Author Topic: New way to evaluate a car's value by CR: bucks per bang (Read 3148 times)

mp3butt · « **on:** March 19, 2009, 11:52:24 pm »

Hi guys,

CR comes up with a new way to measure a car's value in the April auto issue: bucks per bang. It's basically simple math of having the 5 yr owner cost divided by the road test score. The 5 yrs owner cost consists of depreciation, fuel, insurance, interest on financing, maintenance and repair. Prius comes out to the top among all cars. I have attached the table. Check it out. I am surprised to find that the Rabbit is the best value in the hatch category.

MP3Butt

dr_spock · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2009, 11:59:47 pm »

Hmm, none of the domestic 3 made the list.

PJungnitsch · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2009, 12:51:32 am »

Quote from: dr_spock on March 19, 2009, 11:59:47 pm

Hmm, none of the domestic 3 made the list.

Even the good performing, reliable performers (ie the Fusion) are probably done in by low resale values.

The domestics might do quite a bit better if rated as used vehicles.

Trainman · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2009, 01:51:04 am »

OK, if this is based on 5 yrs of data, how can the Rouge be in there?

Mitlov · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2009, 02:21:13 am »

Cool! An Avalon is better than a G37! That's precisely what I've always wanted to know.

This is CR at its absolute worst...

MKII · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2009, 03:49:28 am »

With some of the domestics finally getting good marks for reliability etc on CR, CR has found a creative way to remove them.

Snowman · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2009, 08:30:36 am »

As a big CR supporter I find this to be a joke

airbalancer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2009, 08:33:21 am »

Quote from: Snowman on March 20, 2009, 08:30:36 am

As a big CR supporter I find this to be a joke

CR or this thread?

Snowman · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2009, 08:34:34 am »

Quote from: airbalancer on March 20, 2009, 08:33:21 am

Quote from: Snowman on March 20, 2009, 08:30:36 am
As a big CR supporter I find this to be a joke

CR or this thread?

CR....things must be slow

Cord · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2009, 10:00:01 am »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the objectivity of CR is a complete myth. They are as much whores to their paying audience as their supporters claims others like JD Power to be. The fact is that if they started to be too critical of the cars owned by their current readership they would lose readers and therefore dollars.

dr_spock · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2009, 10:22:44 am »

Quote from: Trainman on March 20, 2009, 01:51:04 am

OK, if this is based on 5 yrs of data, how can the Rouge be in there?

I guess they used extrapolation.

Mitlov · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2009, 10:38:48 am »

Scion tC and Volvo C30 are two of the five best "sporty car" values out there? The Ridgeline offers better value than any other pickup on the market? Seriously?

The Mighty Duck · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2009, 10:52:57 am »

Quote from: Mitlov on March 20, 2009, 10:38:48 am

Scion tC and Volvo C30 are two of the five best "sporty car" values out there? The Ridgeline offers better value than any other pickup on the market? Seriously?

Given the methodology they're using, yes. If you have a problem with that methodology, whine about that. But stop posting "Oh, why did they pick this car! What a joke!!!" They didn't pick cars - they applied a certain methodology to a bunch of cars and got these results.

As for that methodology... it's an interesting take. The results seem to reflect, in some cases at least, sales numbers (e.g., Civic and Corolla both made the best small car shortlist) so maybe there is something to it. Not something I would make a buying decision based on, though.

Mitlov · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2009, 10:58:05 am »

Quote from: Demosthenes X on March 20, 2009, 10:52:57 am

Given the methodology they're using, yes. If you have a problem with that methodology, whine about that. But stop posting "Oh, why did they pick this car! What a joke!!!" They didn't pick cars - they applied a certain methodology to a bunch of cars and got these results.

Yes, I most certainly have a problem with the methodology. The purpose of my post was to show that their methodology leads to arbitrary and downright-asinine results. I understand their mathematical formula, but their formula produces such stupid results that there's no point in even using it.

Quote

As for that methodology... it's an interesting take. The results seem to reflect, in some cases at least, sales numbers (e.g., Civic and Corolla both made the best small car shortlist) so maybe there is something to it. Not something I would make a buying decision based on, though.

I don't see that at all. There are more exceptions to that rule than examples. Avalon best-selling premium car with the 3-Series not making the top five? Certainly not. Ridgeline best-selling pickup and no domestics in the top five? Nope. Civic Hybrid one of the five best-selling compact cars? Not a chance! Prius and Camry Hybrid the two best-selling family cars? Etc, etc.

Erik · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:03:26 am »

Quote from: MKII on March 20, 2009, 03:49:28 am

With some of the domestics finally getting good marks for reliability etc on CR, CR has found a creative way to remove them.

Tere, MKII.
Good post!

initial_D · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:35:27 am »

CR comes up with a new way to measure a car's value in the April auto issue: bucks per bang. It's basically simple math of having the 5 yr owner cost divided by the road test score. The 5 yrs owner cost consists of depreciation, fuel, insurance, interest on financing, maintenance and repair.

The 5 yrs owner cost consists of depreciation, fuel, insurance, interest on financing, maintenance and repair.

This makes sense.

5 yr owner cost divided by the road test score.

This does not.

tenpenny · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:51:32 am »

I was in a doctors office, flipping through some high falutin decorating magazine, and there was a review of some vehicles where they rated them as cost per passenger per mile, based on fuel economy. The Suburban was the one on top. I'm sure that was used by some people to justify their purchase.

You can come up with some very interesting results if you play around with your requirements.

Shnak · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:57:17 am »

Quote from: tenpenny on March 20, 2009, 11:51:32 am

I was in a doctors office, flipping through some high falutin decorating magazine, and there was a review of some vehicles where they rated them as cost per passenger per mile, based on fuel economy. The Suburban was the one on top. I'm sure that was used by some people to justify their purchase.

You can come up with some very interesting results if you play around with your requirements.

Wouldn't a school bus beat the Suburban in that study?

initial_D · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:57:59 am »

Home Decor mag rate cars with the number of available colors, divided by the totoal surface area, multiply the thickness of the paint.

initial_D · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2009, 11:58:49 am »

Quote from: Shnak on March 20, 2009, 11:57:17 am

Quote from: tenpenny on March 20, 2009, 11:51:32 am
I was in a doctors office, flipping through some high falutin decorating magazine, and there was a review of some vehicles where they rated them as cost per passenger per mile, based on fuel economy. The Suburban was the one on top. I'm sure that was used by some people to justify their purchase.

You can come up with some very interesting results if you play around with your requirements.

Wouldn't a school bus beat the Suburban in that study?

Kids smile on school buses?