Which To Buy?

On Mar 6, 5:16 am, "Robert" > wrote:
> What were the three Japanese cars and what was the American car? Are
> the Japs even Hondas? Or are we comparing 80s Civics to an '07
> Cadillac or Lincoln?

02 Legacy with 92k miles to 03 Taurus with 95k miles.
The former expired the engine at 166k while the latter
made it to the same mileage needing no major repairs.
I don't think I spent over $1k over 70k miles of the taurus.
Fair enough? With one driven wheel civics are simpler
and probably way more reliable than subarus,
but still not indestructible as the prices
for the used ones would suggest.
Repeat after me: used jap cars are WAY overprices compared
to the american cars. Ironically, the reverse is true for
new cars. I can't think of any american car for under $45k
that is a good value when new.

On Mar 6, 7:57 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:16 am, "Robert" > wrote:
>
> > What were the three Japanese cars and what was the American car? Are
> > the Japs even Hondas? Or are we comparing 80s Civics to an '07
> > Cadillac or Lincoln?
>
> 02 Legacy with 92k miles to 03 Taurus with 95k miles.

er, 92 and 93: I don't drive THAT much :-)

> The former expired the engine at 166k while the latter
> made it to the same mileage needing no major repairs.
> I don't think I spent over $1k over 70k miles of the taurus.
> Fair enough? With one driven wheel civics are simpler
> and probably way more reliable than subarus,
> but still not indestructible as the prices
> for the used ones would suggest.
> Repeat after me: used jap cars are WAY overprices compared
> to the american cars. Ironically, the reverse is true for
> new cars. I can't think of any american car for under $45k
> that is a good value when new.

On Mar 6, 10:57 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:16 am, "Robert" > wrote:
>
> > What were the three Japanese cars and what was the American car? Are
> > the Japs even Hondas? Or are we comparing 80s Civics to an '07
> > Cadillac or Lincoln?
>
> 02 Legacy with 92k miles to 03 Taurus with 95k miles.
> The former expired the engine at 166k while the latter
> made it to the same mileage needing no major repairs.
> I don't think I spent over $1k over 70k miles of the taurus.
> Fair enough? With one driven wheel civics are simpler
> and probably way more reliable than subarus,
> but still not indestructible as the prices
> for the used ones would suggest.
> Repeat after me: used jap cars are WAY overprices compared
> to the american cars. Ironically, the reverse is true for
> new cars. I can't think of any american car for under $45k
> that is a good value when new.

OK, that cleared a lot up. I agree. Used Japanese cars are overpriced,
perhaps due to the stereotype of the American cars. And I also agree
with your statement on new cars -- but I do have a soft spot for the
big rear-wheel-drive Crown Vics/Grand Marquis. A 1996 Merc Grand
Marquis Bayshore is my current daily driver!

On Mar 7, 6:48 am, "Robert" > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:57 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 5:16 am, "Robert" > wrote:
>
> > > What were the three Japanese cars and what was the American car? Are
> > > the Japs even Hondas? Or are we comparing 80s Civics to an '07
> > > Cadillac or Lincoln?
>
> > 02 Legacy with 92k miles to 03 Taurus with 95k miles.
> > The former expired the engine at 166k while the latter
> > made it to the same mileage needing no major repairs.
> > I don't think I spent over $1k over 70k miles of the taurus.
> > Fair enough? With one driven wheel civics are simpler
> > and probably way more reliable than subarus,
> > but still not indestructible as the prices
> > for the used ones would suggest.
> > Repeat after me: used jap cars are WAY overprices compared
> > to the american cars. Ironically, the reverse is true for
> > new cars. I can't think of any american car for under $45k
> > that is a good value when new.
>
> OK, that cleared a lot up. I agree. Used Japanese cars are overpriced,
> perhaps due to the stereotype of the American cars. And I also agree
> with your statement on new cars -- but I do have a soft spot for the
> big rear-wheel-drive Crown Vics/Grand Marquis. A 1996 Merc Grand
> Marquis Bayshore is my current daily driver!

