Well, you aren't going to get hurt on the price. Worse case,you could part the car out. It is just a question of what do you want to spend to either keep it running or restore it.
kyfdx.....that's the real question....what am I going to do with it? Ideally, it would be little more than a toy the tool around in on weekends. That said, I need another toy like I need another hole in my head.
I got my driver's license at the end of the '70s, so....I guess I remember them, depending on what you ask me about them.
If I buy it, I'd probably do what the previous owner did. That is, keep it running and tool around in it for a couple of summers. Then sell it...hopefully make a little scratch on it.
I'm calling around now to see what it would cost for a new top. I've got a pretty good idea what a paint job would cost. I'm trying to find out how much seats would cost, too.
In other words, I'm not sure what I'd do with it other than to pour money into it.
Everyone around here seems to think it's a good deal, though.
volvo....I don't know that I would want to hassle with parting the car out, if it came to that. That's something that would probably be frowned upon by my neighbors....a junk car sitting in my driveway in various stages of repair or disassembly.
it REALLY depends. Now, I'd like to think I'm knowledgeable about cars and I'd probably pick the lower mileage one.
BUT, it depends on price and depends on how I'm going to drive it and for how long.
Let's say both are the same price, for the sake of comparison. If I were going to own it for 2 years and drive 30k miles per year, the lower mileage one is the no-brainer. In 2 years, I'd have either a 7-year-old car with 120k miles or a 5-year-old car with 150k miles. I bet you the 7-year-old car would fetch more at that point. Unless its a Honda, Yota, or maybe subaru (in your case), crossing 150k is the kiss of death. ALSO, if I was going to drive it till the wheels fell off, I'm getting an extra year of driving out of the older car at 30k per year.
Now, on the other hand, if I drove 10k per year and would own the car for a few years, the newer higher mileage one is probably the better bet.
Having said all that, the older one is probably cheaper, right? So that's another mark in its favor.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
hi, i am looking to trade in my 2002 chevy trailblazer ls 2wd with 63,500 miles. it is dark blue no body damage or rust-no accidents-tires are 3 months old. interior is clean-no stains -overall just normal 5 year old vehicle in good condition. have maintenance records of oil changes and tire rotations. what can i expect for a trade on a more fuel efficient vehicle? i checked edmunds,kelley blue book and nada guides and they all range between edmunds low of $8500 and kelleys $8970. i know with the price of gas its value is going down. thanks
well, you ain't gonna like this, but that's a $6500 rig here in the northeast. It would be $9k only if it had 4WD. maybe the experts will have better news for you.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
that is so low i would have to keep her and just not drive much. on all of the websites i did put in 2wd-hope someone else posts numbers for me but thanks.
Location: Columbus, GA (100 mi SW of Atlanta on the AL line--not rural GA, but not Atlanta. If you've heard of Bill Heard Chevrolet, AFLAC or Fort Benning, that is Columbus) Model: 2005 Saturn VUE 4 cylinder, 5 speed, front wheel drive; under 21,000 miles, serviced exclusively at Saturn of Columbus every 3 months on their Car Care plan Color: Silver exterior, gray cloth interior Options: Alloy wheels, roof rack cross bars, auto dimming rear view mirror with compass and external temperature, heated front seats, power driver seat, automatic headlights Condition: Exterior--a couple minor scratches, but no dings or dents thanks to the polymer panels; Interior--nothing a good detailing could not handle. No cuts or rips. Tires: Original, less than 21k mi on them, rotated every other service at the dealer Brakes: Original, had checked at the last service as they were squeaking a little, found to be in very good shape, dealer cleaned them and the sqeak stopped. Maintenance: As stated earlier, every 3 months regardless of mileage driven in that time. Other: No damage, wrecks, salvage titles, nothing. (knocking on wood)
Three internet sites (including this one) put a trade-in value at about $11,600. Local VW dealer offered $8300 in a trade for a new Passat. About what can I expect?
that seems awfully low to me-but of course i am biased. i love the trailblazer-haven't had any problems with her and she is comfy too. i figure the honda dealer is gonna get me if i walk in to trade her in-and tell me what a gas guzzler she is when they have ridgelines and pilots sitting all over their lot. same story with toyota too-even though they also have their share of gas guzzlers. i just can't believe my car is only worth$6,000?
