Topic: Feature: The most reliable cars that depreciate the least

[Vanstar]

Being a second hand car owner I'm much more interested in most-reliable-cars-that-depreciate-the-fastest.

+1000
I'd love a 2-3 yr old reliable car that has already lost 40% of its value.

Agreed. Just picked up a 2010 Mazda 3 GS advertised on Kijiji for $13,600+hst, 36,000 kms with b to b warranty still on it. Driven by a school teacher, original owner (no kidding). List was $23,600+tax in 2010.

You are a very intelligent man; I have been buying low km, two year old cars for most of my life. You saved yourself $10,000, which would have taken at least $13,000 to replace. You can take that $10,000 and put it on your RRSP. This saving, with compound interest, means you will be able to retire at least a year earlier.

Mortgage has been paid for decades ago. RRSP is maxed every year. This car is being driven by my 17 year old son. He paid for most of it with his WM job, helped him out with some cash. Tried to find the best deal possible for him and get an awesome car at the same time. I offered him my 2013 Sonata as a driver but he refused. Smart lad. 

Well, you are a very wise, and no doubt contented man. Just make sure both yours and wife's TFSA accounts get maxed in January. That's $10k for the both you you. I am planning to be at the bank on Jan 2!

[tpl]

$5500 each this January for TFSA.   Inflation pushed it up a bit.  Ours will be in on Jan2nd.

[Vanstar]

$5500 each this January for TFSA.   Inflation pushed it up a bit.  Ours will be in on Jan2nd.

I didn't know they had raised the limit but I will surely be there with the extra $1000 on Jan 2.

The TFSA is an excellent investment vehicle and an excellent tax break for people who really don't need tax breaks. Should really ramp up the deficit down the road!

[HeliDriver]

Even zero percent financing is not zero.  There are always fees and you can normally get a better price if you don't take the zero financing.

Not true.

Yes true.  I used to sell cars.  It cost money to borrow money either for us or for the dealer.  If you take the zero percent then the dealer makes less on the sale.  Offer cash and if you don't get a better deal then walk.

Kia even show the difference on the web site.  The "cash price" for a 2012 Soul is $3500 less then the financed price with zero percent.

 
http://www.kia.ca/pages/pricing/pricekia-step4.aspx?model=soul

You said always in the quote. That's the part that's not true.

Sure, Kia and many others do it that way (the either/or pricing), but sometimes 0% really is just 0%.

I said there are always FEES and you can NORMALLY get a better price.  You even quoted my quote and still miss read it.

There are not always fees, and zero percent financing is often available with no hidden costs, no foregone benefits, and no extra cost to the consumer.

That is the point.

[PJ]

Even zero percent financing is not zero.  There are always fees and you can normally get a better price if you don't take the zero financing.

Not true.

Yes true.  I used to sell cars.  It cost money to borrow money either for us or for the dealer.  If you take the zero percent then the dealer makes less on the sale.  Offer cash and if you don't get a better deal then walk.

Kia even show the difference on the web site.  The "cash price" for a 2012 Soul is $3500 less then the financed price with zero percent.

 
http://www.kia.ca/pages/pricing/pricekia-step4.aspx?model=soul

You said always in the quote. That's the part that's not true.

Sure, Kia and many others do it that way (the either/or pricing), but sometimes 0% really is just 0%.

I said there are always FEES and you can NORMALLY get a better price.  You even quoted my quote and still miss read it.

There are not always fees, and zero percent financing is often available with no hidden costs, no foregone benefits, and no extra cost to the consumer.

That is the point.

Sales guys must love you.

[HeliDriver]

Even zero percent financing is not zero.  There are always fees and you can normally get a better price if you don't take the zero financing.

Not true.

Yes true.  I used to sell cars.  It cost money to borrow money either for us or for the dealer.  If you take the zero percent then the dealer makes less on the sale.  Offer cash and if you don't get a better deal then walk.

Kia even show the difference on the web site.  The "cash price" for a 2012 Soul is $3500 less then the financed price with zero percent.

 
http://www.kia.ca/pages/pricing/pricekia-step4.aspx?model=soul

You said always in the quote. That's the part that's not true.

Sure, Kia and many others do it that way (the either/or pricing), but sometimes 0% really is just 0%.

