Fastest depreciating cars
|
eyyy there's my boy in #3 lol... that certainly helped me out
|
Here are the top 10 fastest depreciating cars along with their percentage of how much value they lose in three years. Remember, the average for all vehicles is 35 percent.
|
Wouldn't it be funny if a person owned 4 cars on the list...lol
At the same time, wouldn't it make you smart if you did, and you bought used? Thought it was common knowledge that a Mercedes Benz could be as little as 10% of its MSRP, when over 10 y.o.? Yet, they are beautiful cars. Then OP threw in avg. is 35%, and that is very useful info to put things into context. |
the full story... https://www.iseecars.com/best-used-bargains-study
if depreciation is calculated from msrp then the 'study' is bogus because msrp is now what people actually spent originally. also, a huge percentage of those german luxury cars are acquired on subsidized leases where the driver couldn't care less about depreciation. the article even talks about leasing effects: As the number of off-lease vehicles continues to rise, a new study by car search engine iSeeCars.com reveals which late-model used cars are the best deals for consumers looking to purchase an almost-new vehicle. While the average vehicle depreciates 35 percent after three years, these highest-depreciating vehicles lose between 46 percent and 52 percent of their value, resulting in significant savings for consumers opting to buy a three-year-old vehicle in favor of a new one. “The rising popularity of auto leases in recent years has led to an influx of cars coming off lease, creating the opportunity for consumers to find bargains on late-model vehicles,” said iSeeCars CEO Phong Ly. “Consumers who take advantage of these best bargains can purchase a three-year-old car for half the price of what it would cost to buy the same car new.” but let's not let details get in the way of a good virtue signalling thread... :p |
I'm surprised that any SUV is on that high-depreciation list, at least in the American market. The Cadillac SRX, to some extent, though, I can understand. The last-generation version was awkwardly-styled, not particularly impressive inside (IMO), and doesn't drive as well as its XT5 replacement. Compared to the SRX, the newer XT5's only significant problem is the electronic joystick shifter, which takes some time to get used to....yep, the same one I have in my Lacrosse.
|
Everytime I see these lists, the first thing that pops into my head is are these cars overpriced for what they are to begin with? I'd say many on the list are, especially from the luxury makes. The lesser ones are either not built well or just less desirable.
|
Chrysler 200 - 48.4 percent |
No Jaguars? I'm surprised.
|
Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
(Post 10224737)
No Jaguars? I'm surprised.
|
I remember a few years ago seeing the depreciation on a Jaguar and thought it was the equivalent of jumping out of an airplane with an anvil on your back :p
|
Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
(Post 10224771)
I remember a few years ago seeing the depreciation on a Jaguar and thought it was the equivalent of jumping out of an airplane with an anvil on your back :p
At one time, in fact not that long ago, especially under Ford ownership, Jags were somewhat more popular than they are today. Despite its iffy build quality (I did a review and was not impressed), the compact, Ford-Mondeo-dervied Jaguar X-class, with its standard AWD, sold fairly well in my area (D.C. suburbs). I suspect that, not only the transfer of the company to India's Tata Motors, but the demise of the nice classic wood-and-leather Jaguar interiors, cost them a significant amount of sales. IMO, with the possible exception of the XJ sedan flagship, the interiors of today's Jags are mostly a joke. |
Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
(Post 10224737)
No Jaguars? I'm surprised.
|
Originally Posted by Sulu
(Post 10224809)
A close #11 or #12 on the list?
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands