am selling from my fleet rarely bring more than 50% of their purchase price after 2 years and 40k miles. The Dodge Intrepids are often worse. I would say the same about Dodge Caravans and most domestic minivans.
However, you're comparing apples to oranges. The two domestics you cite were popular SUVs during the upswing of that market ('94/'96), and the two Toyotas are a car and a minivan whose buy and sell dates neatly bracket the time around 2001/2002, when used-car values took a pretty nasty hit. You'd be making a different point had you bought a 94 4runner followed by a 96 Land Cruiser -- then turned around and bought an '00 Monte Carlo and an '01 Windstar. I get goosebumps just thinking about it.
But thanks for bringing this up, because it does want discussing. Suburbans seem to have come down quite a bit -- just from what I see in the paper; Terry may want to correct me -- but they used to hold their value extremely well. Well-equipped 4x4 fullsize trucks are another example of vehicles that may be better buys new than used on the domestic side.
The most expensive vehicle I ever owned, mile for mile, was a '92 Aerostar that I had from '99 to 01. My first new car (97 Nissan hardbody) was among the cheapest. I do agree with jl that 35% in two years ain't bad at all.
-Mathias
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
On the other hand, it could be that the domestic makes appear to have more depreciation than they really do if you factor in actual selling prices after rebates. If you look at a percentage depreciation that is based on MSRP, it will be overstated for a GM, Ford or Dodge vehicle that sold at invoice less a factory-to-dealer incentive less a consumer rebate.
After owning Fords, Hondas, Toyotas, Mazdas and a VW, I've come to the conclusion that ALL cars suck when it comes to losing value. Some are worse than others, though.
Bang.! .. right on the money.! .. great post, great example ..
Terry.
If you had done this in MI, the sales tax would have been $1800... that is gone immediately. I think you're talking pre-tax numbers, though.
Figure a vehicle in that price range has "about" a $2,500 spread between wholesale and retail... the rest is what the car actually lost in value. You probably would not have been any better off had you bought a certified 2000 RX300 for the same money... and those hold their value like crazy.
My point is, it's not so much the loss in value your fighting, it's the spread between wholesale and retail on a pricey vehicle, combined with short ownership.
You would really be hurtin' had you tried this 18-month exercise with a Cougar, me thinks. Coupes are tough in any case.
I'll take your 18-month old Tundra 35% behind street price, though!
-Mathias
Of course, let's not forget that the 3k rebate on the Trailblazer came out after I bought it. Purchased sept 10, 2001. Which would probably also fit in with your timing on both cars. 'If' I had bought at the right time, I 'may' have lost only 20%(6k) but the rebates weren't being seen, and I am not a fortune teller. On the other hand, I bought my '03 Accord in Nov '02, for 20k and was offered 17,5 on a trade-in after negotiating.... hmm. Try that with any domestic '03.
As a real-life comparo... there are 2 '01 Sequoia LTD's in the sunday paper. 31k, 32k. '01 Expeditions in the paper(4) are from 20-23k all "loaded" in different arrays.... an '04 EB expedition is on CD.com for about 36k. a Sequoia '04 LTD, 42k. Both are 'base' models, can go up by adding leveling susp, etc. the Sequoia loses about 10k(25%) in 3 years, the Expedition, 14.5k(average 40%) in 3 years. Not even factoring in that cars seem to go up about $500.year.
While I admit I didn't pursue the Toyota more than two sessions, the car was in short supply and the best offer I could manage was $1500 under MSRP or something close to $37.5k. I ended up with a lightly equipped Tahoe LS that listed for $34k+ bought at invoice less the $2k rebate + a very nice 5% APR.......$28,000.
The estimated trade values determined by Edmunds may or may not be accurate; however, their accuracy should be equally good or bad from vehicle to vehicle. If you use Edmunds to determine a trade value for both cars, a Tahoe equipped like my '02 = $21,800 and an '02 SR5 = $26,100. Had I bought the Toyota I should expect $32k+ to be as good as the Tahoe. Even if I subtract the $3k that Gulf States socks us Southerners with, I ought to expect $29.5k trade value. Tell me where I'm wrong.
The whole 3k package is just wrong... IMO.. sounds like they cornered the market on that one... terrible.
Personally, I prefer vehicles with rapid depreciation, especially when they are models that have a good reliability record. IMO, a 2000 Buick Century is tremendous value over a similar Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.
I assume you mean for you to buy used and not new?
I agree the Japanese seem able to make vehicles that run a long time with fewer problems than anyone else. From personal experience, I never found that Mercedes, BMW, or Volvo was any more trouble-free than American makes.
I'm just saying the creative financing practiced by American car makers distort the depreciation picture. In a perfect world it would be more accurate to compare average price paid instead of MSRP to resale x years down the road.
