Why are used Mercedes/BMW/highend same price as Honda/Toyota? (2013, auto)

[RomaniGypsy]

Originally Posted by NJBest

There's many attributes to quality of life. Rewarding yourself with what you want is one aspect. Not the most important aspect, but why hold back on any one?

Perhaps because doing so would contribute to the greater good. It's because people have forgotten the aspect of the "greater good" that we are in the situation we're in right now, as a country. Let's face it... greed and selfishness caused this crisis.

Originally Posted by NJBest

The S-Class was paid by check. I don't create debt on depreciating assets.

A wise move, but again, that extra $60,000 or so over a comparable car of a "lesser" make would have helped out a lot of people. Explain to people in line at the church food pantry why it was that you HAD to spend enough extra money on a fancy car, to feed ten families for a year.

Originally Posted by NJBest

I just happens that I am a landlord.... but that's not a significant part of my income either (btw, rental properties are considered passive income, but that's besides the point).

I've been a landlord. Rental properties are FAR from passive income. If you're lucky enough for some of your income to be passive, that's great... but the buck stops with you when it comes to repairs (and their cost), evictions (and their cost), clean-ups and make-readies (and their cost), and the best one of all... LAWSUITS.

Originally Posted by NJBest

All of this personal stuff is besides the point. I'm doing okay and can afford what I purchased (btw, the benz was tax deductible.. thanks for your contribution). My point is that as you get older, your income isn't tied to your time as much.

Perhaps. But I've found that far better than any passive income is the ability to earn money doing exactly what you'd be doing in your spare time if you had enough passive income never to have to work again. Because then you still have an income, and you don't have the worries associated with the passive income.

Originally Posted by NJBest

German engineering, higher quality leather, and it's the only car with a lithium-ion powered hybrid drivetrain. I have the S400 Hybrid :-).

All good qualities. But for $60,000 or so extra? Is that what you'd tell people who are barely making ends meet because life has dealt them a bad hand? (Again, remember that I do not sympathize with ALL needy people. Most of them really aren't needy. But some are.)

Originally Posted by NJBest

You're getting philosophical here and it doesn't relate to cars. But I take pride in the fact that I employ dozens of people and provide them with great salaries, benefits and friendship.

There's a difference between the relationship between employee and employer, and the relationship between friends.

Originally Posted by NJBest

I'm not a religious man. I don't worry about god.

I suspected as much. The symptoms are always the same. Well, live it up while you're on earth. The weather is mightily HOT for people who live like there's no God. (And even if you don't believe that, is it a risk you're willing to take? Forever is a very long time, my friend.)

Originally Posted by NJBest

You make a lot of assumptions about me just because I drive an above average car. I also drive an Altima, and a Ford Taurus Station Wagon. What other assumptions are you going to make about me?

"Above average car" = understatement of the day. "Altima" = yeah, a probably $35,000-40,000 HYBRID Altima. It's not like you drive a 2003 Altima with 120,000 miles on it. "Taurus wagon" - what do you use this thing for? Does anyone else know you have it? Seems you're really obsessed with your image. "I use the Mercedes for client meetings"... why, so that they can already admire you for being able to afford that? Frankly, if I were a prospective client of someone's, and they drove to the meeting in a brand-new $100,000 vehicle, I would take my business elsewhere because in the end I'm not paying entirely for the services, I'm paying for the fancy car.

Originally Posted by NJBest

That money will go to some nice R&D in Germany, end it's way into some engineers pockets while also lining investors that will hopefully send their kids to my schools lining my pockets, and so on.

Are your schools in Germany? (Or are they in Jersey, where very few - is any- vehicular manufacturing / engineering operations are still located?)

Originally Posted by NJBest

The answer to the OP is because Mercedes and BMW depreciate quickly, and used Hondas and Toyotas are overpriced. A used Nissan or Ford is a better buy if you want the best bang for the buck.

I don't know about that. I had a Taurus wagon myself and I wouldn't buy another one from that vintage at least. Maybe a slightly newer one... but it'll be a while before I buy another Ford, I think. Nothing is ever overpriced. If it were overpriced, people wouldn't buy it... the demand would go down and the supply would build up, causing the market price to go down to a level where the demand equaled the supply. The market determines the price of everything, unless you're not in a truly free market.

