Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    What Vehicles Depreciate the Slowest?

      We'll give you a clue: What types of vehicles are flying off dealer lots?

    Most buyers don't tend to think of resale value until it comes time to sell their vehicle. But which models keep their value and which ones don't? iSeeCars.com recently published a study that looked into more than 4.3 million new and used car sales to determine which models lowest and highest loss in value after a five-year time frame.

    What vehicles had the lowest depreciation? According to iSeeCars, that would be SUVs and trucks. Taking the number one spot was the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited with an average depreciation rate of 27.3 percent. One only car, the Subaru Impreza would make the list - ninth place with a 42.3 percent average depreciation rate. On the opposite end, the Nissan Leaf has the highest depreciation at 71.7 percent. The rest of the list is made up mostly by luxury vehicles like the BMW 7-Series and Mercedes-Benz S-Class.

    "While the average new vehicle loses 50.2 percent of its value after five years, there are vehicles that retain more of their value and depreciate less than average. For consumers who buy new vehicles and sell them around the five-year mark, choosing a model that retains the most value is a smart economic decision,” said iSeeCars CEO Phong Ly.

    Some other findings from iSeeCars.com study,

    • Toyota Prius c and Prius owners are sitting pretty as they are the lowest depreciating hybrid models in iSeeCars' analysis - 51.5 and 54.1 percent respectively. 
    • The BMW X5 and X3 lose a fair amount of their value over the course of five years - 65.6 and 64 percent.
    • For sports cars, the lowest depreciation models are the Subaru Impreza WRX (35.9 percent), Volkswagen Golf R (43.3 percent), and Chevrolet Corvette (44.6 percent).

    Source: iSeeCars.com



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I wonder how crossover resale value will be in a couple years when used car lots are flooded with them and Ford and FCA have quit on sedans.

    There is also a consumer falacy that an SUV is more rugged and longer lasted than a car is, when a Fusion/Edge or Camry/Highlander are basically the same chassis and power trains coming out of the same factories.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

     

    There is also a consumer falacy that an SUV is more rugged and longer lasted than a car is, when a Fusion/Edge or Camry/Highlander are basically the same chassis and power trains coming out of the same factories.

    Real SUVs may be more rugged and longer lasting, but you are talking about CUVs---which are just common FWD transverse engine appliances---just tall cars, nothing special.   Alas, consumers don't distinguish between SUVs and CUVs.  

    Edited by Robert Hall
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

    Real SUVs may be more rugged and longer lasting, but you are talking about CUVs---which are just common FWD transverse engine appliances---just tall cars, nothing special.   Alas, consumers don't distinguish between SUVs and CUVs.  

    What is a real SUV?  Is a Wrangler going to last longer than a Cherokee or Compass?  Does a G-class last longer than an E-class sedan?  I don’t buy into a truck lasts longer than a car so it has better resale.  I think crossovers are hot and the used market isn’t flooded with them yet to where 70% of used car lot inventory is a crossover/suv which will happen.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    What is a real SUV?  Is a Wrangler going to last longer than a Cherokee or Compass?  Does a G-class last longer than an E-class sedan?  I don’t buy into a truck lasts longer than a car so it has better resale.  I think crossovers are hot and the used market isn’t flooded with them yet to where 70% of used car lot inventory is a crossover/suv which will happen.

    Real SUVs to me are on dedicated RWD/AWD platforms or truck BOF construction.  Wranglers, Grand Cherokees, the larger Range Rovers, Land Cruisers, Tahoes, Escalades, etc.   Not weak transverse engine FWD car-based CUVs.   Vehicles such as a Wrangler or G-class are certainly more ruggedly built than some transverse engine FWD appliance...and off road capable. 

    Edited by Robert Hall
    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would only think they are better for frequent off-roading, but a 15 year old SUV is still going to have the same kinds of issues a 15 year old car has (electronics, alternators, starters, water pumps, transmission, air con, suspension bits etc), and the more complex drivetrain can be costlier to maintain/repair as well.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, frogger said:

    I would only think they are better for frequent off-roading, but a 15 year old SUV is still going to have the same kinds of issues a 15 year old car has (electronics, alternators, starters, water pumps, transmission, air con, suspension bits etc), and the more complex drivetrain can be costlier to maintain/repair as well. 

