Which To Buy?

1994 Accord EX $2736
1994 Taurus LX $754

These are the current private-party values for those 2 cars. The Honda
is still worth significantly more. If she were to trade in her Ford right
now, she'd get a paltry $323 for it from the dealer.

 

You realize you are comparing the mid-line Taurus to the top of the
line Accord - right? Hardly seems fair. And I think your numbers are
wrong besides.

I just went to KBB.COM and got the follwoing numbers:

1994 Taurus LX 3.0L V-6 (base engine) with popular options (PW. PB,
PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private Party
Value - $2,210 (the bottom of the line GL with similar equipment is
worth around $300 less, the top of the line SHO is worth about $600
more, which makes it worth more than the top of the line Acccord EX
according to your numbers).

1994 Honda Accord LX 2.2L four (base engine) with popular options (PW.
PB, PS, PL, AC, Cloth Seats), 96000 miles, good condition - Private
Party Value - $3,825 (and the LX is the mid grade Accord, the bottom
of the line DX with similar equipment is about $400 less).

Edmunds.com has a "true cost to own" calcualtor. I doubt it is a great
predictor of the future, but it is fun to play with. See
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController . They don't let
you go back more than 4 years with used cars, but here are the
caluculations for a 2003 Taurus vs a 2003 Accord -

2003 Taurus LX - $0.36 per mile
2003 Accord LX - $0.37 per mile

They include depreciation, financing, insurance, etc in the
calculation.

For a new car here are the numbers:

2007 Ford Fusion S Sedan - $0.45 per mile (total depreciation in five
years $11,364)
2007 Honda Accord LX - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
$10,704)
2007 Toyota Camry CE - $0.43 (total depreciation in five years
$10,328)

This is based on buying the car new and keeping it for 5 years and
driving 15,000 miles per year. Clearly the lower depreciation rate
predicition for the Accord makes the Accord cheaper to own if you only
keep your car for 5 years or less. However, if you keep it for 13
years or more, the situation will reverse and the Ford will be
cheaper. Edmunds also makes assumptions on maintenance costs and
repair costs that may or may not be accurate. For instance, they show
the mainenance cost for the Accord to be slightly less than for the
Fusion and a lot less than for the Camry). I assume this is based
mostly on Honda's recommended service intervasl that allows for much
longer oil change intervals. I am not sure that most Honda owners
actually go with the long oil change intervals, so I am not sure this
is realistic.

I think the more important point is that if you are going for cheap -
buy used.

Ed

 

I used Edmunds numbers and just picked the middle car in each line...

Around here, Edmunds numbers always seem closer than KBB's.

Even in your numbers (which are highly inflated for the Ford, IMO, you'd
never get that price around here), the Accord is worth nearly 50% more
than the Ford.

 

Well you did a poor job of using the Edmunds tool. I used the Edmunds
site to get figures for similar 1994 Accords and Tauri, with similar
equipment and mileage (96,000). The Accord came in with a "True Market
Value" Private Party sales price of $2,040 and the Taurus had TMV
Private Party price of $1,294.

Next time you want to rip Ford, at least do it right, instead of doing
an unfair comparison. The Accord EX is the top of the line model.
Edmunds does not treart the Taurus LX fairly since they force you to
select options that are standard on the LX model in the "option"
section. So, go back and redo your calculations by using a reasonable
mileage (96,000 seems fair to me), add in the Taurus "options" that
are really part of the LX package, and compare it to a Honda Accord
LX. The Accord will still come out as worth more, but the difference
is much less than the difference in initial purchase price.

Ed

 

There are a few americans that prefer american cars. The rest of the
world knows better. Numbers don't lie. Seriously, most of the 10
people who are satisfied with their american car are here in this
thread blowing smoke up each others asses. So you can't imagine a cop
jumping curbs in an Accord, do you really think the guy who started
this thread wants to buy a car that his daughter will be using to jump
curbs? Numbnuts...

On a side note...

I had a 92 Honda Prelude Si that was stolen. It was recovered a week
later...cops called me at midnight one night telling me to come get it
(so it wouldn't have to be impounded). When I got there the cop that
found it told me the story. He was pulling into a restaurant when he
saw my car go flying by and run a red light...cop gives chase for a few
miles and guess what? He couldn't catch my lil stock underpowered
econobox with his Crown Vic (RWD and all!). Once the car thief lost
the cops he abandoned the car on a side-street - that's where the cops
found it.

 

Don't you know? That was just cop talk for, I had to finish my donut before
I gave chase. I took a side-street in hopes of not finding the car because I
don't want to do any real work tonight, I've got innocent civilians to
harrass!

 

Sounds like the typical excuse an american car lover would give LOL.

Nope - he wanted to catch the guy. You shoulda heard his cop buddies
giving him shit for not catching the thief...cops are pretty funny.

 

It has nothing to do with american cars! It has everything to do with
good-for-nothing cops.

(By the way I own a 2002 Accord LX and a 2004 S-10, I have previously owned
a '99 Civic, '99 Accord, '79 Civic 5dr, '88 S-10, '97 S-10 Blazer, and '90
Sentra. None have given me major problems, and most all have had minor
problems. With regard to my experience, neither make has been more reliable
than the other. I'm not biased one way or the other.)

 

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Bull. I bought a 1995 Toyota Tercel in 2001 for $1400 and sold it in 2004
for $1400 with 130,000 miles on it and PLENTY of life left in it.
Car was in near mint condidiotn, it had a dent in the door, ran like a top
and got 44 MPG with an AT. I needed to sell it to get the money to buy a
Supra. If you look hard and long enough, you can find deals.

 

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Bull. I bought a 1995 Toyota Tercel in 2001 for $1400 and sold it in 2004
for $1400 with 130,000 miles on it and PLENTY of life left in it.
Car was in near mint condidiotn, it had a dent in the door, ran like a top
and got 44 MPG with an AT. I needed to sell it to get the money to buy a
Supra. If you look hard and long enough, you can find deals.

 

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Bull. I bought a 1995 Toyota Tercel in 2001 for $1400 and sold it in 2004
for $1400 with 130,000 miles on it and PLENTY of life left in it.
Car was in near mint condidiotn, it had a dent in the door, ran like a top
and got 44 MPG with an AT. I needed to sell it to get the money to buy a
Supra. If you look hard and long enough, you can find deals.

 

There's a maintenance schedule in the book. You were supposed to change
the timing belt at 120K.

 

There's a maintenance schedule in the book. You were supposed to change
the timing belt at 120K.

 

There's a maintenance schedule in the book. You were supposed to change
the timing belt at 120K.

 

My nightmare of a car had nothing to do with the timing belt.
Did I mention timing belt anywhere? You think with $10k dumped
into the car I would've tried to save pennies on the timing belt?

 

My nightmare of a car had nothing to do with the timing belt.
Did I mention timing belt anywhere? You think with $10k dumped
into the car I would've tried to save pennies on the timing belt?

 

My nightmare of a car had nothing to do with the timing belt.
Did I mention timing belt anywhere? You think with $10k dumped
into the car I would've tried to save pennies on the timing belt?