Originally Posted by NJBest

Possibly. But it handles a lot better than my Nissan Altima at 110 MPH. The Benz is a business vehicle, it's mostly used for meeting with clients... and distance travel. The Altima is my daily commuter to the train station.

And what in the world are you doing going 110 miles per hour anyway? What road in the USA is safe enough to handle that speed, even if you know there are no cops lurking around? You might do okay at 110 on a Midwestern interstate in the summertime at 3 AM with no traffic... but really...!?!? Giving props to vehicle because it handles better at 110 mph... wouldn't you be more interested in its handling at 65-70 mph? (I guess I shouldn't be surprised, having learned to drive in Jersey and having experienced Jersey drivers for many years...)

[SpeedyAZ]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Perhaps because doing so would contribute to the greater good. It's because people have forgotten the aspect of the "greater good" that we are in the situation we're in right now, as a country. Let's face it... greed and selfishness caused this crisis.

A wise move, but again, that extra $60,000 or so over a comparable car of a "lesser" make would have helped out a lot of people. Explain to people in line at the church food pantry why it was that you HAD to spend enough extra money on a fancy car, to feed ten families for a year.

All good qualities. But for $60,000 or so extra? Is that what you'd tell people who are barely making ends meet because life has dealt them a bad hand? (Again, remember that I do not sympathize with ALL needy people. Most of them really aren't needy. But some are.)

I suspected as much. The symptoms are always the same. Well, live it up while you're on earth. The weather is mightily HOT for people who live like there's no God. (And even if you don't believe that, is it a risk you're willing to take? Forever is a very long time, my friend.)

"Above average car" = understatement of the day. "Altima" = yeah, a probably $35,000-40,000 HYBRID Altima. It's not like you drive a 2003 Altima with 120,000 miles on it. "Taurus wagon" - what do you use this thing for? Does anyone else know you have it? Seems you're really obsessed with your image. "I use the Mercedes for client meetings"... why, so that they can already admire you for being able to afford that? Frankly, if I were a prospective client of someone's, and they drove to the meeting in a brand-new $100,000 vehicle, I would take my business elsewhere because in the end I'm not paying entirely for the services, I'm paying for the fancy car.

I don't know about that. I had a Taurus wagon myself and I wouldn't buy another one from that vintage at least. Maybe a slightly newer one... but it'll be a while before I buy another Ford, I think. Nothing is ever overpriced. If it were overpriced, people wouldn't buy it... the demand would go down and the supply would build up, causing the market price to go down to a level where the demand equaled the supply. The market determines the price of everything, unless you're not in a truly free market.

And what in the world are you doing going 110 miles per hour anyway? What road in the USA is safe enough to handle that speed, even if you know there are no cops lurking around? You might do okay at 110 on a Midwestern interstate in the summertime at 3 AM with no traffic... but really...!?!? Giving props to vehicle because it handles better at 110 mph... wouldn't you be more interested in its handling at 65-70 mph? (I guess I shouldn't be surprised, having learned to drive in Jersey and having experienced Jersey drivers for many years...)

Whoa, calm down. I think NJGoat has the right to buy whatever he wants if he's earned his money.

It's ridiculous to argue that someone should donate the $60K to charity versus rewarding themselves for their hard work. One can still be charitable but live comfortably. Some of the wealthiest people (think Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) in the world give ENORMOUS amounts of wealth to charity but also live a lifestyle that they've worked for.

The Altima is an above average car. What would you consider "average" because obviously you and I have different views on that. An average vehicle would be along the lines of a Chevy Impala, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, etc. If it's less than $25K, it's probably an average vehicle.

If someone wants to spend upwards of $80K on a vehicle and has the means to do so, more power to them! If they haven't earned that money, I don't respect that nearly as much but it's still their life.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Perhaps because doing so would contribute to the greater good. It's because people have forgotten the aspect of the "greater good" that we are in the situation we're in right now, as a country. Let's face it... greed and selfishness caused this crisis.



A wise move, but again, that extra $60,000 or so over a comparable car of a "lesser" make would have helped out a lot of people. Explain to people in line at the church food pantry why it was that you HAD to spend enough extra money on a fancy car, to feed ten families for a year.



I've been a landlord. Rental properties are FAR from passive income. If you're lucky enough for some of your income to be passive, that's great... but the buck stops with you when it comes to repairs (and their cost), evictions (and their cost), clean-ups and make-readies (and their cost), and the best one of all... LAWSUITS.



