2006 Grand Marquis seen today

Page 2 of 3  
As a percentage of return on the original purchase price the Mercury GM will be far greater than the Avalon or a Camry. A 2002 Avalon today is worth
$5,000 more than a GM but it cost at least $10,000 more to drive home when both were new. Same is true of the GM v the Camry
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do try and follow along, DUH!
2006 Mercury Grand Marquis GS Price With Destination Charge and Required Equipments MSRP $25,555.00 Invoice $24,092.00
2006 Toyota Avalon LIMITED Price With Destination Charge and Required Equipments MSRP $34,355.00 Invoice $30,297.00
The Avalon sells for $8800 MORE than the Grand Marquis new.
2000 Mercury Grand Marquis GS Sedan 4D Consumer Rated Condition: Good Mileage: 50,000 Private Party Value $6,280
2000 Toyota Avalon XLS Sedan 4D Consumer Rated Condition: Good Mileage: 50,000 Private Party Value $13,605
The Avalon sells for $7325 MORE than the Grand Marquis 5 years used.
The Grand Marquis gained $1475.00 in value over the Avalon in 5 years
http://www.kbb.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is amazing how people look a fuel costs. The $15,000 premium he paid will buy ALL of the fuel for a GM for at least eight years or more. It is like those that buy hybrids. The premium price, and the future battery replacement cost, will by all of the fuel for ten years or more for a conventional power train. LOL
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My 02 Town car is basically the same vehicle. I average 17.7 in purely city driving and 25.5 all highway driving. My overall mpg for last year was 20.7.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hardly, the difference in fuel mileage between a V8 GM and a V6 Camry is only around 3 miles per gallon. If you live in hilly country the GM is most likely to use less fuel.
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
For one thing RWD is less expensive to build but one could conclude Ford buyers are more astute then import buyers . My son in law bought a loaded 2005 GS for less than 19K. His total outlay was an amazing $6,000 less than if he would have bought another Accord. He is selling his 2002 Accord to a friend and will save another $2,000 over what the Honda dealer was offering for his trade.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

than
a
offering
LOL, and the resale on the GM is S*IT compared to an accord.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:19:09 -0400, "tony kujawa"

But the Accord is S*IT compared to the GM. What was your point again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tony kujawa wrote:

BUT, you are stuck driving a 5 passenger(squeezed in) Honda.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:44:48 -0400, trainfan1

And 90+% of mileage is put on with only one or two people in the car - so why drag along the extra??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clearly the truly astute car buyer would buy a used Grand Marquis. They are apparently bullet proof. Around here the majority of taxi's are Crown Victorias that are used police vehicles purchased from he State Surplus Sale. They paint them up and drive them for years. I am surprised by how many early 90's CVs I see still on the road in taxi service. Early 90's Accord are a rare sight around here no matter how they are being used.
Any how, I am not so sure you are doing the math correctly.
2000 Honda Accord LX VS.-6 in excellent condition with 80,000 miles private party value $10240 (KBB.COM) 2000 Grand Marquis LS in excellent condition with 80,000 miles private party value - $6355 (KBB.COM)
So the people selling Accords are asking for around $3700 more for a used car than people selling Grand Marquis (asking - have no idea what they are actually getting, but the used Grand Marquis seems like a bargain).
However the original MSRPs for the two cars were:
Honda Accord EX V-6 - $24,550 Grand Marquis LS - $24,505
Now this is the MSRP - what do you think the actual selling price was in 2000? I know you could get the Mercury for less than $20K (my Mother bought one). I would be surprised if you could get the Honda for less than 24K. So, in the end, I think the total dollar amount of depreciation was about the same ($14k more or less).
BTW, I sold a 1992 Grand Marquis in 2000 (my Mother's old car). I had no trouble getting $4K for it. Sold the first day. So apparently there are a few smart buyers out there.
I have a funny story about used Honda prices. Years ago my Sister had an Accord. A Mustang rammed her from the side and the insurance company decided to total the car. They quoted what I thought was a ridiculously low value for the car (based on NADA Book Value). So to provide ammunition for demanding a higher settlement amount, I had my Sister go around to the various local car lots that had similar Accords for sale. Sure enough every lot started out quoting the NADA value. At this point she thanked them and tried to leave. In one case the salesman chased her out to the car quoting ever lower prices. It was really funny. Before she could escape, he had already knocked $2000 off the initial asking price. I always wondered how much lower he would have gone if she had really wanted to buy the car. Naturally I left this part of the story out when we got together with the insurance adjuster. Hey finally gave her the full NADA retail value (but not until we talked to his supervisor). I always thought they got a good deal, since my Sister could have easily bitched about lost hours at work, cost of a rental car, medical charges etc. (Oh yeah, the Mustang drove away form the accident).
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I would disagree with that only because FWD is still mainstream. The more of something you make, the cheaper it is to make. Doesn't make it better though...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You may disagree if you wish but I was not stating an opinion. I worked for 30 years as an automotive design engineer, I know what it costs to build vehicles.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:15:45 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