    True, anything 15 years old/150k miles is going to have issues.  Been there, done that.  Won't don't it again.

    Edited by Robert Hall

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My 1994 GMC Suburban SLE with 300,000 + miles I would take over any CUV and especially any German or Asian car. Was designed to haul and pull and has outlasted many auto's a fraction of it's age. I would also take it over a G-Wagon. Yes it is built to military grade spec and will outlast pretty much the rest of MB product line, but the cost of repairs is way higher than my suburban.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I knew I was smrt.  Even though I currently have a weak FWD-biased CUV, I would not be caught dead in a high priced German car or a crappy electric.  Wrangler prices have been rising quickly over the last several years, but dang, look at them go and go and GO.

    • Haha 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Like, when I get in a customer's conventional car now, I am like whoa dude, am I getting ol' or is this thing a PITA to get in and out of?

    • Haha 2
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It’s not surprising to see Wranglers and GCs less than five years old still sold close to new...

    All of this long lasting stuff means nothing to me, as the bottom line is that it still comes down to the care taken for a vehicle.

    When I got my Cobalt an oil change last weekend, there was yet another lease turn in Cruze that had not seen an oil change in over 20k......

    • Confused 1
    • Sad 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Developing autonomous vehicles in sunny, dry locales like Phoenix, Arizona has proven to be difficult due to numerous variables such as traffic and human behavior. But an upcoming study from Michigan State University reveals that autonomous technologies still have a number of hurdles as testing begins in areas with changing conditions.
      Automotive News had the chance to speak with Hayder Radha, an MSU professor of electrical and computer engineering who oversaw the upcoming study. The findings reveal that the algorithms that are used to distill the various bits of information coming from the cameras and radar/lidar sensors have issues when it lightly rains.
      "When we run these algorithms, we see very noticeable, tangible degradation in detection. Even low-intensity rain can really create some serious problems, and as you increase the intensity, the performance of what we consider state-of-the-art mechanisms can almost become paralyzed," said Radha.
      "Once you throw in a few drops of rain, they get confused. It's like putting eyedrops in your eye and expecting to see right away."
      Researchers looked at various parameters in their study, including the size of the raindrops and the effect of wind. Using a scale that ranged from a clear day to a major downpour, the study revealed that algorithms failed to detect as much "as 20 percent of objects when the rain intensity was 10 percent of the worst-case scenario." This increased to 40 percent when the intensity of the rain increased to 30 percent.
      Other weather-related issues that were revealed in MSU's study,
      The high-resolution maps that autonomous systems to determine their location may need to be updated due to the changing seasons. "You can imagine in environments where there are a lot of leaves on trees or on shrubs close to the road, they are an essential part of the map. So summer and winter are completely different. When they fall down in winter, you have nothing to work with. So that tells you that for this technology to be robust, it needs to be developed in different conditions than you see only in Arizona and Silicon Valley," explained Radha. Cold temperatures play havoc with lidar sensors. The study reveals that the amount of "poor-quality or irrelevant returns from lidar sensors" increased as if the temperature was at 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Some of these issues can be addressed by getting more information from radar and lidar as engineers develop various ways to use them to classify objects. But Radha explains the big improvements will come when self-driving tech is tested in other locations such as Michigan and Pittsburgh to name a couple.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Developing autonomous vehicles in sunny, dry locales like Phoenix, Arizona has proven to be difficult due to numerous variables such as traffic and human behavior. But an upcoming study from Michigan State University reveals that autonomous technologies still have a number of hurdles as testing begins in areas with changing conditions.
      Automotive News had the chance to speak with Hayder Radha, an MSU professor of electrical and computer engineering who oversaw the upcoming study. The findings reveal that the algorithms that are used to distill the various bits of information coming from the cameras and radar/lidar sensors have issues when it lightly rains.
      "When we run these algorithms, we see very noticeable, tangible degradation in detection. Even low-intensity rain can really create some serious problems, and as you increase the intensity, the performance of what we consider state-of-the-art mechanisms can almost become paralyzed," said Radha.
      "Once you throw in a few drops of rain, they get confused. It's like putting eyedrops in your eye and expecting to see right away."
      Researchers looked at various parameters in their study, including the size of the raindrops and the effect of wind. Using a scale that ranged from a clear day to a major downpour, the study revealed that algorithms failed to detect as much "as 20 percent of objects when the rain intensity was 10 percent of the worst-case scenario." This increased to 40 percent when the intensity of the rain increased to 30 percent.