Perhaps. But I've found that far better than any passive income is the ability to earn money doing exactly what you'd be doing in your spare time if you had enough passive income never to have to work again. Because then you still have an income, and you don't have the worries associated with the passive income.



All good qualities. But for $60,000 or so extra? Is that what you'd tell people who are barely making ends meet because life has dealt them a bad hand? (Again, remember that I do not sympathize with ALL needy people. Most of them really aren't needy. But some are.)



There's a difference between the relationship between employee and employer, and the relationship between friends.



I suspected as much. The symptoms are always the same. Well, live it up while you're on earth. The weather is mightily HOT for people who live like there's no God. (And even if you don't believe that, is it a risk you're willing to take? Forever is a very long time, my friend.)



"Above average car" = understatement of the day. "Altima" = yeah, a probably $35,000-40,000 HYBRID Altima. It's not like you drive a 2003 Altima with 120,000 miles on it. "Taurus wagon" - what do you use this thing for? Does anyone else know you have it? Seems you're really obsessed with your image. "I use the Mercedes for client meetings"... why, so that they can already admire you for being able to afford that? Frankly, if I were a prospective client of someone's, and they drove to the meeting in a brand-new $100,000 vehicle, I would take my business elsewhere because in the end I'm not paying entirely for the services, I'm paying for the fancy car.



Are your schools in Germany? (Or are they in Jersey, where very few - is any- vehicular manufacturing / engineering operations are still located?)



I don't know about that. I had a Taurus wagon myself and I wouldn't buy another one from that vintage at least. Maybe a slightly newer one... but it'll be a while before I buy another Ford, I think. Nothing is ever overpriced. If it were overpriced, people wouldn't buy it... the demand would go down and the supply would build up, causing the market price to go down to a level where the demand equaled the supply. The market determines the price of everything, unless you're not in a truly free market.



And what in the world are you doing going 110 miles per hour anyway? What road in the USA is safe enough to handle that speed, even if you know there are no cops lurking around? You might do okay at 110 on a Midwestern interstate in the summertime at 3 AM with no traffic... but really...!?!? Giving props to vehicle because it handles better at 110 mph... wouldn't you be more interested in its handling at 65-70 mph? (I guess I shouldn't be surprised, having learned to drive in Jersey and having experienced Jersey drivers for many years...)

What's the deal with getting so personal? It appears that you're judgmental and have some issues.

Btw, I use the taurus wagon to move big things. I'm in the process of building onto my home, which requires buying large items from Home Depot. 110 mph is the speed in which people travel on the CT turnpike.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

Whoa, calm down. I think NJGoat has the right to buy whatever he wants if he's earned his money.

It's ridiculous to argue that someone should donate the $60K to charity versus rewarding themselves for their hard work. One can still be charitable but live comfortably. Some of the wealthiest people (think Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) in the world give ENORMOUS amounts of wealth to charity but also live a lifestyle that they've worked for.

The Altima is an above average car. What would you consider "average" because obviously you and I have different views on that. An average vehicle would be along the lines of a Chevy Impala, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, etc. If it's less than $25K, it's probably an average vehicle.

If someone wants to spend upwards of $80K on a vehicle and has the means to do so, more power to them! If they haven't earned that money, I don't respect that nearly as much but it's still their life.

Did you call me a goat?

Thanks for your input.

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by jeffrow1

An anecdote.... I was at a cocktail party where one of the guests was Emilio Anchisi, the then president of Ferrari North America. He was telling me about his newly ordered Rolls Silver Spur. I laughed and asked him why he didn't buy a better built car like an S class MB. I'll always remember fondly the patient look he gave me when he said "Son, in the rest of the world Benzes are taxi cabs."

That's what you get for asking such a stupid question. Hopefully you were joking. Mercedes is the higher end of mainstream cars. They are not generally super cars. A Rolls Royce is a super car. They are excotic. An S-class is a standard choice for the common wealthy man an they are everywhere.

[flynavyj]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

That's what you get for asking such a stupid question. Hopefully you were joking. Mercedes is the higher end of mainstream cars. They are not generally super cars. A Rolls Royce is a super car. They are excotic. An S-class is a standard choice for the common wealthy man an they are everywhere.