I forgot about those. They probably are indispensible to cop
due to ability to withstand abuse better than the japs.

I can't picture cops going over curbs at any decent speed
in accord. Not to mention that a police turn in an fwd car
would be an interesting feat to watch :-)

But I can't picture myself in a crown vic (except maybe in
the back after having too much fun in my jap cars

Solstice probably would not have been bad if it were not so
heavy. Good enough for midwest I guess.

In article .com>,
"Robert" > wrote:

> OK, that cleared a lot up. I agree. Used Japanese cars are overpriced,
> perhaps due to the stereotype of the American cars.
That reminds me of when a lady friend asked me for advise when buying a
new car in 1994.
She liked both the Taurus and Honda Accord which cost a bit more, but
she told me the Honda dealer told her the Taurus would be worth much
less in 3 years.
I asked her how long she intended to keep the car, she replied about 10
years. Then I said there will be little difference in value.
She bought the '94 Taurus which has served her very well and which she
still drives daily.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:46:16 +0000, who wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Robert" > wrote:
>
>> OK, that cleared a lot up. I agree. Used Japanese cars are overpriced,
>> perhaps due to the stereotype of the American cars.
> That reminds me of when a lady friend asked me for advise when buying a
> new car in 1994.
> She liked both the Taurus and Honda Accord which cost a bit more, but
> she told me the Honda dealer told her the Taurus would be worth much
> less in 3 years.
> I asked her how long she intended to keep the car, she replied about 10
> years. Then I said there will be little difference in value.
> She bought the '94 Taurus which has served her very well and which she
> still drives daily.

1994 Accord EX $2736
1994 Taurus LX $754

These are the current private-party values for those 2 cars. The Honda
is still worth significantly more. If she were to trade in her Ford right
now, she'd get a paltry $323 for it from the dealer.

"Joe LaVigne" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:46:16 +0000, who wrote:

> 1994 Accord EX $2736
> 1994 Taurus LX $754
> These are the current private-party values for those 2 cars. The
> Honda
> is still worth significantly more. If she were to trade in her Ford
> right
> now, she'd get a paltry $323 for it from the dealer.

You realize you are comparing the mid-line Taurus to the top of the
line Accord - right? Hardly seems fair. And I think your numbers are
wrong besides.

I just went to KBB.COM and got the follwoing numbers:

1994 Taurus LX 3.0L V-6 (base engine) with popular options (PW. PB,
PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private Party
Value - $2,210 (the bottom of the line GL with similar equipment is
worth around $300 less, the top of the line SHO is worth about $600
more, which makes it worth more than the top of the line Acccord EX
according to your numbers).

1994 Honda Accord LX 2.2L four (base engine) with popular options (PW.
PB, PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private
Party Value - $3,825 (and the LX is the mid grade Accord, the bottom
of the line DX with similar equipment is about $400 less).

Edmunds.com has a "true cost to own" calcualtor. I doubt it is a great
predictor of the future, but it is fun to play with. See
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController . They don't let
you go back more than 4 years with used cars, but here are the
caluculations for a 2003 Taurus vs a 2003 Accord -

2003 Taurus LX - $0.36 per mile
2003 Accord LX - $0.37 per mile

They include depreciation, financing, insurance, etc in the
calculation.

For a new car here are the numbers:

2007 Ford Fusion S Sedan - $0.45 per mile (total depreciation in five
years $11,364)
2007 Honda Accord LX - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
$10,704)
2007 Toyota Camry CE - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
$10,328)

This is based on buying the car new and keeping it for 5 years and
driving 15,000 miles per year. Clearly the lower depreciation rate
predicition for the Accord makes the Accord cheaper to own if you only
keep your car for 5 years or less. However, if you keep it for 13
years or more, the situation will reverse and the Ford will be
cheaper. Edmunds also makes assumptions on maintenance costs and
repair costs that may or may not be accurate. For instance, they show
the mainenance cost for the Accord to be slightly less than for the
Fusion and a lot less than for the Camry). I assume this is based
mostly on Honda's recommended service intervasl that allows for much
longer oil change intervals. I am not sure that most Honda owners
actually go with the long oil change intervals, so I am not sure this
is realistic.

