..... and how long do you predict they'll hold the lead???

 

That's completely up to how proactive GM gets and how comfortable Toyota gets.

Toyota is already slipping up a little and GM has already proven they CAN put out some really nice looking cars with high perceived quality and build quality (that I'm hoping with hold up durability/reliability wise well too).

But if both companies stayed like they are today GM would never get the lead back. More needs to be done.

 

Yeah -- it is an important point that perceptions are always 10 years behind the market. Most people don't drive or read about new cars that much, so their ideas are based on what's out there on the roads.

And, I don't want to argue anecdotes about reliability and so on, but I think nobody really knows until there's a large number of cars with 80K-120K miles on them.

 

Notice I said longer term resale values. I agree that 3 or 5 year resales are mostly (but not entirely) based on reputation. That's because the car should not be in iminent danger of expiring or needing major repairs during the time frame.

But look at the longer term resale values, say 10 years, and that is based very heavily on how much life is expected to be left in the car or what major repairs could be awaiting. In other words, durability. Market forces work pretty well at that end of the market and people are not going to overpay just for the Toyota name if the history of that model shows it's gonna die before it hist 200k or has consistently high repair needs. I'm certain that if you compare values of 10 year old Toyotas versus their GM counterparts, Toyotas will consistently be worth more.

 

Quick ~5 minute search of Trader.ca. A couple common cars, and the range of prices on them:

Cavalier: 1990 - 1995
$450 - $6400

Corolla: 1990 - 1995
$700 - $5988

Accord: 1990 - 1995
$400 - $7500

 

Have you guys never been in a Cavalier? There is a reason why everyone calls them sh*tboxes. Every Cavy I have heard with 100k miles on it sounds like a tank. Sure, they keep running, but a lot rougher than a Corolla of the same vintage. This is all anecdotal of course, but with the amount of Cavaliers and Corollas on the road, and I how many I have seen in person, it is going to be hard to convince me otherwise.

Autotrader showed me otherwise. Cavalier's hold their value extremely poorly compared to a Corolla, at least in my area.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/search...=&keywordsfyc=

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/search...=&keywordsfyc=

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/search...=&keywordsfyc=

 

We dont have the Commodore here yet. I think the perceptions from from Comparing the Civic to the Cavalier. At least my perception, I dont know much about Cobalt. That is why used car market is so critical as far as durability and high quailty cars oppesed to high value. Perceptions.

 

GM KNOWS the cavalier sucked, hence the reason the name was dropped and "Cobalt" was added to the line-up. Although I've found S-10's to be very reliable, others and the media haven't, which is why I also believe the mid-sized trucks were dubbed the Colorado and Canyon.

 

Yeah, I realize that. There is not much someone can compare a Cavalier to and have the Cavalier come out on top in the comparison, model years being equivalent

 

Come on...- unless trader.ca is not like autotrader.com which not only gives you the range, but also gives you the average.

Give the AVERAGE and then you'll have something worth talking about.

Searching the entire united states for 1990 through 1995 Accords autotrader.com gave me an average advertised price of $3,890
That's with 2,276 results reporting

90-95 Corolla - $3,550 average price, 698 results

90-95 Cavalier - $2,576 average price, 346 results

With all of that said I still don't really get the point you're trying to make. Everyone knows imports generally depreciate less, but they all reach a point where they kinda level off and are worth very little.

For example, consider that a 2004 Cadillac Seville originally sold for $45k, yet has a KBB blue book value of 21k now. That's only retained 47% residual value in 3 years.

On the flip side a 2004 Lexus GS300 with an original MSRP of $39k, is valued by KBB at $28k. So a car that cost 6 grand less to begin with is now worth 7 grand more. Or in other words, it has a 72% 3 year residual value.

That Caddy has depreciated nearly twice as much, as a percentage of its MSRP, as the GS300 did.

13 year mark:
94 Seville SLS
Original MSRP: $41k
Now worth: $6k

94 GS300
Original MSRP: $41k
Now worth: $9k

And probably by the 16 year mark or so (I couldn't take this example back that far since 94 was the first year of the GS series), they'd be pretty close to even.

Point being after long enough even the 'high resale value' cars will be close enough to the 'low resale value' cars to not make much difference. But go out and compare a 3 year old Civic's value to a 3 year old Cobalt.

 

Did they stop Importing Kias and hyundias?

Don't forget the big 3 like the play games with the MSRP. Overprice the MSRP and offer a big discount so everyone thinks they are getting a sweet deal.

Can you find residual values based on actual price the car sold for?

 

I just posted that in response to R377, who was discussing the LONG TERM depreciation, and it just seemed that the cars were holding very similar "values" over long term ... also to point out that there are DIRT CHEAP Toyotas and Hondas as well (Cavaliers aren't the only cars to sell for ~$1000 or less).

I realize that Trader.ca isn't concrete evidence or anything .

Also, I agree with the reasoning for re-naming the Cavi/Sunfire to Cobalt/Pursuit, and S10/Sonoma to Colorado/Canyon ... new name, new image ... I just hope GM doesn't let things slide the way they did, AND I realize that a turn-around won't happen overnight .

 

My guess is no, since incentive offers and sales are constantly changing and are harder to keep track of, especially when deals can vary by region.

I do think the transaction price compared to current residual value is worth looking at.

 

Who cares what the values of 10+ year old Corolla's and Cavalier's are? Yeah yeah, people looking to buy them, but in all honesty they BOTH SUCK! Yeah, I said the corolla sucks. I've got several years and thousands of miles of seat time in a 99 corolla, and it sucks. I've also spent a good bit of seat time in a 96 cavalier 5 speed, it sucked too. Both are boring, bland, powerless cars that get you from point A to point B. Is the Corolla a better overall value for a used car? Yes. And like I said, GM knows this, hence the Cobalt. GM of 2003 is NOT the GM of 2007. And the same can be said for Toyota (and they might actually be "worse off" with reliability than there were a few years ago). A much better comparison would be cobalt vs. corolla

We can sit here all day an argue that GM sucked from the mid seventies until recently, most people won't deny that, but don't take credit away from what they've done in the past few years.

Also, I have a 40 year old chevy truck worth 7+ grand, SO THERE!

 

But I think that's why the arguing is going on - because there are a couple of people in this thread denying the GM has ever put out a sub-par product.


If you could get 7 grand for that truck it's only because of the collectibility of it - you know why it's collectible right? Because there are very few left on the road in good shape.