Looking to buy a 2002 Toyota Echo from a private party.
Location: Las Vegas 2002 Toyota Echo 4 door sedan automatic 38,000 miles (it was an extra car and they didn't drive it as often as they thought they would, she says) White exterior/gray interior air conditioning, AM/FM/cassette/CD, air bags, split rear seat Exterior scratch on bumper; otherwise it's reported to be in excellent condition. Don't know about condition of tires or brakes. Reported to be well-maintained and never in an accident.
She is asking $8000 firm, which is Blue Book. It's been for sale for a month. Edmunds and NADA say about $7150. I would agree with them but there are so few of these kinds of cars around, and the ads that I've seen usually have older cars with more miles for the same amount of money.
We're looking for a 5-7 year old Toyota or Honda level of quality car with excellent gas mileage for around $6000, which apparently is an impossible dream. We looked at Echoes for the excellent mileage and because they tended to be cheaper than Corollas or Civics. But if you think there are other models I should be looking at that are just as good as a Toyota or Honda, please say so.
Also, is 38,000 miles on a 5 year old car something to be cautious about?
I tend to put a lot of miles on my cars. I have long commute plus love to go to the mountains often. So, it's about 25K per year for me, give or take.
I'm trying to find a good balance between usage of the car and getting decent $$$ for it in private sale (or maybe trade-in)
Although I've successfully sold my car recently with 167K miles on it, it has become clear to me that most buyers are simply too scared to buy a car with that high mileage on it, no matter how clean and nice.
I'm now driving a new car. What would be the optimum time to sell it and at the same time to get a good usage out of it?
I'm guessing, I should be selling it privately when it hits 90K miles (the car will be 3.5 yr old at that time)?
38k miles on a five year old car is relatively low mileage.
Personally, the real question is whether I would pay $8k for a 2002 Echo or just go ahead and pay about $13k for a brand new Toyota Yaris which is a lot nicer vehicle. With the new car, you get the warranty.
If you buy a used car, remember to take the car to your trusted mechanic and have it checked out to make sure that it has not been used.
That it has been up for sale 30 days is an indication that it might be overpriced.
Hello. I was wondering if I could have the trade-in/private sale value for my car. Thanks in advance, Angel
Location: Sacramento, CA Year/Make/Model: 2006, Subuar Impreza 2.5 Wagon Body Style: 4dr Wagon Engine: 2.5i 4 cylinder Driveline: AWD Mileage: 17000 Color: ext/int: Grey Major Options: mudguards, fog lights, bumper protector, cargo net. Condition: Interior: Good Exterior: Good. Couple of small dings probably made by a door at a parking lot. Tires - about 10k on them (had snow tires rest of time) Brakes - good Maintenance - have records. Always done at dealer. Other: No damage, no accidents, clean title
In other words, I'm not sure what I'd do with it other than to pour money into it.
What else is there to do, with most 30-40 y.o. cars? I'm totally not a vintage VW expert tho......what would a mint condition one cost? I think (?) the '60s Beatles are more collectible.
IMO a vintage bug is a worthwhile car to buy--but maybe pick your year & condition before buying. My amateur opinion---buy & drive it "as is"--& don't pour $$ into it--or else, look, & pay, for a nicer one.....
You had the right idea when you kept your previous car for 167K miles. Studies have shown that if you're after the lowest possible cost per mile, you should drive your car into the ground.
Don't worry about resale value. A car with high resale value is a car with plenty of life in it. Why, then, should you sell it & let someone else get the benefit of those remaining miles?
In my case, safety and performance were still great, but I was getting concerned with potential cost of major repairs to come (eventually) that would effectively negate the whole residual value of my car.
I'm just trying to find that balance where risk of major repair is still low but the car has already served me long enough.
