Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 11:02:05 -0700 From: B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM> Subject: Re: Saab Depreciation: Greater than most?
On 5/3/03 4:18 AM, in article 3EB3A56E.59ADnopsams.com, "Kenneth S." <nimrodnopsams.com> wrote: > I'm not at all sure about the comments above -- particularly about the > idea that the reason for high depreciation of Saabs is that consumers > like to trade in their cars every three years. If true, this factor > would apply to all manufacturers' vehicles in the U.S. However, rates > of depreciation in the U.S. are substantially different between > different brands of vehicles. I think it is not just the "every 3 years" effect. It has contributed to a large number of late model used cars, to which manufacturers have responded with "Certified Used Cars" [Saab is a late player here]. Plus Saab does not yet have the long (10-20 year?) record of durability and reliability (I think they have desirability got) that MB, Audi and BMW have. They also do not have any $60k cars you can buy to give that helpful aura effect. I think it can get there, GM willing, but it will be a different sort of car company then - indistinguishable from BMW/Audi/MB. Not the performance sleeper we like. Plus it would ruin my plans for buying off lease 9-5's and having a car at that point that will out perform and out last many similarly priced new cars [and that I will really like!]. > I don't know if anyone from Saab monitors this news group. However, if > they want to build up the company's long term future, they should > address this issue. If there is a well-functioning market in your > product (and the market for used cars in the U.S. surely IS such), then > there are great benefits in listening to what the market is telling you. To me it seems like GM is doing all the right things, and a couple of wrong ones as all companies. They are starting the certified used program, they are fleshing out the lower end of the product line, and will eventually flesh out the upper end of the line. To some extent they are bailing water, the 9-5 replacement has been postponed (probably end up a stretched 9-3 chassis), and the 9-2 will be a rebadged Subaru (not nec. *bad* but certainly no Saab except in packaging). Not sure about the 9-3X, but it could inject some life there provided thy don't try to pass off a Chevy Trailblazer as a Saab, that wouldn't be but for a couple of years anyway since it probably won't sell to the crowd buying the XC90... > I saved money as a result of the high depreciation rates of Saabs when > I bought my 1996 900 SE as a used vehicle a few years ago. However, > there must be many people who are reluctant to buy new Saabs because of > an anticipated high cost, as a result of heavy depreciation. I find it amazing that people quibble about the depreciation rates - since all cars depreciate, and substantially, in the first 3-5 years of their life. At the end of a purchase cycle, which is typically 70-90k miles, you are talking about 25-30% of the car's value left regardless of the brand. Heck the only worst investment than a car is setting your money on fire! For those concerned about depreciation should buy off lease (30-50% off price new at about 30-40k miles, no substantial wear and tear on the car at that point, too), or lease the car (no depreciation to worry about since you don't own it). When I was living in the UK, car magazines and dealers seemed obsessed about the residual value. Never understood it as people tended to buy the higher residual value cars used and proceed to drive them into the ground for the next 15 years. Made no sense to me - you buy the car that depreciated like mad, but is a good car, and drive *that* for the next 15 years into the ground. OH well.... I will stop ranting now! :)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
