WTF, right? Check it:

>>"For luxury cars with very high sticker prices, depreciation claims more money than it does for mass-market models that cost a lot less to begin with. That's true even for luxury models that retain their value very well.

Over five years, the Porsche 911 GT3 — the tenth most expensive car to own — depreciates just 41% from its starting MSRP. By contrast, the Lincoln MKZ, the 10th least expensive-to-own luxury model, sheds about 67% of its base price. But the MKZ sells for around $30,000, compared to $106,000 for the 911 GT3. 67% of $30,000 is a lot less than 41% of $106,000 — that works out to $20,100 versus $43,460, respectively."<<

You sure don't here the drive-by media tossing those numbers around, do you? '(Import) costs owner over $40 grand in 3 years.' Oh, no; instead we get compartmentalized, vague percentages. It's exactly like how all we ever read is about GM's declining marketshare, even tho for the longest time GM sold the same VOLUME of vehicles, it's just that there were a lot more players on the field. Imagine A-Rod's homerun total expressed as a percentage of Yankee's Homeruns- really tells you a lot.

Complete article : http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/103...vehicles-to-own

Great take on this.

How are the Porsche and Lincoln even vaguely in the same class?

How are the Porsche and Lincoln even vaguely in the same class?

They aren't...someone is just having fun with numbers...

Right: the media.

Recall the 'bumper' articles, where they reported the repair cost from a mild front-end collision on various cars? Those are always expressed in dollar amounts, not as percentages of the sticker price. Same with window sticker fuel costs- dollars, not percentages. Lease-end ballon payments are not expressed as percentages, either. These are real world costs the consumer deals with directly. I see no reason resale values should be expressed ANY differently. You guys know the average comsumer; they hear "59%" and think it's way better than "33%", when IN FACT (in the above hypothetical) that "59%" residual costs the owner $23360. That's almost a brand new Mini, isn't it???

C'mon, O, this is not about 2 vehicles being in the same class, this is about the general perception that 'domestic resale values suck' when the reality is the 'better' import percentage may cost the owner a great deal more hard cash out-of-pocket come trade-in time. Even if this was a CTS & a 535, if the consumer accurately knew the money involved, it might weigh on his purchase decision.

Tell me you don't initially think when you read 'GM's U.S. marketshare has dropped from 5x% to 2x%' that- Wow- GM is selling less than half the volume it used to there. Is it, or is it within less than a 1/10th of that 5x% percent volume? What does that tell you about percentages' accuracy?

Look, some of you are fine & dandy with blindly accepting everything the media hit you over the head with. I for one feel it's in my best interest to look deeper. Selling magazines/newspapers/TV ad time is NOT primarily driven by the steadfast principal of truth above all. Media is NOT a public service, it's a business. And all that that implies.

Yup... more of the same. Gotta love the retards in charge of the "news".

Oh no.... I got into it when I was talking resale values compared to purchase prices with Carbiz and Enzl.

I wonder which is the more desirable position for the manufacturer to be in... offering low purchase prices/low residuals or high purchase prices/high residuals? GM certainly seems to be moving toward the "import" side by slashing incentives and reducing fleet sales to boost residuals.

Can financial value ever be made non-desirable?