On the other hand, many domestic vehicles with all the rebates and incentives sell for thousands below sticker and in some cases way below invoice cost. Perfect example... I bought my 04 Dodge Dakota Quad for 24K plus tax, tags, and title after 4800 dollars in discounts. The average asking price for 1-2 year old versions of the same model seemed to be in the neighborhood of 20-22K. If I looked back 3 years or more I could get into the high 19s. So I was only looking at at best a 3-4 thousand dollar discount to accept less of a warranty and 20 thousand miles of wear and tear. The first year depriciation hit is huge if you use MSRP in your calculations, but not so bad if you base it on what I actually paid.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Any concerns about quality will likely be offset by the increase caused by the demand for fuel efficient vehicles.
I think a big gap today is the quality of the vehicle at ~7-8 yrs and 100K. Put a '99 Lumina ot Taurus with 100K against the same Camry or Accord. It's a no-brainer since you know the next 100K will likely have less problems on the import, hence the difference in value. So with quality as a whole on par today I wonder what that means 5-7 years from now?
1. Reliable - owner feedback from J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, auto mags, newspapers, and word-of-mouth.
2. Good gas milage for the segment. Doesn't have to be the top.
3. Solid engineering/construction - crash testing and dependable/reliable. Strong power train in performance and durability. Parts fit inside and out. Decent materials used.
4. Desirable when NEW and USED. Basic Supply/Damand law. Style, performance, interior quality, and safety all effect this.
5. Affordable - good value for the $ - doesn't have to be the cheapest, but usually isn't the most expensive.
Domestics often have significant rebates/incentives which lower the overall transaction cost of the car....
example: a new Lincoln town car appears to drops a ton in value the day you drive it off the lot...but on the other side you probably got a $10K-$15K discount (which is unheard of on many imports) off the $45K window sticker.
Some folks will brag that they purchased a $45,000 car and whine that its only worth $27K a year later but they fail to consider that they paid $33K not $45K.... based on the transaction price the depreciation isnt bad but based on MSRP the depreciation is outrageous.
The salesman said he was upset with the Toyota Dealership. He quoted me a non negotiable price. It was $300 above dealer cost. It was over $2800 under MSRP. I took the deal.
They allowed me more for my Honda Odyssey trade in than I owed on it. (I had just got the Odyssey back after 4 weeks in the shop with transmission problems and wanted to get rid of it.)
It's not just American brand vehicles that get discounted.
My 1985 Ford has over 250K on it and I finally think I have it broken in.
Today I went out and it wouldn't start. On a new vehicle I would just tow it to the repair shop. Not with my old beater.
I popped the hood, looked around, found a bad wire, patched it with duct tape and off I went.
I bet I could still sell it for the $1500 I paid 10 years ago.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
One day this Texan was in TN and he stopped to talk to a guy in hay field. The Texan asked how big his place was and the Tennessean replied he had 150 acres.
The Texan said "Hell I can get my truck, drive all day, get up the next morning drive all day again, and then get up and do it a third day and still not get to the other end of my property in Texas."
The Tennessean replied "Ya I used to drive a Chevrolet truck to"
i guess it goes without saying the guys at the Chevy store tell the joke a little different then I do.
I know all the Ford and Dodge ones but never heard one for Chevy.
Chevy
Cheapest Heap Ever Visioned Yet
Can Hear Every Valve Yell
Can Hear Every Valve Yelling
Cannot Have Expensive Vehicle Yet
Chevrolet
Can Hear Every Valve Rattle On Long Extended Trips
Car Has Extensive Valve Rattle On Long Extended Trips.
Cheap Hardly Efficient Virtually Runs On Luck Every Time
Cranks Hard Every Valve Rattles Oil Leaks Every Time
Crappy Hot-Running Engines Very Rusted Out Lose Every Time
BTW Kirtstie and Tidester are going to get us for being WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY off topic
Err on topic...
Depreciation bad domestics uhhh too many rebates err yeah something like that.
I imagine I use duct tape on a lot of things I'm not suppose to.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
On topic - Some time next year, I expect my '07 Pontiac G6 with 8K miles (MSRP $22K) to be about the same resale value as my '05 Toyota Matrix 4WD XR with 40K miles (MSRP $20K). I've owned about 40 cars over 33 years and most of them were BIG 3 (American). I guess that I'm growing up, because I don't plan to trade until 2009 where I used to trade one of the three on average of every 8 months.
Both vehicles were 5 spd stick, with power windows, sunroof, power door locks, remote keyless entry, air conditioning, cruise control, alloy wheels, both had 2.0 liter engines. Both cost about the same, $14,500 for the Civic, and $15,000 for the Focus. Both were financed through respective manufacturer, Honda had 1.9% APR for 60 months, and Ford was 0% APR for 60 months.
In 2005 we decided to change to small SUV's.
I took my Civic to the Honda dealer to trade in on a 2005 CR-V. Dealer gave me $12,500 for the Civic ($20,500 for brand new CR-V EX 5 man). I owed about $8000 on the Civic by then.
Girlfriend took her Focus to Ford to trade in on the Escape. Dealer offered her $6000 for the Focus. She owed about $8000 on the Focus by then. She ended up selling it privatley for $7000, paid an extra $1000 to pay it off to release the lien.
