Supra Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Weapon of Mass Affection
Joined
·
3,780 Posts
Journalists talking about cars.

"Is an AMG Mercedes really a better value than a Saturn Ion Red Line? Considering how much more it costs, one would hope so. But then again, a Porsche 911 Carrera S doesn't seem to be that much more of a financial burden to its owner than a Viper Coupe."

Fucking idiots. :rolleyes:
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
TrueSlideXL said:
Journalists talking about cars.

"Is an AMG Mercedes really a better value than a Saturn Ion Red Line? Considering how much more it costs, one would hope so. But then again, a Porsche 911 Carrera S doesn't seem to be that much more of a financial burden to its owner than a Viper Coupe."

Fucking idiots. :rolleyes:

Agreed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
381 Posts
TrueSlideXL said:
Journalists talking about cars.

"Is an AMG Mercedes really a better value than a Saturn Ion Red Line? Considering how much more it costs, one would hope so. But then again, a Porsche 911 Carrera S doesn't seem to be that much more of a financial burden to its owner than a Viper Coupe."

Fucking idiots. :rolleyes:

Exactly what I was thinking...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
They have a point on a limited scale. But the examples they use are BS

Think about it, I am willing to bet my money that A kia (whichever one is the accord copy) is (much) better than a C240 or C320 at nearly half the price. Yet again, vehicles like the C240/C320 are just "poser cars" to give a false sense of class and substance - unluckily to the average idiot if the Mercedes name is there it has to be expensive, good and that person has to be rich. Makes me sick when people just look at names.
 

·
Weapon of Mass Affection
Joined
·
3,780 Posts
In the end the Kia will not hold it's value. And as much a poser car the C class is, they are very well built these days. My point is that cars are a liability. Drivers-real drivers-know this, spending more on repairs than the value of their used POS sports car because they love it. Nobody should ever look at a car for value, or as an asset. It's foolish. I am sure the average AMG owner will do whatever repairs needed to keep his car on the road v. a Kia. But maybe I am biased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
The SL65 AMG, the most expensive of all AMG vehicles, will cost $203,932 to purchase but only $202,772 to own — a difference of -0.57 percent.


In this article we will show you a new way to choose a car which is especially valuable when applied to performance-car shopping. This will demonstrate how significant the related costs of car ownership are. These expenses are revealed by a tool on Edmunds.com called True Cost to OwnSM (TCO). Related costs include taxes, fees, depreciation, financing, insurance, fuel costs, maintenance and repairs. (Of these additional expenses, depreciation is by far the most significant.)

By comparing Edmunds.com's True Market ValueSM price (TMV) (the price of a car after negotiations) and TCO, you can discover where the screamin' deals are.


How the heck is it possible for the SL65 AMG to be -0.57 % ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
mervinnn said:
The SL65 AMG, the most expensive of all AMG vehicles, will cost $203,932 to purchase but only $202,772 to own — a difference of -0.57 percent.


In this article we will show you a new way to choose a car which is especially valuable when applied to performance-car shopping. This will demonstrate how significant the related costs of car ownership are. These expenses are revealed by a tool on Edmunds.com called True Cost to OwnSM (TCO). Related costs include taxes, fees, depreciation, financing, insurance, fuel costs, maintenance and repairs. (Of these additional expenses, depreciation is by far the most significant.)

By comparing Edmunds.com's True Market ValueSM price (TMV) (the price of a car after negotiations) and TCO, you can discover where the screamin' deals are.


How the heck is it possible for the SL65 AMG to be -0.57 % ???


Everyone is really confused.....


Total cost to own = the amount you spent over a given time - the resale value of the car.

So in theory the Cobalt costs you 38K over 5 years (or whatever) which is actually more that the price of the car since

1) You bought the car and it dropped in value like a rock.
2) Its a piece of shit and cost you a fortune in repairs
3) Insurance probably costs a lot because it probably gets stolen or the crash tests suck
etc etc
Purchase price + expenses - resale value = $38K (18K or so greater than the sticker price).

On the other hand for the Mercedes you spent $202K over 5 years because
1) Good resale value
2) Probably has extended warrenty and service as basic features
3) Not stolen much not too expensive (relatively speaking) to insure
etc
etc
Purchase price + expenses - resale value = $202K ($1K less than the sticker price)

The Mercedes costs you $160K more to own over the 5 years. But its less than you expected to pay. The Cobalt costs you significantly more than you expected to pay. So in the case of a Cobalt, something like a V6 Accord or an IS25 might actually cost more in sticker price but cost you less money over the same 5 year period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Late reply here. I now understand fully what they mean by TCO (wasn't sure how they were factoring in depreciation at first) but my initial thought was still correct.

Just for shits and giggles I checked their website. For ZIP code 11030 (Nassau County, Long Island, NY) a 2006 MB SL65 AMG costs $207,944 new. Its TCO is $220,560. The numbers don't come out like they say they do.

Anyhow.. their screwed up numbers aside, choosing a car that has favorable depreciation has always been one of the best things you can do for yourself when it's time to buy a new car. Variables such as maintenance are not even really a fair comparison when you are not talking apples to apples (i.e. such as in this case comparing a SL65 AMG to a Cobalt). If I am the type of guy that is going to plunk down $200K on a car I am also probably the type who will make a stink if they charge me a comparable arm and leg for maintenance. I wouldn't really expect the same preferential treatment buying a $20K car.

Actually looking at the #'s further insurance seems to be the other factor that can skew the #'s. The insurance for the SL65 AMG is $3,615 in the first year vs. $2,603 in the first year for the Cobalt. So although the SL65 AMG costs roughly 10 times more to buy the insurance is only roughly 1.5 times more per year.

So insurance #'s are similar across the board and so are maintenance #'s. Both are basically necessary evils anyway. So when a much cheaper car (I also looked at the Honda Accord, Toyota camry) has a unfavorable TCO compared to the SL65 AMG it could very well be because their maintenance costs and insurance costs are roughly the same as the SL65 AMG but their purchase prices are much lower. Thus they face an uphill battle because at the end of 5 years the unavoidable maintenace/insurance costs + other costs that are apart of the TCO formula (financing , taxes & fees, fuel, repairs) can easily add up to more than the original cash price of the car. With the SL65 AMG all these associated costs only come out to about 1/2 of the original cash price of the car (because the car costs so darn much to begin with! :) ). I purposely left out the final factor of depreciation to make this point.

Long (and late) reply but that article is silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
Basically a car that costs more has an advantage because maintainence is a much smaller proportion of its total cost which is a crock of shit. Also like someone else posted insurance isnt scaled like price so all the totals are a much smaller percentage of new cost. there is no fair way really to calculate it. Labor on 1 hour of work to a benz isnt 10x as much so for the Cobalt to be equal percent wise it would need to require 1/10th the labor to maintain. What a crock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Full on.

I have been thinking a bit more about this... It is possible for a car to have a negative % difference like they *claimed* the SL65 AMG did. Usually the car would need to have a very high original selling price and have very low depreciation to help offset all the other unavoidable costs of ownership (maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc add up to $100K on the SL65 AMG for example).

Screw all that though. There was a car that definitely came out even as far as TCO is concerned. The 1998 Supra Turbo 6-speed. Bought in 1998 for $40,000 all other associated costs (except depreciation) after 5 years would equal roughly $40,000 (I based this off a 2006 Lexus IS350 priced at $40,110). We all know 1998 Supra Turbo 6-speeds were selling for $40K or more in 2003 (5 years after they were purchased, to go along with the TCO model) so there was NO depreciation and actually in some cases appreciation. So in this case the % difference would be 0% or possibly negative if the car appreciated (which many 1998 Supra Turbo 6-speeds have). This example also shows the advantage the SL65 AMG (assuming it did actually have negative % TCO) has over less expensive cars as far as TCO is concerned. The Supra has to have zero depreciation over 5 years in order to achieve the same TCO % the SL65 AMG does. This is the case because the Supra's other costs of ownership (maintenance, financing, fuel, etc) are EQUAL to its original selling price. In the SL65 AMG's case the costs of ownership are half of the cars original selling price, so its value can depreciate 50% after 5 years and still keep up with the Supra's TCO %.

Wow!

*edited because I mixed a few things up*
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top