Eh, wouldn't call it a supercar. When i hear that term, it implies that the vehicle performs in a way above and beyond that of ordinary cars...A Rolls provides luxury in swaths over more common vehicles, but it's performance would most likely be out done by the Merc we were comparing it to.

[RomaniGypsy]

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

Whoa, calm down. I think NJGoat has the right to buy whatever he wants if he's earned his money.

Sure, but there's plenty that we all have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to do (or at least the ability to do because the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it), which we shouldn't do anyway.

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

It's ridiculous to argue that someone should donate the $60K to charity versus rewarding themselves for their hard work. One can still be charitable but live comfortably. Some of the wealthiest people (think Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) in the world give ENORMOUS amounts of wealth to charity but also live a lifestyle that they've worked for.

If you read NJBest's earlier posts, you'll find that most of his income is passive and he claims that it matters not how much time he works every week... his income remains approximately the same. Therefore, is it really that much hard work? Being a landlord can be really hard work... but he made it seem like he's living on easy street for the most part. I could be wrong.

I would never advocate donating money to charity. Charities, unfortunately, don't adequately screen their beneficiaries. I just wrote a letter to the local chief officer of the Salvation Army wherein I addressed that exact topic. I know from personal experience that the Salvation Army gives money to people who don't need it. So, I say it's best to locate true need on your own, and meet that need.

Billy Graham, the famous evangelist, had an annual income in excess of $10 million per year, for quite some time. He gave it all away, save for $70,000 per year with which he and his wife were able to have a plenty comfortable life. Warren Buffett, who continually flirts with being America's wealthiest man even if he isn't officially in the top spot, lives in an average home in Omaha... the home in which he has lived since the 1950's, to the best of my knowledge. He also drives a 15-year-old Volvo. Tell me that isn't a comfortable life.

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

The Altima is an above average car. What would you consider "average" because obviously you and I have different views on that. An average vehicle would be along the lines of a Chevy Impala, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, etc. If it's less than $25K, it's probably an average vehicle.

I agree with those three as being "average". The Impala and Accord because they're so common, and the Fusion because it's mid-sized. I'd be more inclined to call the Malibu and Civic "average" from the Chevy and Honda lineup, because those are the mid-sized cars offered by those manufacturers (and they're wildly popular too). I call the Altima average for the same reason. Mid-sized, nothing spectacular. From Nissan, I'd call the Maxima "above average" and the Sentra "below average". I guess I consider a car average if it is mid-sized, wildly popular, and priced around a range of $20-25K brand new.

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

If someone wants to spend upwards of $80K on a vehicle and has the means to do so, more power to them! If they haven't earned that money, I don't respect that nearly as much but it's still their life.

I'll never argue that they have the right to do so. But my question was... is it the BEST choice? Just because it's a possible and legal choice doesn't make it the BEST choice.

Originally Posted by NJBest

What's the deal with getting so personal? It appears that you're judgmental and have some issues.

The OP's question must be answered by addressing issues of a personal nature. He asked why vehicles of ostensibly the same basic type but vastly different "brand new" prices would eventually level out to being approximately the same price after getting to be a few years old and racking up the expected mileage for those years. The truth is that the Mercedes is not a superior vehicle to the Toyota. You even admitted that yourself when you said that people who buy these vehicles aren't looking at their reliability because they know they'll be trading up to a new one before reliability becomes an issue. The statistics bear out what I just said, when Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, etc. are not listed in the top ten vehicle manufacturers for reliability, as reported by Consumer Reports (a well-known and authoritative source for this information).

So, if superior engineering and reliability are very dubious, if not out of the equation completely, we have to figure on what about these vehicles would contribute to their premium pricing if you're not really getting a better vehicle. (And even if you are getting a better vehicle, is that $75,000 full-size BMW 7-series really THREE TIMES BETTER than the $25,000 full-size Chevrolet Impala? Will it go for 600,000 miles only needing the same amount and cost of maintenance and repair as the Impala would need in 200,000 miles? There may be some intangibles that'd add a bit to the quality of the car like the tightness of its suspension and how well it handles, but if you're not intending to drive your car like a racing machine, why does that really matter? My mom had a 1987 Buick Regal T-type... a race car straight out of the factory... and she drove it like a family wagon. No point!)