I'd say, impossible to say w/o knowing the make, model, service history, & most importantly, what's the price? You might find a great deal on a 90K mile car with perfect maintainence, or a too-- high price on the same car with 60K.
As a kind of "low mileage buff", I've found that when I've sold my 7-10 y.o. cars that have low miles, the low miles almost transcend the age, & people will really pay a premium (private party, not trade in to a dealer).
Generally, I'd vote for the lower mileage vehicle, but "it all depends".....
Might want to also think about safety, convenience, performance, etc.
Safety, yes. One should always take safety into consideration when deciding whether or not to replace one's car. But convenience? Why should this matter?
Suppose I have a fully paid-for 6-yo car that runs well & looks good but that has, say, manual controls for the heating & A/C. Should I replace it simply because it doesn't have automatic climate control?
Then again, I've been hanging around Edmunds since 1998, & I've read some crazy stuff. One post that sticks in my mind asked about trading in a 6-month-old car for the identical model in a different color -- simply because the poster had come to hate the color of his car.
So I wasn't surprised to read in yesterday's Wall St. Journal that more new car buyers than ever are rolling negative equity into their purchases. We've become a nation of payment buyers. We'd rather pay interest than receive it.
Ateixeira's reply is absolutely right. Don't forget that depreciation destroys more wealth than post-warranty repair costs. And depreciation is most vicious during the 1st 4 years of a car's life.
Suppose I have a 5-yo car that cost me $25K when new in 2002 & is now worth $9.5K. If I decide to keep it, that car will be worth about 10% less a year from now, which means that depreciation will cost me about $950. If, instead of keeping my 2002 car, I spend $25K on a new 2007 model because I want a warranty, I can count on losing at least $5K over the next 12 months to depreciation. (New cars shed at least 20% of their value in the 1st year.) In short, that warranty has cost me over $4K. Unless I'm certain that repairs on my old car would've cost me at least that much, I would have been better off keeping it for another year. (And we haven't even mentioned the interest expense & possibly higher insurance premiums associated with buying a new car.)
Depreciation is your biggest enemy. It's usually cheaper to fix what you already own.
"And depreciation is most vicious during the 1st 4 years of a car's life. "
No-not-necessarily-it-depends-on-the-car.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record.
Drivers of Minis, or the Honda Fit, or some other hot items early in the model cycle might disagree with your assessment.
Honda Civics and Accords also have an absolutely flat depreciation curve... I'll take the early part of that, minus the more expensive maintenance items that don't crop up until later. -Mathias
That link takes me to a graph which does not show a depreciation curve.
Instead, the graph shows (average?)retail price, auction price and mileage values for certain model years of Accords relative to other model years of Accords. That does not display depreciation. To show depreciation, a model year would be identified by original cost (MSRP or TMV or invoice or actual sale price) and then show the auction value or used car value for each year going forward as the car ages. It would show how the value of that particular model year car decreases over time.
So far as I can tell, that link's graph only shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next and what the average mileages on used Accords are. Seems like a good title for the graph would be "ACCORD PRICE INCREASES AND AVERAGE (USED CAR) MILEAGES FOR MODEL YEARS 1995 THROUGH 2006 AS OF JUNE, 2006"
Or am I missing something here?
And even then, no line on there is a straight line.
That link takes me to a graph which does not show a depreciation curve.
To show depreciation on an '06 Accord, we'd have to wait 5 years or so. I suggest we do that and meet here again. Is ten p.m. good for you?
Instead, the graph shows (average?)retail price, auction price and mileage values for certain model years of Accords relative to other model years of Accords.
It shows me, when I'm in the market for a midsize sedan, how much money I save by buying an older version of the same car.
That is how I decide whether to go new or used.
I will put to you, without proof, that the price for a new Accord LX has changed very little over the life of this model.
[..]shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next [..]
It shows no such thing. Look at it carefully again.
And even then, no line on there is a straight line.
