Dude, are you serious? I think you may practice "selective attention". The above sentence clearly references new Saab buyers. Depreciation is irrelevant. I'm doing my best to be nice, my very best, but here's my selective version of reality now that you've got me all pissy again.watkins wrote:Saabs are actually cheaper in many cases than most other brands. As Kevin and I have lauded many times, Saabs depreciate unfairly. For this reason, there really isnt any better bang for the buck brand out there.eggwich delfiero wrote:The demographics of new Saab buyers are obviously going to be different than VW/Honda/Mustang buyers because Saabs are more expensive.
My 1999 top spec car cost $5500.
Thats 225hp/252tq, power windows, power locks, dual power seats, keyless entry and security system, moon roof, steering wheel radio controls, single CD in dash, 6 disc changer in trunk, leather, heated seats, mirror defrosters, and the addition of side airbags.
Now compare that to my friend's '95 Mustang 5.slow. It has essentially none of those features and nearly identical power (I think the Viggen actually has more) and it cost him $4000. [Yes, this kid is a massive dick/redneck. Still like the guy though]
Or a 2008 Focus for $15000 with the only similarities being airbags, a single CD in dash, and trading my 6 disc for an aux-in. I dont think shaving under 130k miles and all of those features is worth nearly $10k.
Of course there is the excellent fuel economy and fun in a practical package.
1. Your car may be a MY 1999, but it's built off a much older Vauxhall platform not exactly famous for it's dependability and structural integrity.
2. Turbo cars depreciate at a higher rate partially because turbos are finicky little beasts that are difficult to keep running optimally, and are very expensive to replace. Dyno your car and see how close you are to 225 hp after 130K miles. Maintenance costs on a turbo car are generally higher than on a naturally aspirated car, leading to increased depreciation.
3. You're comparing a $5500 car with one that costs 37% less and is four years older. What is this supposed to prove exactly? If said redneck were to invest 1500 in a supercharger, turbo, or new heads to even out price points, he will blow you away. (until you reach a corner lol)
4. You can buy a 2010 Ford Focus S for under $15,000 (http://frontierford.com/Santa_Clara_New_Ford_Cars.html), so I'm sure you can find a better deal than 15K on a 2008. And a new Focus must come with at least a three year/36,000 mile warranty, and is more affordable to insure. Purchase price is not an indicator of True Cost to Own (Edmunds.com has a great metric on there site on actual cost of owning different vehicles.) And I will trade a difference of 130K miles for a bunch of comfort technology every day of the week. I'm from the simplicity school: the more electric doodads in your car, the more electrical demons there are, the more components there are to break down over time, the more cost there is to maintain the car. I am not alone in this approach, and this is part of the reason why Saabs and other upscale brands depreciate so much (I won't even get into the differences of cost for parts and labor). One man's comfort features are another man's unneccesary weight and repairs. Why you're comparing a ten year old sport sedan with a new economy compact car in the first place is beyond me.
So please, love your car, but get off the mountain of righteousness. There are other reasons that people don't buy Saabs besides us all being idiots that just don't know any better.