Some people seem to not pay this much attention when they're buying their car and if they're going to drive the darn thing until the wheels fall off and it's worthless anyway then they'd be right to. But the fact is that most of us that buy new cars sell them after several years. And in the end what does a car REALLY cost you other than the gas it burned, the insurance you paid, and the maintenance and repairs it took to keep it running?

The depreciation.

No, not what you paid for it, but the actual depreciation.

Which is what you paid for it, minus what you sold it for - typically easiest to compare when broken down into something like a monthly rate over the course of ownership.

The following values are given as a percentage of the original value of the car when new, after approximately 5 years and 75 thousand miles of ownership.

If the following numbers, per edmunds.com's latest annual survey, are correct, the least depreciating car on the market will have retained almost four times as much of its original value as the worst depreciating car.
That's a huge factor when you consider true cost of ownership.

Best cars:
#1 2006 Mini Cooper — 54 percent


#2 2006 Dodge Viper — 52.5 percent


#3 2006 Toyota Camry Solara — 52 percent


#4 2006 Honda S2000 — 51.4 percent


#5 2006 Porsche 911 — 50 percent


#6 2006 BMW M3 — 48.7 percent


#7 2006 Volkswagen New Beetle — 48.6 percent


#8 2006 Toyota Matrix — 48.3 percent


#9 2006 Acura RSX — 48.3 percent


#10 2006 BMW 3 Series — 48.2 percent


Worst cars:
1. 2006 Ford Focus — 14.4%

2. 2006 Dodge Stratus — 14.7%

3. 2006 Kia Optima — 16.2%

4. 2006 Nissan Sentra — 17.8%

5. 2006 Suzuki Reno — 18.2%

6. 2006 Kia Rio — 20.2%

7. 2006 Chrysler Sebring — 20.3%

8. 2006 Hyundai Elantra — 20.4%

9. 2006 Kia Spectra — 21.9%

10. 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis — 22.6%


Typically Edmunds has done a best/worst residual for trucks and SUVs as well but this year, at least so far, they've only released 'best' lists for each:
Pickups:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/...5/article.html
SUVs:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/...8/article.html

 

No GM cars on the bottom list, thats good. I bet Corvettes are in the top 15 of best. It would be cool to see the whole list.


Ford better do something about that Focus. It has won a lot of Awards and is a good car, but it is getting VERY old.

 

As a side note, suddenly the well known 'bargain' price of a Kia or Hyundai looks like it might have some frustrating strings attached when it comes time to sell it.

 

Yes, good point - I'd consider the vehicles on the 'worst' list LONG before I'd consider the ones on the 'best' list if I were buying a 5 year old used vehicle.

I guess it works almost in complete reverse depending on whether you're buying new or almost new vs used.

 

Is the depreciation based off actual purchase price or on MSRP?
Just wondering if some of the vehicles with the larger rebates would appear to have less residual value then they do.

Chris

 

I'm kinda confused, is Edmunud's estimate of what a 2006 model car would sell for in 2011 with 75,000 miles? And that is based off what people paid for cars, not MSRPs? I'd think all those Priuii (Priuses?) selling for more than what they were new would shift the landscape a little.

Can you please post the link?

 

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/...9/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/...3/article.html

 

My opinion:

The top cars are all non ordinary in some way. They are all "exciting cars", all exude enthusiasm. The are all niche, not big volume sellers.

The bottom cars are all cars that you wouldn't mind having as a rental, but wouldn't want to drive everyday.

Dan

 

That's typically accounted for much of the difference between the supposedly higher-depreciating domestics and the import nameplates with higher residuals. When you factor in the actual transaction prices, the difference in residuals is far less dramatic.

 

That's what I figured but I was hoping that maybe they did it a little different.
As GM weans off the rebates it should be interesting to see how far the gap closes in the residuals.

Chris

 

On the flip side, if you buy used, than those that depreciate more means you can get some darn good deals. My wife and I picked up a used 2000 Sebring Vert for only $6k. Grand Marquis could make a good low key family car. Of course this doens't help the car companies much, but for consumers it's great!

 

Yes, rebates and incentives are really hurting the resale values, due to the way they are calculated. I never thought of that. Good point.

It's a good reason for GM and others to price the vehicle correctly from the start. I know they've been trying to do this, but when the consumer comes to expect rebates and such, after years of it happening, it's hard to turn it around.

Dan

 

Just yesterday I had a car salesman tell me, "Never buy a new Cadillac, Jaguar or Lincoln... they depreciate 40-50% when you drive off the lot."

 

No Corolla on the list?
Here they don't depreciate more than a few hundred bucks in a year...

 

The good thing is that we are not paying very much to begin with. I have a feeling that some of the newer Hyundai's like the Sonata and the Azera will not have quite the same depreciation that the older models have suffered.
*edit* Looking at the guidelines the Sonata might be on that list as well, they have $2500 rebates right now and a lot of people are getting fuly loaded V-6 cars in the $16,000 range of the lot.