I'm talking about the blue curve here. Take a ruler and run a straight line as nearly through the points as you can from 2006 to 200. The actual points deviate by at most $2-300 on either side. That's as straight as a curve like this is going to be. These are real-life values from three months or so of sales in late summer/fall.
I invite you to draw up a graph like this for a Lincoln Ls, say. It would resemble a falling exponential. THAT'S what people think car depreciation in general looks like.
Having owned Hondas on & off since 1974, I'll agree that buying them used doesn't always make sense. If you can afford a 2-yo Accord, chances are pretty good that you can swing a new one.
But my Honda experience has taught me that these cars are excellent candidates for the drive-'em-into-the-ground approach to vehicle ownership. I once kept an Accord for just a couple of months shy of 12 years. Repairs during the last full year set me back all of $960 - mostly for A/C & suspension work. (That's $80/month for those among us who think in terms of payments.) I would've kept it for another year or 2, but rust had set in because I had stupidly neglected to repair minor collision damage, & my wife wanted the car out of our driveway for purely aesthetic reasons. It was in tip-top running condition, though, & I sold it in 1 day.
Anyway, I understood the OP to be asking "How long should I keep the car that I own?" as opposed to "What should I buy & how should I buy it -- new or used?"
(Disclaimer: All of my Hondas have been sticks, so I've never had to face big transmission repair bills.)
People have different priorities. So what? Some prefer performance over safety, or convenience over beauty. Why shouldn't convenience matter? It's up to each person.
I couldn't agree more, Joe. It is up to each person. You're absolutely right about that.
But if your quest for convenience (or beauty or any other quality that you hold dear) leads you to frequently trade into new cars, you will pay an economic price. Depreciation (& interest expense, unless you're paying cash) will beat you up. That's a financial fact of life.
It is your right to do this, however. You won't hear me argue about that.
Me: [..] graph shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next [..]
You: It shows no such thing. Look at it carefully again.
Me: Yes, the blue and yellow lines show the increase in prices, both retail and auction, from model year 1995 to model year 2006. But it is not the brand new car price increases that are shown, it is the used retail prices and used auction prices. As an example, I read the graph to show a model year 2000 Accord with 105,000 miles will have a retail price of $7,200 and an auction price of $6,000. A 2002 Accord with 61,000 miles has an auction price of $9,600 and a used retail price of $11,100. Is that the way you interpret the graph too? If so, then you can easily see that moving up two model years results in a price increases of about $3,600 at auction and $3,900 at retail. Right? See what I mean? The graph shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next.
Now if you really want to show a depreciation curve, for let's say, a 1995 Accord, it would be not be so difficult. Start with the MSRP when new (or the actual average sale price if you want) and then plot the used retail and auction prices on every one year anniversery of the original purchase date. Connect the dots and see if you have a straight line. (You won't.)
anyway, maybe it does show that prices overall have crept up year to year, but the key to me was how the new one had the same gradual depreciation as a used one. That is, the differential stayed reasonably constant.
So, while I had to pay a (relatively) smaller amount for a new one, it held it's advantage over the years. So when I sold, I essentially recouped my initial investment, while also driving a new car with warranty longer (or as Mathais says, I am buying the "best years").
so pay 18K new, sell for 10K in 6 years (ballpark), or buy 2 YO for 16K and sell in 6 years (8 total) for 8K. Costs you 8K depreciation either way.
I think that was the point of th eexercise, right? Hope so, since I bought a new Accord 12/05, at a big discount, and it would be nice if it held it's value for me!
Austin, TX 97 Toyota SR5 3.4L V6 Auto RWD 142,000 Dark Red with Grey Wheel Trim and Bumpers Leather (lower front seats recovered with pleather=vinyl), alloys, power windows, trailor hitch, roof rack, running boards, upgraded stereo and speakers, cruise, A/C Interior and Exterior average to good for age Tires - new, 5K Brakes - 75% remaining Maint - all timing and drive belts, fluids, filters replaced at 115K, shocks/struts replaced at 125K No damage or repaint, a few dings but still shines No mechanical issues
Both KBB and Edmunds has trade in at $4760. Is this likely?