      Other weather-related issues that were revealed in MSU's study,
      The high-resolution maps that autonomous systems to determine their location may need to be updated due to the changing seasons. "You can imagine in environments where there are a lot of leaves on trees or on shrubs close to the road, they are an essential part of the map. So summer and winter are completely different. When they fall down in winter, you have nothing to work with. So that tells you that for this technology to be robust, it needs to be developed in different conditions than you see only in Arizona and Silicon Valley," explained Radha. Cold temperatures play havoc with lidar sensors. The study reveals that the amount of "poor-quality or irrelevant returns from lidar sensors" increased as if the temperature was at 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Some of these issues can be addressed by getting more information from radar and lidar as engineers develop various ways to use them to classify objects. But Radha explains the big improvements will come when self-driving tech is tested in other locations such as Michigan and Pittsburgh to name a couple.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Many new cars are fitted with various driver assist systems; backup cameras, blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise control, forward collision warning, and lane-keep assist to name a few. But this has introduced the problem of drivers becoming too reliant on these systems, causing them not realize the limitations and taking their own "preventative measures".
      The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety published a report this month looking into drivers' experiences with the assistance technologies and seeing how they relate to their understanding of it. The group commissioned researchers from the University of Iowa to survey over 1,200 owners of 2016 and 2017 model year vehicles equipped with ADAS technologies.
      The study revealed that the majority of drivers have a favorable impression of ADAS tech, with at least "two in three owners of vehicles with each respective technology reported that they trusted it." Seven out ten respondents said they would want the respective ADAS tech on their current vehicle to be standard on their next one.
      But, the study revealed that many drivers overestimate the capability of ADAS systems. Here are some of the key findings,
      Over 80 percent of drivers surveyed don't fully understand the limitations or believed that blind-spot monitoring systems could detect a large number of  fast-approaching vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. 25 percent of drivers surveyed said they don't look for oncoming vehicles when they change lanes because their vehicle has blind-spot monitoring. Nearly 40 percent of drivers don't understand the limitations of forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems. A number believed that the former would bring the vehicle to a stop, when in actuality only warns a driver of a possible collision. One in six drivers didn't know if their vehicle came equipped with an emergency braking system. About 29 percent of drivers admitted "feeling comfortable engaging in other tasks while driving" when using the adaptive cruise control system. “When properly utilized, ADAS technologies have the potential to prevent 40 percent of all vehicle crashes and nearly 30 percent of traffic deaths. However, driver understanding and proper use is crucial in reaping the full safety benefits of these systems,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in a statement.
      “Findings from this new research show that there is still a lot of work to be done in educating drivers about proper use of ADAS technologies and their limitations.”
      AAA says automakers, dealers, and rental agencies need to provide better education to drivers about ADAS tech and their limitations.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), AAA
      Drivers Rely Too Heavily on New Vehicle Safety Technologies In Spite of Limitations
      Misunderstanding and misuse of driver assistance technology could lead to a crash WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 26, 2018) – More and more, drivers are recognizing the value in having vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) like blind spot monitoring systems, forward collision warning and lane keeping assist. However, while many of these technologies are rapidly being offered as standard, many drivers are unaware of the safety limitations of ADAS in their vehicles, according to new research from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. For example, researchers found that nearly 80 percent of drivers with blind spot monitoring systems were unaware of limitations or incorrectly believed the system could accurately detect vehicles passing at very high speeds or bicycles and pedestrians. In reality, the technology can only detect when a vehicle is traveling in a driver’s blind spot and many systems do not reliably detect pedestrians or cyclists. Lack of understanding or confusion about the proper function of ADAS technologies can lead to misuse and overreliance on the systems, which could result in a deadly crash.
      “When properly utilized, ADAS technologies have the potential to prevent 40 percent of all vehicle crashes and nearly 30 percent of traffic deaths. However, driver understanding and proper use is crucial in reaping the full safety benefits of these systems,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “Findings from this new research show that there is still a lot of work to be done in educating drivers about proper use of ADAS technologies and their limitations.”