The one and only factor that would create such a huge price difference if there is only negligible difference in the quality of the vehicle is SNOB APPEAL. As in, "I'm willing to pay this much extra for a vehicle so that I can have the letters B-M-W on the front grille and people can envy me or admire me". The new Mercedes E-class is hardly distinguishable from a Toyota Camry at a distance, but I'd bet it costs at least twice as much. And the Camry is more reliable!

So, regardless of whether anyone wants to deny this or not, the true answer to the OP's question is that the vehicles are comparable in price after a few years because the snob appeal premium has worn off. Let's face it, nobody is going to admire you for the success evidenced by your vehicle if you drive a 1998 Mercedes M-Class. At that point, you just have another 13-year-old mid-sized SUV. However, the brand-new M-Class still has its snob appeal. At some point, I guess between the drive off of the showroom floor and its 13th birthday, that M-Class will lose all of its snob appeal.

And if anyone takes offense to the term "snob" or "snob appeal", I present the following Merriam-Webster definitions of those terms:

SNOB APPEAL: "Qualities in a product that appeal to the snobbery in a purchaser". (I should note that, amusingly enough, the first sentence given in the dictionary as an example of how to use this term is: "Expensive cars have snob appeal.")

SNOBBERY: "Snobbish conduct or character"

SNOBBISH: "Being, characteristic of, or befitting a snob"

SNOB: 1) "One who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors"
2a) "One who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior"
2b) "One who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste"

******

So, snob appeal it is. Toyotas and Hondas have very little snob appeal... the only snob appeal they'd carry would be for someone who is overly haughty about having bought a new car. Beyond that, whenever most of us see someone with a brand new Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, etc., we see someone who had a very utilitarian and practical reason for purchasing a new car... because with millions of Camrys, Corollas, Civics, Accords, etc. on the road, there's no standing out when you have one. My wife has a silver Impala and I see them all over the place. She got her car because she needed something that would fit her, get good gas mileage, and be affordable. For her, there was no snobbishness in the purchase... it was all about practicality.

I don't know you, so I am not intending to attack you personally by what I'm saying. You are merely the representative with whom I am speaking, of a large population of people who display the same modus operandi. The truth is that when Mercedes is not even among the top ten most reliable vehicle manufacturers, nobody NEEDS a Mercedes. Nobody could make a solid argument for how the Mercedes is the best vehicle they could possibly have bought. Everyone out there who is driving a brand new Mercedes is espousing qualities definable as "snobbery" because the only things a Mercedes really has that a Toyota doesn't have, when considering what a car is really for, are... well... nothing. They both have an engine and transmission, seats, controls to make the car move the way you want it to move, stereo systems, heaters, air conditioners, etc. (Maybe the lithium-ion hybrid drivetrain in hybrid models would make the Mercedes get better gas mileage than the Toyota's hybrid system would get for it. I have no idea. Here's hoping you never have to get that puppy repaired... I can't fathom the cost.)

It would seem, if the Toyota is more reliable, it does a better job overall at what a car needs to do... namely, get you from point A to point B expeditiously. Therefore, to buy the best car, you'd buy the Toyota... nobody is buying the Mercedes because it's a better mode of transportation... so, snob appeal it must be.

And if you're okay with being lumped into that category, whatever. Such is the way of it in America. But you tried to argue how people who buy a Mercedes are doing so because it's a better / more enjoyable vehicle... and you did not produce one iota of evidence to support your claim. I'm here producing data, definitions, etc... and all you're saying is that it's got better engineering and it's more enjoyable... and somehow you think it improves your image in your business. You never once said "how". I understand buying a vehicle for business purposes. But how does it make you look good to convey that you are charging so much for your services that you can afford to buy a car which costs the same as a decent house in many areas? Wouldn't your clients rather know that you are charging a reasonable rate for your services and using that money as wisely as possible?

This isn't 1999 or 2005 anymore. There is an ever-growing backlash against people who live in an openly greedy fashion... because it has become common knowledge that greed fueled the economic destruction we've seen in the past few years. I don't agree with most of the tenets of the "Occupy" movement, but at least they're bringing to light the fact that a lot of people are sick of watching others live greedy lives while they themselves are suffering often through no fault of their own. People are getting laid off left and right and yet CEO pay is in the tens of millions and still growing? Nobody would care, if those CEOs threw that money back into the company to hire some out-of-work people, keeping for themselves only enough to live comfortably. (When you don't know if you'll be able to feed your family, "living comfortably" is easily defined as "not having to worry about whether or not you'll be able to feed your family, keep a roof over their head, keep clothes on their backs and shoes on their feet, and not have to skimp on any necessities of life".)