It is a Toyota SR5 something..... 4Runner, in the header but not the body of the post.
Toyotas sometimes get big money. But that is not a vehicle most dealers will want to put a lot of $$ into due to the age and miles. Try selling it yourself for all the money.
I have a 1999 Honda CRV, and it has right at 100,000 miles on it. The KBB private party value is around $7500 and the Trade In value is around $6300. It is the EX line, all wheel drive, cd player, automatic, and its in just about as good a shape as a 99 car can be. My wife keeps it extremely clean on the inside. We're looking to sell it/trade it in. What kind of prices do you think I should expect? Is KBB anywhere close on this one?
Following a suggestion made to me in the "How to get the best deal" thread, I'm trying to get a read on what the current trade-in values are for clean, lower mileage VW Bug Convertibles in nice bold colors (blue, red, green) as a gauge on what I can bargain against. I hope to buy a used VW Beetle convertible sometime in the next few months - but I'm flexible on time.
I'm open to manuals/automatics, lower than 30k mileage. I'm hoping to stay as close to 15k as possible. Am I pipe dreaming? How significant is the difference between what I will pay now for a convertible vs. buying in Aug/Sept?
Thanks in advance for any help - sorry for the threadjack.
Comments
Worse case,you could part the car out.
It is just a question of what do you want to spend to either keep it running or restore it.
I got my driver's license at the end of the '70s, so....I guess I remember them, depending on what you ask me about them.
If I buy it, I'd probably do what the previous owner did. That is, keep it running and tool around in it for a couple of summers. Then sell it...hopefully make a little scratch on it.
I'm calling around now to see what it would cost for a new top. I've got a pretty good idea what a paint job would cost. I'm trying to find out how much seats would cost, too.
In other words, I'm not sure what I'd do with it other than to pour money into it.
Everyone around here seems to think it's a good deal, though.
volvo....I don't know that I would want to hassle with parting the car out, if it came to that. That's something that would probably be frowned upon by my neighbors....a junk car sitting in my driveway in various stages of repair or disassembly.
Thanks!
BUT, it depends on price and depends on how I'm going to drive it and for how long.
Let's say both are the same price, for the sake of comparison. If I were going to own it for 2 years and drive 30k miles per year, the lower mileage one is the no-brainer. In 2 years, I'd have either a 7-year-old car with 120k miles or a 5-year-old car with 150k miles. I bet you the 7-year-old car would fetch more at that point. Unless its a Honda, Yota, or maybe subaru (in your case), crossing 150k is the kiss of death. ALSO, if I was going to drive it till the wheels fell off, I'm getting an extra year of driving out of the older car at 30k per year.
Now, on the other hand, if I drove 10k per year and would own the car for a few years, the newer higher mileage one is probably the better bet.
Having said all that, the older one is probably cheaper, right? So that's another mark in its favor.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Its not a bad car either it just has the perception of being a gas guzzler.
pssst... i actually did give the high number because i don't wanna be the bad guy.
book says something like $5800-$6600.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Model: 2005 Saturn VUE 4 cylinder, 5 speed, front wheel drive; under 21,000 miles, serviced exclusively at Saturn of Columbus every 3 months on their Car Care plan
Color: Silver exterior, gray cloth interior
Options: Alloy wheels, roof rack cross bars, auto dimming rear view mirror with compass and external temperature, heated front seats, power driver seat, automatic headlights
Condition: Exterior--a couple minor scratches, but no dings or dents thanks to the polymer panels; Interior--nothing a good detailing could not handle. No cuts or rips.
Tires: Original, less than 21k mi on them, rotated every other service at the dealer
Brakes: Original, had checked at the last service as they were squeaking a little, found to be in very good shape, dealer cleaned them and the sqeak stopped.
Maintenance: As stated earlier, every 3 months regardless of mileage driven in that time.