I said there are always FEES and you can NORMALLY get a better price.  You even quoted my quote and still miss read it.

There are not always fees, and zero percent financing is often available with no hidden costs, no foregone benefits, and no extra cost to the consumer.

That is the point.

Sales guys must love you.

Yeah, me and the two other guys in this thread who say the same. Not to mention the others in different threads who also managed to find these seemingly magical deals that you say don't exist.

And of course there's the three actual car salesmen on this board who have said that's the way it works at their stores, too.

But, whatever.

[ArticSteve]

I didn't know they had raised the limit but I will surely be there with the extra $1000 on Jan 2.

The TFSA is an excellent investment vehicle and an excellent tax break for people who really don't need tax breaks. Should really ramp up the deficit down the road!

Van, TFSAs are chicken feed compared to a pull back on housing prices. 

CMHC, which dominates the market by a wide margin, had about $286-billion of insurance outstanding, as of the end of 2011, on mortgages where the homeowner had a down payment of less than 20 per cent. It has a large cushion to absorb potential losses, but how steep would those losses be if the property market were to suffer a hard landing? “What’s immediately at risk in the event of a significant downturn is the capital of CMHC, which is about $12-billion, so once they blow through that, then they start turning to the public purse,” says Finn Poschmann, vice-president of research at the C.D. Howe Institute.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/cmhc-ottawas-800-billion-housing-problem/article6732755/?page=all

Thought I'd put this thread out of it's misery on a positive note. 

[Seafoam]

I didn't know they had raised the limit but I will surely be there with the extra $1000 on Jan 2.

The TFSA is an excellent investment vehicle and an excellent tax break for people who really don't need tax breaks. Should really ramp up the deficit down the road!

Van, TFSAs are chicken feed compared to a pull back on housing prices. 

CMHC, which dominates the market by a wide margin, had about $286-billion of insurance outstanding, as of the end of 2011, on mortgages where the homeowner had a down payment of less than 20 per cent. It has a large cushion to absorb potential losses, but how steep would those losses be if the property market were to suffer a hard landing? “What’s immediately at risk in the event of a significant downturn is the capital of CMHC, which is about $12-billion, so once they blow through that, then they start turning to the public purse,” says Finn Poschmann, vice-president of research at the C.D. Howe Institute.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/cmhc-ottawas-800-billion-housing-problem/article6732755/?page=all

Thought I'd put this thread out of it's misery on a positive note. 

Really . I thought you were going to suggest a corolla. Funny how these threads go off topic.

[tooscoops]

pj and heli seem to be enjoying themselves!

you are both somewhat right... fees.. yeah, there will always be something... 47 ppsa or whatever.. register the lien... no big deal though. i should hope +-50 bucks isn't the deal breaker for either side of the deal.

0% can go either way... sure kia and many others have a "take 0% OR ____ off" deals. (those are the ones advertised with an effective finance rate if 0% is chosen in the fine print.) other manufacturers just say, here's the price of the car... everyone gets the same discount, cash or finance buyers. rates range from 0 - 7%. if you get a better rate elsewhere, go for it. if not, take it.

[ArticSteve]

Really . I thought you were going to suggest a corolla. Funny how these threads go off topic

Reply 36, last line.   

2013 Corolla with enhanced convenience package @ 0%/60 which easily supports a $10 monthly contribution to the CPC.  That's about as close to heaven as a Canadian can get. 

[Vanstar]

I didn't know they had raised the limit but I will surely be there with the extra $1000 on Jan 2.

The TFSA is an excellent investment vehicle and an excellent tax break for people who really don't need tax breaks. Should really ramp up the deficit down the road!

Van, TFSAs are chicken feed compared to a pull back on housing prices. 