But when those go and buy gigantic mansions, luxury yachts, and fancy cars with the money they have (using the logic of "I earned this money, I should be able to do what I want with it") while others wonder how they'll be able to make the house payment this month because they lost their jobs, it's understandable that there would be quite a bit of anger. Again, this isn't 2005 when jobs were in plentiful abundance and it'd be logically argued by anyone that if you don't want to be poor, all you have to do is get a job. Lots of people are trying to get jobs but can't find anything. When you send out hundreds of resumes and don't even get so much as one phone call back, you're trying, but not getting anywhere. I know how that works. Before I became self-employed, I was that guy. (And I especially loved being "overqualified" for a lot of jobs for which I applied. Lots of people who CAN do the jobs and are willing to do the jobs aren't getting them anyway.)

If anyone were able to argue to me that a Mercedes is absolutely necessary for his/her livelihood, and no other car would suffice, I wouldn't rebut that statement. However, I don't see why any person would need to drive a Mercedes unless he/she worked for the Mercedes-Benz company directly. (After all, it wouldn't look good if a Mercedes dealership owner drove a Honda. I remember visiting the Harley-Davidson motorcycle factory and seeing some Honda motorcycles in the employee parking lot... that did make me laugh.)

Originally Posted by NJBest

Btw, I use the taurus wagon to move big things. I'm in the process of building onto my home, which requires buying large items from Home Depot. 110 mph is the speed in which people travel on the CT turnpike.

I thought you lived in Jersey...

[MOKAN]

Dependability VS Durability/Longevity - they are not the same:

Can Your Car Last A Million Miles? - U.S. News Rankings and Reviews

Buick and Jaguar were ranked most reliable in the 2009 JD Power and Associates dependability study, according to the above link.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

If you read NJBest's earlier posts, you'll find that most of his income is passive and he claims that it matters not how much time he works every week... his income remains approximately the same. Therefore, is it really that much hard work? Being a landlord can be really hard work... but he made it seem like he's living on easy street for the most part. I could be wrong.

I worked 10 years to achieve it. It was hard work. It's not like I wont the lottery.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Billy Graham, the famous evangelist, had an annual income in excess of $10 million per year, for quite some time. He gave it all away, save for $70,000 per year with which he and his wife were able to have a plenty comfortable life. Warren Buffett, who continually flirts with being America's wealthiest man even if he isn't officially in the top spot, lives in an average home in Omaha... the home in which he has lived since the 1950's, to the best of my knowledge. He also drives a 15-year-old Volvo. Tell me that isn't a comfortable life.

I wouldn't mind having a 15 year old Volvo if I had a private jet to get me around (which Warren Buffet does).

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

I agree with those three as being "average". The Impala and Accord because they're so common, and the Fusion because it's mid-sized. I'd be more inclined to call the Malibu and Civic "average" from the Chevy and Honda lineup, because those are the mid-sized cars offered by those manufacturers (and they're wildly popular too). I call the Altima average for the same reason. Mid-sized, nothing spectacular. From Nissan, I'd call the Maxima "above average" and the Sentra "below average". I guess I consider a car average if it is mid-sized, wildly popular, and priced around a range of $20-25K brand new.

I agree. Altima is average. The Hybrid upgrade was affordable due to the Hybrid tax credit and cash for clunkers. (thanks again for your contribution). The drivetrain is also Toyota, which is generally been known for being reliable.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

I'll never argue that they have the right to do so. But my question was... is it the BEST choice? Just because it's a possible and legal choice doesn't make it the BEST choice.

This isn't a math problem. Best is in the eye of the beholder. There's really no wrong or tight there.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

The OP's question must be answered by addressing issues of a personal nature. He asked why vehicles of ostensibly the same basic type but vastly different "brand new" prices would eventually level out to being approximately the same price after getting to be a few years old and racking up the expected mileage for those years. The truth is that the Mercedes is not a superior vehicle to the Toyota. You even admitted that yourself when you said that people who buy these vehicles aren't looking at their reliability because they know they'll be trading up to a new one before reliability becomes an issue. The statistics bear out what I just said, when Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, etc. are not listed in the top ten vehicle manufacturers for reliability, as reported by Consumer Reports (a well-known and authoritative source for this information).