So YOU are the one we should be lynching for designing cars that are next to impossible to service???? And ungodly expensive to repair???? And I'm talking Big 3 North American, not import!! We can save $0.02 on each car if we do it this way - so what if the mechanic needs to amputate his arm to change the plugs, or whatever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Perhaps but you must admit the ones designed over the past ten years will go ten times as far before needing to be serviced as they did in the 'good lod days.'. The warranty use to be 1000 miles or thirty days, WOF ;)
I worked in structural design engineering and imports are for more expensive to repair than domestics in any event
mike
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:21:07 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

You better add SOME in both lines.
SOME imports are a lot more expensive to repair than SOME domestics.
I see a LOT more domestics totalled for relatively minor damage than imports. ANd when it comes to SMALL domestics the difference gets even more noticeable.
And you see lots of relatively new domestics scrapped with NO body damage because fixing the power train is not economically feasible. Putting a $3000 rebuilt engine and $4000 rebuilt transmission into a 6 year old car that will only sell on the lot for $5500 does not make any sense at all. And this is happening with less than 200,000KM on the car. Often with less than 100,000Km.
Look at the mileage on the non colision damaged cars in your local scrapyard. Other than Mitsubishis the mileage on most of the imports is significantly higher than most of the domestics.
When it comes to mechanical repairs, the domestics have raised their parts prices(at least here in Canada) so stupidly high over the last couple of years even a PREMIUM import can be cheaper to maintain than a standard domestic.
Yes, the new cars DO, on average, last longer between repairs than in the "good old days", but today's import is a MUCH better car than the crop of the sixties and seventies - when most imports WERE inferior. (Think Vauxhall, Hillman, Fiat, VW Beetle, Austin, Opel, Taunus, Datsun 510, Corolla 1100, etc)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Unless the rules of supply and demand affecting production costs has changed, I don't buy it.
Link.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are entitle to believe whatever you wish, but me thinks you are confusing retail pricing with production costs. For instance a Lincoln T-car sells for nearly twice the price of the GM/CV but cost only around $4,000 more to build. The first FWD Escorts, that sold for $2,000 more than the Pinto, cost nearly half again as much to produce than the Pinto. Ford actually sold them to dealers at a price below cost, until economies of scale over three or four years of production lowered the cost of production, because of CAFE requirements. The reason FWD vehicles cost more to build is they requires more of the far more expensive off line pre-assembly than RWD vehicles. The same was true of Chryslers FWD v RWD vehicles back then. Been there done that.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

And the Panther has been slowly evolving since 1978(79 model year), most of the tooling has been (paid off), and the bugs are worked out, the layout is a proven one. When was the last major recall on the Grand Marquis? I'd have to look it up it was so long ago.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not at all. Production costs DO decrease with supply and demand. That's a fact that cannot be disputed. Try as you may.

I'm sorry, but you are just way off on this. It does not cost anywhere near $4K more to build.
I now know you do not have the information you claim. Discussion over.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.