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.
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
formatting link
. 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.
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.
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.
I think she couldn't care less. Old people usually have a good idea how hard money are to get (for most people anyway) and are pretty stingy as a result. For her probably it matters only if she can get another
5 or 10 years out of it. Won't be surprised if she could. Heck, my old boss has a 10 y.o. taurus that was stinking (literally) pretty badly and despite making about $1/4mil (US) a year among himself and his wife he just could not let go. His secretary is driving LS400 though :-D
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.