Quote:
86BBUB said:

Maybe but I doubt it. I may be misreading your posts but it seem that you are more interested in posting clever rejoinders than reading and reflecting on my posts. I was not refering to "cars" or the typical joe-bagga-donuts buyer. We are talking about megabuck high-end cars such as Porsches and Lambo. These cars and the market for them is very different from that which you are refering to. There are obviously many factors to consider when discussing the increased rates of depreciation but if you don't think that a reduction in build quality is among them you are sadly mistaken. Instead of jumping on and trying to refute each of my points for the pleasure of your sycophants maybe you should reread them and perhaps think carefully about what I am trying to express. Not that I feel they need to impress you but I am probably one of the few people on this board whose family actually manufactured automobiles. Not only did we produce one of the finest prewar performance cars but at one point we owned almost 20% of one of the big 3. My posts are based on first hand knowledge, not something I picked up in Motor Trend. Our car collection was one of the finest in world. It's gone unfortunately. lost to the realities of a growing family, estate taxes etc, etc.
Please note that I am sure that, in proper context, your comments have some validity to them. I am simply suggesting that, in context, mine do too. Peace out as they say!



I'll toss in my 2 and a half cents on the depreciation thing.....

I believe that it's NOT due to "poorer quality", or "poorer durability". Today's cars are so much more durable from a chassis, driveline and structural standpoint, i.e. the skeleton and vital organs of the car. This is due to developent in engineering and materials technology. I'm especially impressed with how well modern chassis wear. In a 40 year old car, your bushings were shot, and the chassis fatigued, after 60,000 miles, tops.. Doors sagging from hinge fatigue and wear. Structural points rusting and cracking from exposure to the elements, and the use of materials that weren't up to living through winters. Etc, etc... Today's plastics, composites, and treated metals, along with better engineering and having learned from past mistakes, make for cars that just don't go away unless you wreck 'em or stop servicing them for the most part.

I'm not so sure about those statistics regarding people decades ago selling cars only because they were worn out, versus today selling to have the "newer" thing. Remember, back in the 50's and 60's, practically EVERY YEAR the models were improved and changed drastically, exterior and interior. And the relative cost of a car (percentage of household annual income) was much lower then. Alot of families I know used to trade in for a new car EVERY YEAR, because they could afford to back then, and because every year brought out an upgraded style. I think it's all a WASH, regardless of some study..

No, I associate the sharp depreciation curve on premium vehicles as a factor of RISK.... It's like playing high-stakes poker. You might have a great hand, but, are you willing to risk the stakes of the game?

Premium vehicles (Mercedes, Rolls, Porsche, Ferrari, AM, etc.etc...) BY NATURE are always at the cutting edge when it comes to technology, complexity, content, etc.... They are not the kinds of vehicles that you work on at home with a Craftsman tool kit and a creeper. It's not that these cars just fall-apart over time due to poor quality, because the quality is actually quite good. It's the RISK that something MIGHT fail that drives resale prices for aging exotics/premium-luxuries down to earth. All it takes is for one complex component to take a crap, and BOOM, the part and the repair will cost more than a new Honda Civic. And, it is true, the more complex systems that you pack into a vehicle, the higher the odds are that one of them will bite you in the a$$ eventually.

But, you know, I maintain that it's ALWAYS been this way. Just as you can buy a used 90's S-class Mercedes for chump change today, you could have bought a used fill-in-the-blank 60's luxury or exotic for $500 bucks in the seventies.. Back then these cars were packed with technologies and systems that you wouldn't find in a Ford Falcon, and therefore the resales on them stunk back then as well. For instance, late 50's Bonneville's and Cadillacs with air suspension, you couldn't GIVE them away on a used car lot.

In any case, it's all relative. But I attribute the sharp depreciation curve on gadget-laden, and mechanically complex/premium stuff, on RISK and EVENTUALITY of things going sideways, not bad quality of the vehicles themselves. Everything wears out over time. Today's cars wear out slower. But then, once that eventuality sets in, the complexity of the technologies, and the expense of the replacement hardware, and the skills and tools needed to effect a proper repair, kick in EXPONENTIALLY compared to more primitive cars, creating a chicken-egg dilemma where it's cheaper to crush a used Rolls Royce for it's recyclables, then it is to repair or restore it.

It's not really bad quality, it's higher complexity, cost of componentry, precision, and difficulty to repair.

Example: Today's professional cameras are far better quality than cameras 100 years ago. But 100 years ago, you could fix a camera in the middle of a field with a satchel of basic tools and materials. The difference in value between a new camera and a used one was probably minor. Today, when/if it breaks, you're better off thowing it away and buying a new one, it's too technologically advanced and too precision-built to be able to dig into.

There's a difference between quality, and complexity.