CMHC, which dominates the market by a wide margin, had about $286-billion of insurance outstanding, as of the end of 2011, on mortgages where the homeowner had a down payment of less than 20 per cent. It has a large cushion to absorb potential losses, but how steep would those losses be if the property market were to suffer a hard landing? “What’s immediately at risk in the event of a significant downturn is the capital of CMHC, which is about $12-billion, so once they blow through that, then they start turning to the public purse,” says Finn Poschmann, vice-president of research at the C.D. Howe Institute.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/cmhc-ottawas-800-billion-housing-problem/article6732755/?page=all

Thought I'd put this thread out of it's misery on a positive note. 
[/quote

I am well aware of this, Steve. I have sold all my major properties and invested the cash elsewhere. We are already seeing significant drops on condo prices in the area of 20% and single family is also down. Simple fact is that when new buyers cannot enter the market, the whole shebag will fall like a house of cards. The return to sane lending practices has really cooled the market, a market that was overheated with hot money and forty year, zero down mortgages. All this toxic paper was quietly scooped up by Flaherty for a cool $400m + when the financial system tanked in 2008.

The real problem with Harper is not his decisions now, it is down the road. The easing they encouraged caused a housing bubble as did allowing "foreign investors" only invest in housing. The cost of this has only just started. Another example is the eventual cost of ripping out environmental protection.  Now it's for sure correcting and we are going to see many over extended people lose a lot of the (financed) stuff.

[ArticSteve]

Van; I fully realize that you are far ahead of the curve on this.  Was just throwing it out there as a slam against you know who.  As much as I like to see the ECONOMIST and his merry band of MOTONS burn in Canadian history for their incredible mismanagement vis-a-vis the housing bubble, I am praying for a soft landing.  However, if the US tanks because of the fiscal cliff and bursts our bubble then the economic slide in this country will be epic.  Naturally, the Economist and his supporters, many on this forum, will deny any knowledge.  The *ss end of democracy. 

[Vanstar]

Van; I fully realize that you are far ahead of the curve on this.  Was just throwing it out there as a slam against you know who.  As much as I like to see the ECONOMIST and his merry band of MOTONS burn in Canadian history for their incredible mismanagement vis-a-vis the housing bubble, I am praying for a soft landing.  However, if the US tanks because of the fiscal cliff and bursts our bubble then the economic slide in this country will be epic.  Naturally, the Economist and his supporters, many on this forum, will deny any knowledge.  The *ss end of democracy. 

Steve, Canada's housing bubble is bursting all on its own and what happens in the USA won't have much effect on it. From what I can find, there are about $110 bn in toxic mortgages at CMHC that Harper will have to be covered by the tax-payer, in addition to the 40 year, 0% down paper they already took back.

Even it every one of these loans bust, there will still be some return on them, I would wager 50% so the hit on the taxpayer will be relatively benign.

Problem is when governments, like Harper's, get used to nationlising private sector debt, it becomes a difficult habit to stop. Have a look at the USA, but also Japan and Korea. In all three countries governments are limit to what they can do because they have too much outstanding debt. As long as we elect neo-con governments, we will see this trend continue. Have a look at how much Bush nationalised. Have a look how much Harper paid GM to close its factories in Canada and move them to Mexico. Harper is in the business of paying off his big business supporters and that is not going to change. If nationalising private debt keeps the dollars flowing into CPC coffers, we will continue to see it.

The bad decisions that Harper is making will definitely drag Canada's economy down during any recovery

[Snowman]

Van; I fully realize that you are far ahead of the curve on this.  Was just throwing it out there as a slam against you know who.  As much as I like to see the ECONOMIST and his merry band of MOTONS burn in Canadian history for their incredible mismanagement vis-a-vis the housing bubble, I am praying for a soft landing.  However, if the US tanks because of the fiscal cliff and bursts our bubble then the economic slide in this country will be epic.  Naturally, the Economist and his supporters, many on this forum, will deny any knowledge.  The *ss end of democracy. 

Steve, Canada's housing bubble is bursting all on its own and what happens in the USA won't have much effect on it. From what I can find, there are about $110 bn in toxic mortgages at CMHC that Harper will have to be covered by the tax-payer, in addition to the 40 year, 0% down paper they already took back.

Even it every one of these loans bust, there will still be some return on them, I would wager 50% so the hit on the taxpayer will be relatively benign.

Problem is when governments, like Harper's, get used to nationlising private sector debt, it becomes a difficult habit to stop. Have a look at the USA, but also Japan and Korea. In all three countries governments are limit to what they can do because they have too much outstanding debt. As long as we elect neo-con governments, we will see this trend continue. Have a look at how much Bush nationalised. Have a look how much Harper paid GM to close its factories in Canada and move them to Mexico. Harper is in the business of paying off his big business supporters and that is not going to change. If nationalising private debt keeps the dollars flowing into CPC coffers, we will continue to see it.