      In 2016, more than 37,400 people were killed in traffic crashes- a five percent increase from 2015. “With ADAS technologies offering proven safety benefits when properly used, it is important that automakers and others play a greater role in educating motorists about the technology available in the vehicles they purchase,” said Jake Nelson, AAA director of traffic safety advocacy and research. “AAA also urges drivers to take charge of learning their vehicle technology’s functions and limitations in order to improve safety on the road.”
      The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety commissioned researchers from the University of Iowa to survey drivers who recently purchased a 2016 or 2017 model-year vehicle with ADAS technologies. Researchers evaluated drivers’ opinions, awareness and understanding of these technologies and found that most did not know or understand the limitations of the systems:
      Blind spot monitoring: 80 percent of drivers did not know the technology’s limitations or incorrectly believed that the systems could monitor the roadway behind the vehicle or reliably detect bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles passing at high speeds. Forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking: nearly 40 percent of drivers did not know the system’s limitations, or confused the two technologies- incorrectly reporting that forward collision warning could apply the brakes in the case of an emergency when the technology is only designed to deliver a warning signal. Moreover, roughly one in six vehicle owners in the survey reported that they did not know whether or not their vehicle was equipped with automatic emergency braking. False expectations for ADAS systems can easily lead to misuse of the technology or an increase in driver distraction. In the survey:
      About 25 percent of drivers using blind spot monitoring or rear cross traffic alert systems report feeling comfortable relying solely on the systems and not performing visual checks or looking over their shoulder for oncoming traffic or pedestrians. About 25 percent of vehicle owners using forward collision warning or lane departure warning systems report feeling comfortable engaging in other tasks while driving. “New vehicle safety technology is designed to make driving safer, but it does not replace the important role each of us plays behind the wheel,” Yang continued. “The prospect of self-driving cars is exciting, but we aren’t there yet.  Automakers have an ethical and important responsibility to accurately market, and to carefully educate consumers about the technologies we purchase in the vehicles we drive off the lot.”
      As part of its ongoing traffic safety mission, new AAA Foundation research also evaluated the potential these popular advanced driver assistance technologies have in helping to reduce or prevent crashes. The findings show that if installed on all vehicles, ADAS technologies can potentially prevent more than 2.7 million crashes, 1.1 million injuries and nearly 9,500 deaths each year:
      ADAS Systems Crashes Injuries Deaths Forward Collision Warning/ Automatic Emergency Braking 1,994,000 884,000 4,738 Lane Departure Warning / Lane Keeping Assist 519,000 187,000 4,654 Blind Spot Warning 318,000 89,000 274 Total Potentially Preventable by all systems  2,748,000 1,128,000 9,496 Despite the findings that show confusion about some ADAS technologies, at least 70 percent of vehicle owners report that they would recommend the technology to other drivers. The greatest proportion of drivers reported trusting blind spot monitoring systems (84 percent), followed by rear-cross traffic alert (82 percent), lane departure warning (77 percent), lane keeping assist (73 percent), forward collision warning (69 percent) and automatic emergency braking (66 percent).
      These findings should prompt additional focus on the importance of educating new and used car buyers about how safety technologies work. “The training drivers need to properly use the safety technologies in their vehicles is not currently offered,” added Nelson. “If educating consumers about vehicle technology was as much a priority for the automakers and dealers as making the sale, we would all reap the benefits.”
      Only about half of the drivers who report purchasing their vehicle from a car dealership recalled being offered a training on the ADAS technology. However, for those who were, nearly 90 percent took advantage of the opportunity and completed the training.
      For now, drivers are their best safety advocate to ensure that they understand their technology’s features, functions and limitations before leaving the lot. In order to reduce misuse or overreliance on the systems, AAA encourages drivers to:
      Read up: Read your owner’s manual to learn what systems are installed in your vehicle. See it in action: Insist on an in-vehicle demonstration and test drive to better understand how the systems will engage on the roadway. Ask questions: Ask plenty of questions about the alerts, functions, capabilities and limitations of the vehicle’s safety technologies before leaving the dealership. For example, ask if there are scenarios when a technology will not function properly on the road.
  • Posts

  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. ideadman
      ideadman
      (34 years old)
    2. What if
      What if
      (62 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...