Other: No damage, wrecks, salvage titles, nothing. (knocking on wood)
Three internet sites (including this one) put a trade-in value at about $11,600. Local VW dealer offered $8300 in a trade for a new Passat. About what can I expect?
Location: Las Vegas
2002 Toyota Echo
4 door sedan
automatic
38,000 miles (it was an extra car and they didn't drive it as often as they thought they would, she says)
White exterior/gray interior
air conditioning, AM/FM/cassette/CD, air bags, split rear seat
Exterior scratch on bumper; otherwise it's reported to be in excellent condition. Don't know about condition of tires or brakes. Reported to be well-maintained and never in an accident.
She is asking $8000 firm, which is Blue Book. It's been for sale for a month. Edmunds and NADA say about $7150. I would agree with them but there are so few of these kinds of cars around, and the ads that I've seen usually have older cars with more miles for the same amount of money.
We're looking for a 5-7 year old Toyota or Honda level of quality car with excellent gas mileage for around $6000, which apparently is an impossible dream. We looked at Echoes for the excellent mileage and because they tended to be cheaper than Corollas or Civics. But if you think there are other models I should be looking at that are just as good as a Toyota or Honda, please say so.
Also, is 38,000 miles on a 5 year old car something to be cautious about?
I'm trying to find a good balance between usage of the car and getting decent $$$ for it in private sale (or maybe trade-in)
Although I've successfully sold my car recently with 167K miles on it, it has become clear to me that most buyers are simply too scared to buy a car with that high mileage on it, no matter how clean and nice.
I'm now driving a new car. What would be the optimum time to sell it and at the same time to get a good usage out of it?
I'm guessing, I should be selling it privately when it hits 90K miles (the car will be 3.5 yr old at that time)?
Will it trade well at that point?
Any other suggestions?
Personally, the real question is whether I would pay $8k for a 2002 Echo or just go ahead and pay about $13k for a brand new Toyota Yaris which is a lot nicer vehicle. With the new car, you get the warranty.
If you buy a used car, remember to take the car to your trusted mechanic and have it checked out to make sure that it has not been used.
That it has been up for sale 30 days is an indication that it might be overpriced.
all you can do is try to trade it and see what happens. at least now you are prepared for the low number.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Thanks in advance,
Angel
Location: Sacramento, CA
Year/Make/Model: 2006, Subuar Impreza 2.5 Wagon
Body Style: 4dr Wagon
Engine: 2.5i 4 cylinder
Driveline: AWD
Mileage: 17000
Color: ext/int: Grey
Major Options: mudguards, fog lights, bumper protector, cargo net.
Condition:
Interior: Good
Exterior: Good. Couple of small dings probably made by a door at a parking lot.
Tires - about 10k on them (had snow tires rest of time)
Brakes - good
Maintenance - have records. Always done at dealer.
Other: No damage, no accidents, clean title
What else is there to do, with most 30-40 y.o. cars? I'm totally not a vintage VW expert tho......what would a mint condition one cost? I think (?) the '60s Beatles are more collectible.
IMO a vintage bug is a worthwhile car to buy--but maybe pick your year & condition before buying. My amateur opinion---buy & drive it "as is"--& don't pour $$ into it--or else, look, & pay, for a nicer one.....
Don't worry about resale value. A car with high resale value is a car with plenty of life in it. Why, then, should you sell it & let someone else get the benefit of those remaining miles?
Who was it who said penny-wise but pound-foolish? It just might apply here. Might want to also think about safety, convenience, performance, etc.
I'm just trying to find that balance where risk of major repair is still low but the car has already served me long enough.
As a kind of "low mileage buff", I've found that when I've sold my 7-10 y.o. cars that have low miles, the low miles almost transcend the age, & people will really pay a premium (private party, not trade in to a dealer).
Generally, I'd vote for the lower mileage vehicle, but "it all depends".....
I bought a '93 Miata 5 years ago for $7800. I figure I could still private party that bad boy for $3-4 grand, as it's very clean and low miles.
