- #4993 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [lemko]
by circlew
-
Jul 14, 2008 (7:56 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 14, 2008 5:14 am)
Hello! Those are the kind of people that buy Caddies now a days!
Regards,
OW
|
- #4994 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [sls002]
by circlew
-
Jul 14, 2008 (8:01 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Jul 14, 2008 5:19 am)
Probably all dealer sales with low mileage from people that don't drive much and trade in every few years. Private party sales will be way lower on 2006.
link title
Regards,
OW
|
- #4995 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [sls002]
by fintail
-
Jul 14, 2008 (8:40 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Jul 14, 2008 5:19 am)
I know in 06 you could still get lowline C230s for about 30K...these would easily be comparable with a base CTS.
I've seen many 05 CTS-V for around 25K-ish.
Maybe the old CTS wasn't the value it was touted to be...maybe the poorly chosen interior materials hurt something, too.
|
- #4996 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [lemko]
by fintail
-
Jul 14, 2008 (8:41 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 14, 2008 4:41 am)
He has an 8 year old car, a W220 from the first model year. MB fanatics even bash those things...it's like the 80s Caddy with the piece of crap 4100 or whatever engine was junk.
|
- #4997 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [circlew]
by lemko
-
Jul 14, 2008 (8:47 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jul 14, 2008 7:56 am)
Really? I buy Cadillacs and so do a lot of other respectable people in my line of business. None of us are involved in criminal activities and we are treated with the utmost respect.
|
- #4998 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [lemko]
by circlew
-
Jul 14, 2008 (9:06 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 14, 2008 8:47 am)
JK...teasing you...my dad bought 2 of them. He was upstanding like you.
Regards,
OW
|
- #4999 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [circlew]
by sls002
-
Jul 14, 2008 (6:44 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jul 14, 2008 8:01 am)
Your link is for a 2003 CTS, not the 2006, and the price tag is $17000, not $15,000. So what exactly is your point? 
|
- #5000 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [sls002]
by 62vetteefp
-
Jul 15, 2008 (2:27 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Jul 14, 2008 6:44 pm)
Your link is for a 2003 CTS, not the 2006, and the price tag is $17000, not $15,000. So what exactly is your point?
Misinformation to make his point that he hates GM and to convinc all others of the same. You can say anything on the net. Remember he said that he lives in his own reality 
|
- #5001 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [62vetteefp]
by sls002
-
Jul 15, 2008 (5:25 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jul 15, 2008 2:27 am)
Well, I think his earlier posts suggested Cadillac's depreciate faster than Mercedes. I think that is probably true, but Mercedes does depreciate too. My premise is that one can look at all of the listed cars of interest on cars.com to see a range of prices for a particular model/year. One could look at the C-class listings for model year 2008 (about 160) and the CTS (over 500), then look at the median price tag (the cars in the middle of each list) and compare that with the 2005 models (about 1500 each).
|
- #5002 of 6098
-
Re: Well... [sls002]
by 62vetteefp
-
Jul 15, 2008 (6:03 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Jul 15, 2008 5:25 am)
Why guess by looking at a random collection of vehicles when you can get data from the source that does it scientifically?
https://www.alg.com/deprratings.aspx?sid=43
CTS has same rating as most Mercedes.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 