I think the more important point is that if you are going for cheap -
buy used.

Ed

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:51:17 -0400, C. E. White wrote:

> "Joe LaVigne" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:46:16 +0000, who wrote:
>
>> 1994 Accord EX $2736
>> 1994 Taurus LX $754
>> These are the current private-party values for those 2 cars. The
>> Honda
>> is still worth significantly more. If she were to trade in her Ford
>> right
>> now, she'd get a paltry $323 for it from the dealer.
>
> You realize you are comparing the mid-line Taurus to the top of the
> line Accord - right? Hardly seems fair. And I think your numbers are
> wrong besides.
>
> I just went to KBB.COM and got the follwoing numbers:
>
> 1994 Taurus LX 3.0L V-6 (base engine) with popular options (PW. PB,
> PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private Party
> Value - $2,210 (the bottom of the line GL with similar equipment is
> worth around $300 less, the top of the line SHO is worth about $600
> more, which makes it worth more than the top of the line Acccord EX
> according to your numbers).
>
> 1994 Honda Accord LX 2.2L four (base engine) with popular options (PW.
> PB, PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private
> Party Value - $3,825 (and the LX is the mid grade Accord, the bottom
> of the line DX with similar equipment is about $400 less).
>
> Edmunds.com has a "true cost to own" calcualtor. I doubt it is a great
> predictor of the future, but it is fun to play with. See
> http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController . They don't let
> you go back more than 4 years with used cars, but here are the
> caluculations for a 2003 Taurus vs a 2003 Accord -
>
> 2003 Taurus LX - $0.36 per mile
> 2003 Accord LX - $0.37 per mile
>
> They include depreciation, financing, insurance, etc in the
> calculation.
>
> For a new car here are the numbers:
>
> 2007 Ford Fusion S Sedan - $0.45 per mile (total depreciation in five
> years $11,364)
> 2007 Honda Accord LX - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
> $10,704)
> 2007 Toyota Camry CE - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
> $10,328)
>
> This is based on buying the car new and keeping it for 5 years and
> driving 15,000 miles per year. Clearly the lower depreciation rate
> predicition for the Accord makes the Accord cheaper to own if you only
> keep your car for 5 years or less. However, if you keep it for 13
> years or more, the situation will reverse and the Ford will be
> cheaper. Edmunds also makes assumptions on maintenance costs and
> repair costs that may or may not be accurate. For instance, they show
> the mainenance cost for the Accord to be slightly less than for the
> Fusion and a lot less than for the Camry). I assume this is based
> mostly on Honda's recommended service intervasl that allows for much
> longer oil change intervals. I am not sure that most Honda owners
> actually go with the long oil change intervals, so I am not sure this
> is realistic.
>
> I think the more important point is that if you are going for cheap -
> buy used.
>
> Ed

I used Edmunds numbers and just picked the middle car in each line...

Around here, Edmunds numbers always seem closer than KBB's.

Even in your numbers (which are highly inflated for the Ford, IMO, you'd
never get that price around here), the Accord is worth nearly 50% more
than the Ford.