Just maintenance and gas, and $460 for a new top. Cost per mile is next to nothing for me. :shades:
Safety, yes. One should always take safety into consideration when deciding whether or not to replace one's car. But convenience? Why should this matter?
Suppose I have a fully paid-for 6-yo car that runs well & looks good but that has, say, manual controls for the heating & A/C. Should I replace it simply because it doesn't have automatic climate control?
Then again, I've been hanging around Edmunds since 1998, & I've read some crazy stuff. One post that sticks in my mind asked about trading in a 6-month-old car for the identical model in a different color -- simply because the poster had come to hate the color of his car.
So I wasn't surprised to read in yesterday's Wall St. Journal that more new car buyers than ever are rolling negative equity into their purchases. We've become a nation of payment buyers. We'd rather pay interest than receive it.
Suppose I have a 5-yo car that cost me $25K when new in 2002 & is now worth $9.5K. If I decide to keep it, that car will be worth about 10% less a year from now, which means that depreciation will cost me about $950. If, instead of keeping my 2002 car, I spend $25K on a new 2007 model because I want a warranty, I can count on losing at least $5K over the next 12 months to depreciation. (New cars shed at least 20% of their value in the 1st year.) In short, that warranty has cost me over $4K. Unless I'm certain that repairs on my old car would've cost me at least that much, I would have been better off keeping it for another year. (And we haven't even mentioned the interest expense & possibly higher insurance premiums associated with buying a new car.)
Depreciation is your biggest enemy. It's usually cheaper to fix what you already own.
Some prefer performance over safety, or convenience over beauty.
Why shouldn't convenience matter? It's up to each person.
No-not-necessarily-it-depends-on-the-car.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record.
Drivers of Minis, or the Honda Fit, or some other hot items early in the model cycle might disagree with your assessment.
Honda Civics and Accords also have an absolutely flat depreciation curve... I'll take the early part of that, minus the more expensive maintenance items that don't crop up until later.
-Mathias
Flat? Level? Straight line? Horizontal?
What do you mean? Could you post a picture of that?
I have posted this before:
steine13, "Stories from the Sales Frontlines" #4024, 13 Oct 2006 7:06 pm
-Mathias
Instead, the graph shows (average?)retail price, auction price and mileage values for certain model years of Accords relative to other model years of Accords. That does not display depreciation.
To show depreciation, a model year would be identified by original cost (MSRP or TMV or invoice or actual sale price) and then show the auction value or used car value for each year going forward as the car ages. It would show how the value of that particular model year car decreases over time.
So far as I can tell, that link's graph only shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next and what the average mileages on used Accords are.
Seems like a good title for the graph would be "ACCORD PRICE INCREASES AND AVERAGE (USED CAR) MILEAGES FOR MODEL YEARS 1995 THROUGH 2006 AS OF JUNE, 2006"
Or am I missing something here?
And even then, no line on there is a straight line.
To show depreciation on an '06 Accord, we'd have to wait 5 years or so. I suggest we do that and meet here again. Is ten p.m. good for you?
Instead, the graph shows (average?)retail price, auction price and mileage values for certain model years of Accords relative to other model years of Accords.
It shows me, when I'm in the market for a midsize sedan, how much money I save by buying an older version of the same car.
That is how I decide whether to go new or used.
I will put to you, without proof, that the price for a new Accord LX has changed very little over the life of this model.
[..]shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next [..]
It shows no such thing. Look at it carefully again.
And even then, no line on there is a straight line.
I'm talking about the blue curve here. Take a ruler and run a straight line as nearly through the points as you can from 2006 to 200. The actual points deviate by at most $2-300 on either side. That's as straight as a curve like this is going to be. These are real-life values from three months or so of sales in late summer/fall.
I invite you to draw up a graph like this for a Lincoln Ls, say. It would resemble a falling exponential. THAT'S what people think car depreciation in general looks like.
You wouldn't be putting me on, would you?