The bad decisions that Harper is making will definitely drag Canada's economy down during any recovery

"From what I can find, there are about $110 bn in toxic mortgages at CMHC" where is this information, link?

[ArticSteve]

Currently, the default rate is within the normal range as far as they are telling us.  My Globe and Mail link expresses the fact that 286B worth of mortgages are highly leveraged and CMHC has only a 12B backstop.

It's not a good position to be in.  Can turn badly very quickly.  The 5 major Banks managed to unload all their bad residential mortgage paper to the taxpayer and John Q public was totally unaware this happened.  Amazing. 

[dirtyjeffer]

Problem is when governments, like Harper's, get used to nationlising private sector debt, it becomes a difficult habit to stop. Have a look at the USA, but also Japan and Korea. In all three countries governments are limit to what they can do because they have too much outstanding debt. As long as we elect neo-con governments, we will see this trend continue. Have a look at how much Bush nationalised. Have a look how much Harper paid GM to close its factories in Canada and move them to Mexico. Harper is in the business of paying off his big business supporters and that is not going to change. If nationalising private debt keeps the dollars flowing into CPC coffers, we will continue to see it.

The bad decisions that Harper is making will definitely drag Canada's economy down during any recovery

first of all, i don't know why politics is getting in this thread.

secondly, i'm not really sure why you referenced PM Harper as "neo-con"...Harper's policies are actually quite centrist, and it is why the opposition has been in opposition the past 6 years...you also blame Bush, yet much of the problems down there were actually started by Clinton's government...sure, "your type" will also pop up and say "but Bush didn't fix any of it", but that isn't the point...Clinton's government wanted every American to own a home, as home ownership helps drive the economy, so his government put into process policies that loosen borrowing requirements and allowed more people to buy homes...in theory, it was likely an innocent good policy, but with the lack of oversight down there, it became a free for all for buyers (no job, no problem)...it created a false economy built on debt, which of course won't last long (as we saw).

thirdly, i don't understand your comment about "Harper paying GM to close factories and move to Mexico"...that comment makes no sense, so i don't really understand what you were trying to say there.

lastly, as we can see, Harper's financial policies haven't ruined Canada during these tough times...he became PM in 2006, and the financial mess started in 2007, so he has been managing our country almost since he won his first election...i'm not saying he is perfect, but saying things like you have said is being intellectually dishonest, or just plain blind partisan drivel.

[OliverD]

Back on topic: There were a few references on the first page as to how depreciation "doesn't matter" if you keep a car longer than 3-5 years. While it may be true that it matters less it should still be a factor that is considered when purchasing. With less depreciation, you tend to be less upside-down on your loan (assuming zero down, or close to it). Also, if your life situation ever changes suddenly, it's certainly nice to have an asset that has some value.

Personally, I prefer buying used cars at bargain prices, taking on a low payment, and paying it off as quickly as possible.

[Northernridge]

Back on topic: There were a few references on the first page as to how depreciation "doesn't matter" if you keep a car longer than 3-5 years. While it may be true that it matters less it should still be a factor that is considered when purchasing. With less depreciation, you tend to be less upside-down on your loan (assuming zero down, or close to it). Also, if your life situation ever changes suddenly, it's certainly nice to have an asset that has some value.

Personally, I prefer buying used cars at bargain prices, taking on a low payment, and paying it off as quickly as possible.

The only factors that should be considered when purchasing are those of the purchaser's choosing.

Personally, I prefer buying or leasing brand new vehicles because it makes me happy and I don't sweat price or debt.

[dirtyjeffer]

Personally, I prefer buying used cars at bargain prices, taking on a low payment, and paying it off as quickly as possible.

while i do agree with you in principle, it doesn't always work out that way for some circumstances...while i could have bought a 3 year old car for a little less money than what i paid for mine, it would have been used, with a higher interest rate and with little warranty with the possibility of unforeseen repair costs in the short or long term...i didn't want that, so i bought an affordable fully loaded new car, with an extended warranty to provide myself with a fixed payment that easily works within my budget both short and long term.