I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation
and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an
economic
point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
eventually account
for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
tighter, better made car, and
some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make
an business case for
the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
extra money. : )

Fred

 

Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me upside down.
I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
Never again, I can tell you that.

"Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
: I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
: The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
: for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
: and the Accord low depreciation.
:
: Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
: economic
: point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
: eventually account
: for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
: average mileage?
:
: I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
: tighter, better made car, and
: some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
: an business case for
: the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
: extra money. : )
:
: Fred
:
:
:

 

Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me upside down.
I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
Never again, I can tell you that.

"Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
: I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
: The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
: for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
: and the Accord low depreciation.
:
: Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
: economic
: point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
: eventually account
: for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
: average mileage?
:
: I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
: tighter, better made car, and
: some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
: an business case for
: the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
: extra money. : )
:
: Fred
:
:
:

 

Fred Smith wrote:
>
> but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I
> would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

With the Accord, you won't have to buy a new car after 5 years. That alone
should save you enough money to justify it's price. If given regular basic
maintenance, the Accord should last you 10-15 years or more.

Eric

 

Fred Smith wrote:
>
> but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I
> would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

With the Accord, you won't have to buy a new car after 5 years. That alone
should save you enough money to justify it's price. If given regular basic
maintenance, the Accord should last you 10-15 years or more.

Eric

 

Remember something else, this is a Honda group. I am sure you'll get
different answers at a Ford group.

"Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
: I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
: The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
: for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
: and the Accord low depreciation.
:
: Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
: economic
: point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
: eventually account
: for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
: average mileage?
:
: I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
: tighter, better made car, and
: some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
: an business case for
: the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
: extra money. : )
:
: Fred
:
:
:

 

Remember something else, this is a Honda group. I am sure you'll get
different answers at a Ford group.

"Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
: I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
: The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
: for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
: and the Accord low depreciation.
:
: Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
: economic
: point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
: eventually account
: for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
: average mileage?
:
: I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
: tighter, better made car, and
: some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
: an business case for
: the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
: extra money. : )
:
: Fred
:
:
:

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation
> and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an
> economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
> tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make
> an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
> extra money. : )
>
> Fred



> ======================

The RESALE VALUE graph for an Accord eventually levels out after a few
years, so you'll always get a fair buck back out of it. The graph for a
Taurus continues to drop and reaches close to ZERO. At least that's what
the Auto Trader prices seem to show. :-)

'Curly'

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation
> and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an
> economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer,
> tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make
> an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the
> extra money. : )
>
> Fred



> ======================

The RESALE VALUE graph for an Accord eventually levels out after a few
years, so you'll always get a fair buck back out of it. The graph for a
Taurus continues to drop and reaches close to ZERO. At least that's what
the Auto Trader prices seem to show. :-)

'Curly'

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
> depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
> from an economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
> nicer, tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I
> can make an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
> spend the extra money. : )
>
> Fred

The Accord naturally is your car of choice, however dealing with a wife you
may find yourself behind the wheel of a Taurus and completely redecorated
home.
Mike

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
> depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
> from an economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
> nicer, tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I
> can make an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
> spend the extra money. : )
>
> Fred

The Accord naturally is your car of choice, however dealing with a wife you
may find yourself behind the wheel of a Taurus and completely redecorated
home.
Mike

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
> depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
> from an economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
> nicer, tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I
> can make an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
> spend the extra money. : )
>
> Fred

Besides which you can get a taupe Taurus and it blends so well with the new
roof and trim paint on the house.
Mike

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
> depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.
>
> Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
> from an economic
> point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> eventually account
> for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> average mileage?
>
> I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
> nicer, tighter, better made car, and
> some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I
> can make an business case for
> the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
> spend the extra money. : )
>
> Fred

Besides which you can get a taupe Taurus and it blends so well with the new
roof and trim paint on the house.
Mike

 

That's a pretty accurate statement.....I fetched $220 at the junkyard for my
89 Taurus Wagon a few years back that had 185,000 miles and was pretty well
shot. They gave me more than a sedan, because they needed wagons. If it
has still been in decent running condition, it would have been worth $1,000
tops, even though it was in good physical shape. Older comparable Hondas
still fetch $2500.

"motsco_ _" <"motsco_ _"@interbaun.com> wrote in message
news:410FED42.6080608@interbaun.com...
> Fred Smith wrote:
> > I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> > The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> > for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
> > and the Accord low depreciation.
> >
> > Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
> > economic
> > point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> > eventually account
> > for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> > average mileage?
> >
> > I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
nicer,
> > tighter, better made car, and
> > some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
> > an business case for
> > the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend
the
> > extra money. : )
> >
> > Fred
>
>
>
> > ======================
>
> The RESALE VALUE graph for an Accord eventually levels out after a few
> years, so you'll always get a fair buck back out of it. The graph for a
> Taurus continues to drop and reaches close to ZERO. At least that's what
> the Auto Trader prices seem to show. :-)
>
> 'Curly'
>

 

That's a pretty accurate statement.....I fetched $220 at the junkyard for my
89 Taurus Wagon a few years back that had 185,000 miles and was pretty well
shot. They gave me more than a sedan, because they needed wagons. If it
has still been in decent running condition, it would have been worth $1,000
tops, even though it was in good physical shape. Older comparable Hondas
still fetch $2500.

"motsco_ _" <"motsco_ _"@interbaun.com> wrote in message
news:410FED42.6080608@interbaun.com...
> Fred Smith wrote:
> > I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> > The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> > for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
> > and the Accord low depreciation.
> >
> > Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
> > economic
> > point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> > eventually account
> > for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> > average mileage?
> >
> > I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
nicer,
> > tighter, better made car, and
> > some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
> > an business case for
> > the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend
the
> > extra money. : )
> >
> > Fred
>
>
>
> > ======================
>
> The RESALE VALUE graph for an Accord eventually levels out after a few
> years, so you'll always get a fair buck back out of it. The graph for a
> Taurus continues to drop and reaches close to ZERO. At least that's what
> the Auto Trader prices seem to show. :-)
>
> 'Curly'
>