-Mathias
But my Honda experience has taught me that these cars are excellent candidates for the drive-'em-into-the-ground approach to vehicle ownership. I once kept an Accord for just a couple of months shy of 12 years. Repairs during the last full year set me back all of $960 - mostly for A/C & suspension work. (That's $80/month for those among us who think in terms of payments.) I would've kept it for another year or 2, but rust had set in because I had stupidly neglected to repair minor collision damage, & my wife wanted the car out of our driveway for purely aesthetic reasons. It was in tip-top running condition, though, & I sold it in 1 day.
Anyway, I understood the OP to be asking "How long should I keep the car that I own?" as opposed to "What should I buy & how should I buy it -- new or used?"
(Disclaimer: All of my Hondas have been sticks, so I've never had to face big transmission repair bills.)
Some prefer performance over safety, or convenience over beauty.
Why shouldn't convenience matter? It's up to each person.
I couldn't agree more, Joe. It is up to each person. You're absolutely right about that.
But if your quest for convenience (or beauty or any other quality that you hold dear) leads you to frequently trade into new cars, you will pay an economic price. Depreciation (& interest expense, unless you're paying cash) will beat you up. That's a financial fact of life.
It is your right to do this, however. You won't hear me argue about that.
You: It shows no such thing. Look at it carefully again.
Me: Yes, the blue and yellow lines show the increase in prices, both retail and auction, from model year 1995 to model year 2006. But it is not the brand new car price increases that are shown, it is the used retail prices and used auction prices.
As an example, I read the graph to show a model year 2000 Accord with 105,000 miles will have a retail price of $7,200 and an auction price of $6,000. A 2002 Accord with 61,000 miles has an auction price of $9,600 and a used retail price of $11,100.
Is that the way you interpret the graph too? If so, then you can easily see that moving up two model years results in a price increases of about $3,600 at auction and $3,900 at retail. Right?
See what I mean? The graph shows how Accords have increased in price from one model year to the next.
Now if you really want to show a depreciation curve, for let's say, a 1995 Accord, it would be not be so difficult. Start with the MSRP when new (or the actual average sale price if you want) and then plot the used retail and auction prices on every one year anniversery of the original purchase date. Connect the dots and see if you have a straight line. (You won't.)
anyway, maybe it does show that prices overall have crept up year to year, but the key to me was how the new one had the same gradual depreciation as a used one. That is, the differential stayed reasonably constant.
So, while I had to pay a (relatively) smaller amount for a new one, it held it's advantage over the years. So when I sold, I essentially recouped my initial investment, while also driving a new car with warranty longer (or as Mathais says, I am buying the "best years").
so pay 18K new, sell for 10K in 6 years (ballpark), or buy 2 YO for 16K and sell in 6 years (8 total) for 8K. Costs you 8K depreciation either way.
I think that was the point of th eexercise, right? Hope so, since I bought a new Accord 12/05, at a big discount, and it would be nice if it held it's value for me!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
97 Toyota SR5
3.4L V6 Auto
RWD
142,000
Dark Red with Grey Wheel Trim and Bumpers
Leather (lower front seats recovered with pleather=vinyl), alloys, power windows, trailor hitch, roof rack, running boards, upgraded stereo and speakers, cruise, A/C
Interior and Exterior average to good for age
Tires - new, 5K
Brakes - 75% remaining
Maint - all timing and drive belts, fluids, filters replaced at 115K, shocks/struts replaced at 125K
No damage or repaint, a few dings but still shines
No mechanical issues
Both KBB and Edmunds has trade in at $4760. Is this likely?
4Runner, in the header but not the body of the post.
Toyotas sometimes get big money. But that is not a vehicle most dealers will want to put a lot of $$ into due to the age and miles. Try selling it yourself for all the money.
That was indeed the point I was trying to make.
Thank you. I was beginning to get a little exasperated.
-Mathias
I'm open to manuals/automatics, lower than 30k mileage. I'm hoping to stay as close to 15k as possible. Am I pipe dreaming? How significant is the difference between what I will pay now for a convertible vs. buying in Aug/Sept?
Thanks in advance for any help - sorry for the threadjack.