If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
"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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Which To Buy?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|