Last post on Dec 03, 2013 at 4:29 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#4608 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [jd10013]
Sep 03, 2007 (5:42 pm)
I'd say KBB is VERY optimistic. Edmunds' TMV for a 2002 Civic EX 4-door (the most expensive Civic trim for 2002) with 115k miles in clean condition is only $7740. By that number, in about five years you've lost nearly 50% of the car's value compared to what you paid for it. Which is pretty good! In comparision, I had a similar experience with my '01 Elantra, which I sold last year after 5-1/2 years of ownership, for $5900--exactly 50% of its original purchase price. So you and I both lost about 50% of our original investment over about five years (assuming Edmunds' TMV figures are closer to the real world, which I have found over time they usually are--for example, their TMV for my Elantra at the time I sold it was $5950.). However, my loss was $5900, and yours (on paper) is over $7000. I point this out only as a caution, that resale value percentages don't tell the whole story.
An example closer to this discussion (although my Elantra was classed as a mid-sized car based on interior room): this goes back to the 12-year old Accord (a '92) that was sold for $5000. Here's a comparison of 12-year old mid-sized cars, a 1995 Accord EX-V6 and a Mazda 626 ES-V6, each with low miles (120,000) and in outstanding condition; for private party sale, according to Edmunds' TMVs:
Note that this is for a V6 Accord (not available in '92), and it's three years after the '92, so some price appreciation should have occured. If this is a representative average for sales prices (with some people doing better and some not as well), then the Mazda buyer would need to have paid at least $1200 less up front than the Accord buyer to come out ahead financially on the purchase in 12 years, assuming an interest rate of 5% compounded annually.
The purpose of this rather lengthy example is to demonstrate that it doesn't take a huge difference in price to make up the resale value between an Accord and other makes over a long period of time. And consider now that the price difference between an Accord, even the leftover 2007 models, is several thousand dollars compared to cars like the Fusion/Milan, Mazda6, Optima, and Sonata.
Thus, if you plan to own your mid-sized car for a long time and think you can save money in the long run due to a car's historically high resale value, it might be something to re-consider.
Sep 03, 2007 (5:47 pm)
Will have standard ABS.
I'd say its about time!
#4610 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [backy]
Sep 03, 2007 (6:10 pm)
Sometimes KBB is not optimistic at all. My 92 EX Accord, sold 12 years later (137k miles), had a KBB value of $3,850. I guess the guy who bought it didn't look it up in KBB, because he had no problem giving me $5,000 for it.
#4611 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [backy]
Sep 03, 2007 (6:12 pm)
Kelly is asking price, Edmunds (which is pretty close to NADA in my experience, though it's been several years) is selling price. The only thing I've ever used Kelly for was to make window stickers when selling a car.
That Honda looks in better shape, but the last old Japanese car I bought was a 90 Camry with about 140,000 on the clock in about 2000. Bought it for my daughter and it's still in family use, although I put way too much repair money in it between transferring it from one daughter to another. Anyway they've abused the hell out of it but it's still chugging away at 200,000 miles plus. If memory serves me right I paid slightly over a thousand for it from some guy who used to fix 'em up and sell them from his house (until the subdivision put an end to that scheme). Again, it was relatively clean but nothing like the Honda.
#4612 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [elroy5]
Sep 03, 2007 (6:18 pm)
I did a quick Auto Trader check on '92 Accords. Range from $500-7695 with average price of $2974. Of course that includes all sorts of rip-off used car dealers.
#4613 of 20187 driver seats in sedans
Sep 03, 2007 (6:52 pm)
I have a sensitive back. MY 97 camry is still a good seat. Car shopping and found the new camry and lexus ES is HORRIBLE for my back. I do have sensitive back and back problem that needs support.
Don't like the dashboard reflection on the acura.
Who makes a great seat like they use to in a sedan? HELP?
#4614 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [elroy5]
Sep 03, 2007 (7:04 pm)
Yes, I think you got very lucky in terms of who bought your Accord. That's why there's a thing called "average" sales prices.
#4615 of 20187 Re: driver seats in sedans [barbarag999]
Sep 03, 2007 (7:08 pm)
I've found VW's seats to be excellent for support, also those in the Accord are good. Volvos are also supposed to have good seats, although on the firm side--seems like you need a firm seat though.
One of the most comfortable driver's seats I've ever sat in is the one in the 2001-2006 Elantra. It is an 8-way adjustable (manual) seat, quite rare these days, especially on an inexpensive car. It includes a lumbar adjustment, and it's quite firm (especially on the GT, with leather). If you don't mind buying a used car, you might check it out.
#4616 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [elroy5]
Sep 03, 2007 (7:13 pm)
Sounds to me like you found a real fish.
No matter how good that car is, major maintenance items are bound to pop up on this $5000 12 year old car.
#4617 of 20187 Re: Aura I4 [elroy5]
Sep 03, 2007 (7:29 pm)
Although I have been lurking in this forum for quite a while and frankly have read posts that have gotten me livid, I had to respond this time. It should be noted that information concerning Mazda's putative 'average' reliability, which unfortunately is bandied about here and elsewhere, is sheer conjecture at best or frequently garnered via debatable methodology.
For every 'survey' which claims that Honda and Toyota produce vehicles that are intrinsically more 'reliable', there are others that report diametrically-opposite findings. Despite the fact that I have seen (in action) an Accord with an utterly-flawed automatic transmission (and I know that this particular problem is pervasive but obviously not universal across the line) and read about Toyota's 'sludge' problem, among other issues, many still choose to reify the products of these two companies with scant problematization.
More troubling is the implicit assumption that if you do not purchase the Accord or Camry, and I am not accusing anyone here of this 'crime', you are bereft of common sense and intelligence, and somehow are 'stuck' with a car that is devoid of the exaggerated (in my humble opinion, at least) 'merits' of a Camry or an Accord.
Regarding the much-maligned 626, we have got one in my family that is 7+ years old and is still running beautifully, thank you very much. For the record, I really have got my own idiosyncratic qualms regarding the Accord and Camry. As such, I personally will NOT buy either one and this most certainly is my prerogative; people can choose to procure whatever they wish and do not require the validation of others.