On Mar 13, 2:38 pm, Joe LaVigne > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:51:17 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
> > "Joe LaVigne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:46:16 +0000, who wrote:
>
> >> 1994 Accord EX $2736
> >> 1994 Taurus LX $754
> >> These are the current private-party values for those 2 cars. The
> >> Honda
> >> is still worth significantly more. If she were to trade in her Ford
> >> right
> >> now, she'd get a paltry $323 for it from the dealer.
>
> > You realize you are comparing the mid-line Taurus to the top of the
> > line Accord - right? Hardly seems fair. And I think your numbers are
> > wrong besides.
>
> > I just went to KBB.COM and got the follwoing numbers:
>
> > 1994 Taurus LX 3.0L V-6 (base engine) with popular options (PW. PB,
> > PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private Party
> > Value - $2,210 (the bottom of the line GL with similar equipment is
> > worth around $300 less, the top of the line SHO is worth about $600
> > more, which makes it worth more than the top of the line Acccord EX
> > according to your numbers).
>
> > 1994 Honda Accord LX 2.2L four (base engine) with popular options (PW.
> > PB, PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private
> > Party Value - $3,825 (and the LX is the mid grade Accord, the bottom
> > of the line DX with similar equipment is about $400 less).
>
> > Edmunds.com has a "true cost to own" calcualtor. I doubt it is a great
> > predictor of the future, but it is fun to play with. See
> >http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController. They don't let
> > you go back more than 4 years with used cars, but here are the
> > caluculations for a 2003 Taurus vs a 2003 Accord -
>
> > 2003 Taurus LX - $0.36 per mile
> > 2003 Accord LX - $0.37 per mile
>
> > They include depreciation, financing, insurance, etc in the
> > calculation.
>
> > For a new car here are the numbers:
>
> > 2007 Ford Fusion S Sedan - $0.45 per mile (total depreciation in five
> > years $11,364)
> > 2007 Honda Accord LX - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
> > $10,704)
> > 2007 Toyota Camry CE - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
> > $10,328)
>
> > This is based on buying the car new and keeping it for 5 years and
> > driving 15,000 miles per year. Clearly the lower depreciation rate
> > predicition for the Accord makes the Accord cheaper to own if you only
> > keep your car for 5 years or less. However, if you keep it for 13
> > years or more, the situation will reverse and the Ford will be
> > cheaper. Edmunds also makes assumptions on maintenance costs and
> > repair costs that may or may not be accurate. For instance, they show
> > the mainenance cost for the Accord to be slightly less than for the
> > Fusion and a lot less than for the Camry). I assume this is based
> > mostly on Honda's recommended service intervasl that allows for much
> > longer oil change intervals. I am not sure that most Honda owners
> > actually go with the long oil change intervals, so I am not sure this
> > is realistic.
>
> > I think the more important point is that if you are going for cheap -
> > buy used.
>
> > Ed
>
> I used Edmunds numbers and just picked the middle car in each line...
>
> Around here, Edmunds numbers always seem closer than KBB's.
>
> Even in your numbers (which are highly inflated for the Ford, IMO, you'd
> never get that price around here), the Accord is worth nearly 50% more
> than the Ford.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well you did a poor job of using the Edmunds tool. I used the Edmunds
site to get figures for similar 1994 Accords and Tauri, with similar
equipment and mileage (96,000). The Accord came in with a "True Market
Value" Private Party sales price of $2,040 and the Taurus had TMV
Private Party price of $1,294.

Next time you want to rip Ford, at least do it right, instead of doing
an unfair comparison. The Accord EX is the top of the line model.
Edmunds does not treart the Taurus LX fairly since they force you to
select options that are standard on the LX model in the "option"
section. So, go back and redo your calculations by using a reasonable
mileage (96,000 seems fair to me), add in the Taurus "options" that
are really part of the LX package, and compare it to a Honda Accord
LX. The Accord will still come out as worth more, but the difference
is much less than the difference in initial purchase price.

Ed

There are a few americans that prefer american cars. The rest of the
world knows better. Numbers don't lie. Seriously, most of the 10
people who are satisfied with their american car are here in this
thread blowing smoke up each others asses. So you can't imagine a cop
jumping curbs in an Accord, do you really think the guy who started
this thread wants to buy a car that his daughter will be using to jump
curbs? Numbnuts...

On a side note...

I had a 92 Honda Prelude Si that was stolen. It was recovered a week
later...cops called me at midnight one night telling me to come get it
(so it wouldn't have to be impounded). When I got there the cop that
found it told me the story. He was pulling into a restaurant when he
saw my car go flying by and run a red light...cop gives chase for a few
miles and guess what? He couldn't catch my lil stock underpowered
econobox with his Crown Vic (RWD and all!). Once the car thief lost
the cops he abandoned the car on a side-street - that's where the cops
found it.


--
Gohan Ryu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gohan Ryu's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=250018
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=678485

http://www.automotiveforums.com