Is resale value really that important?

[niky]

That's a 460k Kia against a 550k Toyota. The 500k Kia is AT... which isn't available on the lower end Vios anymore.

Korean cars have a low resale value based on previous experience with older Korean models, which were, truthfully, pretty woeful. The JDPowers survey is based on reviews of cars made in 2003, though... not 2006... so any reliability change from new vehicles and improvements won't show up on the long term survey till 2010.

Also, JDPowers rates problems based on survey results, not actual jobs performed. These surveys are, at best, subjective, and are fraught with problems. Thus, they serve as a general guide... 136 problems per 100 vehicles can mean either 136 gas tanks falling out or 136 stuck windows. Do they actually tell you which it is?

The difference in that survey between the winners and the Koreans is about 2 problems per car over three years. Non-specific. This includes stuck windows, drained batteries, busted shocks, etcetera. It could even go as far as "harsh ride" = 1 problem.

That's why German luxury cars often land low on the survey... they have so many electronic toys that one or two of them are bound to go haywire. "Can't use I-Drive because I can't understand it..." = 1 problem

Note JDPowers' homepage... their Top 5 Midsize cars in terms of reliability (this is long term, for secondhand cars...) has the Toyota Camry at #4... surrounded by American cars... the types usually found in low-spec for fleet sales... less kit... less to break.

Also, JDPowers is a mail-in survey, and from what I've heard, it's a hellishly long and complicated one. Most people who go to all that trouble to write about their cars have a bone to pick, thus, many of the respondents are likely to have had problems and want to vent out their frustration.

-----

Thus, there is some truth and some untruth in JDPowers. But from what the surveys show, the difference between the best and the worst isn't that terribly big.

-----

I pointed out a more accurate way of gauging vehicle reliability here:
http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34711

While it's also flawed, Warranty Direct's coverage of 450,000 vehicles is more comprehensive than JDPower's 47,000 partial respondents... and it covers cars from 3 to 9 years of age. Furthermore, it tracks mechanical failures covered by warranty (thus, not ostensibly due to wear-and-tear or user-bias). Kia placed fifth.

And take note... 3 to 9 years. This includes the years that Hyundai sold cars with the crappy first generation all-Korean engines... not the more modern plants they use now.

-----

Of course, Land Rover placed last in both studies. Kinda depressing for them, huh? :hysterical:

-----

Regarding resale values... the Picanto started at 325k. You can get a first year Picanto for 350k. That's 100%+ resale... pretty good, right? :hysterical:

Kias and Hyundais are high-priced because they're all CBU. Many Japanese manufacturers (including Toyota) enjoy tax breaks on their lower-priced vehicles due to local assembly. That Kia and Hyundai are competitive in price (and in some cases, cheaper) spec-for-spec indicates how hungry they are for market share.

-----

Resale value isn't entirely logical. It's based on perceived value, prejudice, bias, real-world reliability issues, perceived reliability issues, fuel economy and fuel bias (diesel Koreans have excellent resale value, by the way... just because they're diesel).

I don't normally buy cars on resale value alone. If I did, I'd be buying L300s. Resale value of cars with safety equipment, a full-load of toys and nice seats isn't as good as the resale value of the base models of the same car. My sweet-driving and sweet-riding sedan will never get me as much secondhand value as my AUV (which is why it's the AUV we're selling). In the end, you choose to pay what you pay for your vehicle just for the privelege of actually using it.

What was said previously, about it being ridiculous to not use a car to keep its resale value up is kind of where I'm at. Why bother to buy a brand new car, use it only once a week for two years, and lose over a quarter million pesos in resale on it, anyway? That's not an investment or an asset, that's just a waste of money. You lose three thousand pesos for each day of driving. If that's the way people like to go, it makes more sense to buy a secondhand Jeepney and put the rest of the money in a time-deposit account... that's a smarter choice than buying a Toyota or a Hyundai.

EDIT: We're in the process of getting a new SUV. We're leaning towards the Hyundai Santa Fe. Why? While the possibility (possibility only... so far, Santa Fes seem to hold their value terribly well) of losing an extra 100,000 pesos in resale value versus a Fortuner 3.0 is daunting, I think that paying an extra 1 peso per kilometer (we often do 100,000 kms within two to three years) is worth the better ride, better fuel efficiency, and the general niceness of the car. Why don't we get something cheaper? Well... that's our problem...