Honda Civic: $14,500 - $12,500 = $2,000 for 2.5 years in depriciation.
Ford Focus: $15,000 - $6000 = $9,000 for 2.5 years in depriciation.
You make conclusions.
You probably paid too much for the Focus back in 2002 though.
Well, I would have to question your numbers a bit. But, I agree that it wasn't a wise finacial decision for your girlfriend to sell her Focus. She should have held onto it for another 3 or 4 years.
I have one for you though:
8 year old Olds Cutlass Supreme: Paid $1,500...owned 7 years... sold it for $750. $1,500 - $750 = $750 for 7 years depreciation. Not to bad for a domestic huh?
Was a very nice car when I bought it, not so good when I sold it.
You claim that you bought a 2002 civic for 14500 and traded it in 3 years later for 12500. A car that does a very good job of holding it's value should be at about 50% of what you paid in 3 years. If a dealer gave you 12500 for it and intended to resell it, they would have to add a shop fee of at least $500 to the cost. Add that to the standard dealership pack, and you would have about 13900 as the lowest amount they could sell it for to brake even. They would then have to find a sucker, or I mean customer willing to spend $14000 on a 3 year old car that they could buy new for 14500, just like you did. With this logic, If you would have leased the civic, your lease payment should have been around 65 bucks a month, assuming you paid your taxes. If your information concerning resale is true, Honda financial is REALLY taking advantage of the good ole American consumer.
My conclusion is this: Either your friendly Honda dealership really rang your bell on your CRV purchase, or we're being just a bit misleading with our little parable. I'm thinking it's the latter. Which Honda dealer do you work for, BTW?
While I would not do it, there are a lot of Ford Focus sold for $15k or more. The sticker on a fully loaded top-end model is $17.6k when I last entered a Ford dealership ... and that would be one of the WORST new car purchases.
I doubt Honda had that much in incentives on the Civic back then although I suppose it is possible since the SI hatchback was a very unloved vehicle.
CIVIC SI MSRP
Yes, my Si was listed on the dealer's website for $15,000 within 3 days. I assume they sold it for $14,000, it was gone from the lot a week later, when I went to check on her.
I almost always buy my Hondas when Honda has "marketing incentive." Right now Accord is a great buy, since with the incentive it is cheaper to buy a brand new Accord than it is to buy a 3 year old used one.
I bought the CR-V for $20,500, which is about $500 over dealer's cost after you factor in the "marketing incentive" Honda had on the CR-V at the end of March of 2005.
As to the Focus, the deal was either to take the rebate or get 0% financing. She chose Financing. We are not talking today, this was all done in 2002, when Ford was not in deep red as it is now.
I have one for you though:
8 year old Olds Cutlass Supreme: Paid $1,500...owned 7 years... sold it for $750. $1,500 - $750 = $750 for 7 years depreciation. Not to bad for a domestic huh?
Was a very nice car when I bought it, not so good when I sold it.
I have a better one.
Circa 1995: Bought a 1985 honda Civic DX hatchback for $1,500. It had 200,000+ miles on the clock. Drove it for 3 years, sold it for $1,600 with over 250,000 miles. $100 APPRECIATION in 3 years.
In effect, you chose 0% on the Focus instead of taking the $3000 rebate. In effect, you paid 12000 for your 2002 Focus, but you chose to take a finance incentive because the payments would be lower. Now that makes sense. 3 years later (and unknown mileage), a $6000 - $6500 trade value would be about right, using the ole 50% in 3 years for a car that does a good job of holding value rule. It does not sound to me like the Focus did that bad of a job.
As far as the Civic goes, something still doesnt sound right. First off, I'm not sure of the difference between MSRP and invoice on a Civic, but I'm thinking its probably a little less than you stated. Normally, low end cars dont have very much markup, but I'm too lazy right now to verify this point. My original point remains. If Civic were going for $14500 back in 2002, and had a trade value of $12500 3 years later, that would lead to some wierd math. First off, that would mean 3 year old Civic were selling for $500 less than new Civics (after you figure in shop costs and pack). I'm not buying that one. Secondly, it would also mean that a lease on a 2002 Civic should have run you about $65 per month on a 3 year lease. I'm thinking the lease payment on one back in 2002 was probably a little more than that.
I'm going to go out on a limb and make some assumptions as far as the Civic goes. First off, I'm thinking that in reality, It probably cost a bit more than $14500. The dealership may have told you $14500, but I'm guessing there's a couple thousand hidden in there somewhere - perhaps an ad unit? I'm also gonna take a stab at it and say that that same dealership offered you more for trade on it than anyone else, mostly due to tham sneaking an extra couple grand in on the backside of your CRV. Let's face it, though the Civic does a pretty good job with depreciation, there is no car on Earth that depriciates at a rate of $700 per year like you are claiming. Maybe a collectible car, certainly not a production car. And I'm thinking no one is collecting 2002 Civics.
Pony on up to the bar and admit you were exaggerating just a bit.......all will be forgiven.