Would it not be better to compare the price diff between the base and S in percentage? I don't think a cold-hard $10k figure is an appropriate basis of comparison as time progresses (you have to leave room for that price difference to depreciate as well, no?).
For easy figuring let's say a new new base model is $40k and a new S is $50k. So you'd have to pay 25% above the cost of the regular Box to get into an S. This translates to a $10k difference.
Now let's say the avg used Box (regular model) after several years is $32k. In this case the basis of comparison to see which model has depreciated faster is 25% above $32k = $40k for the S. The original $10k difference is now $8k (but more "fair" I'd think).
According to Lux's MSRP figures earlier in this thread (KBB used 2002 MY w/ 25000 miles):
Box msrp: $42600 Private sale: $27950
Box S msrp: $51600 Private sale: $34950
we see that in 2002 one paid
21% more than a new base model to get a new S. And according to the private sale figures, today you'd pay
25% above a used regular Box to get a used S. Meaning
the base model is depreciating faster than the S *assuming* the KBB prices are indicative of what consumers actually pay (big assumption).
Please correct/update the calculations if you have more accurate prices. I tried to get real-world asking values from autotrader.com but couldn't separate regular model vs. S model pricing.
Sorry to math-out like that, hope it was clear (-ish). ;b
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brucelee
In real terms, I will pay an extra $10K to buy an new S vs a standard Box.
Say three years later, I go to buy a used Box. I will likely pay about $5 more for the S vs the standars Box.
So, the S has depreciated at a faster rate, ie, it has not maintained that edge of $10G but that edge has declined some 50% or $5G.
So, in relative terms, the S "incremental cost" has degraded faster than the base car's depreciation, which is less than 50%...
|