I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.
Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an economic point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?
I realize there are other variables, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )
Then again, Taurus's seem like pretty nice cars as well. The other advantage is that I could get at 2001 or 2002 Taurus and save even more money, but I don't like the pre-2003 Accord as the lack of telescopic steering doesn't make a good fit with my long legs.
Fred