You're making one big mistake in your assessment. You're assuming that superiority only consists of reliability. However reliability is a very small component. And there's no truth to the statement that Mercedes are not superior to Toyota. That is your opinion, period.

You keep bringing up the Consumer Reports. They rate the base-model Accord at 80, and the upgraded at 90. They rate the S-Class at 86. Very little difference.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

So, if superior engineering and reliability are very dubious, if not out of the equation completely, we have to figure on what about these vehicles would contribute to their premium pricing if you're not really getting a better vehicle. (And even if you are getting a better vehicle, is that $75,000 full-size BMW 7-series really THREE TIMES BETTER than the $25,000 full-size Chevrolet Impala? Will it go for 600,000 miles only needing the same amount and cost of maintenance and repair as the Impala would need in 200,000 miles? There may be some intangibles that'd add a bit to the quality of the car like the tightness of its suspension and how well it handles, but if you're not intending to drive your car like a racing machine, why does that really matter? My mom had a 1987 Buick Regal T-type... a race car straight out of the factory... and she drove it like a family wagon. No point!)

You keep taking it back to price and reliability as if there is a relation. You are pushing you values onto other people here. Not everyone cares about price and reliability. Many people just live in the moment and focus on better things then "when is my car going to break down and how much is it going to cost me?" Most people who buy Mercedes have already tackled both of these by committing to not holding onto the car for long and having enough money to cover expenses.

You treat money as if it's a rare commodity. It's not. The economy is bloated with money. If someone wants something more expensive, all they have to do is get more money. It's not rocket science.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

The one and only factor that would create such a huge price difference if there is only negligible difference in the quality of the vehicle is SNOB APPEAL. As in, "I'm willing to pay this much extra for a vehicle so that I can have the letters B-M-W on the front grille and people can envy me or admire me". The new Mercedes E-class is hardly distinguishable from a Toyota Camry at a distance, but I'd bet it costs at least twice as much. And the Camry is more reliable!

Again, you're pushing your opinions and values. No one really cares what you think. If you think that everyone who purchases a luxury vehicle is a snob, there must be a reason for that. Are you a WS occupier? It's not like I go around saying that everyone who drives a chevy is lazy and unproductive.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

So, regardless of whether anyone wants to deny this or not, the true answer to the OP's question is that the vehicles are comparable in price after a few years because the snob appeal premium has worn off. Let's face it, nobody is going to admire you for the success evidenced by your vehicle if you drive a 1998 Mercedes M-Class. At that point, you just have another 13-year-old mid-sized SUV. However, the brand-new M-Class still has its snob appeal. At some point, I guess between the drive off of the showroom floor and its 13th birthday, that M-Class will lose all of its snob appeal.

It's really because the demand has gone down. Like you said, no one wants an old car unless it's reliable. Hondas and Toyotas hold onto value because their reliability appeal to poor people 10 years down the road. This demand trickles up and keeps the price at a premium. That is not the case for Mercedes. It has to do with demand.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

So, snob appeal it is.

You haven't really shown that. You realize that, right? Putting out your opinions, and making a conclusion off of it is not good research methodology.

You have some issues... and apparently some sort of agenda by pushing your ideas on people.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

SNIP - more babble about people who buy expensive cars, don't value reliability and money at the same standard as you, and your agenda - SNIP

You're clearly fueled by something to write all that. Sure you call the people who work hard and smart and can buy what they want due to their hard work snobby.... Should I turn around and say that people who don't work hard and smart lazy? Seriously, get a grip.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

I thought you lived in Jersey...

I do. The North East states are small. We travel across them often. I have an office in Boston, so I have to drive through CT a couple times a year.

[MOKAN]

You guys keep repeatedly suggesting Mercedes owners ditch their cars early on before incurring any expenses that may come with mileage without providing any proof of such.

Anecdotally, it is my experience that wealthy folks keep their cars longer than typical middle class car buyers. Middle-class car owners seem to rely more on what the media tells them to buy according to initial reliability and buy a new car every 5 years staying in debt just to have a brand new car.

Anybody know where a study is published that shows how long owners keep their cars according to brand? I once saw a study in which Mercedes was #1 and Volvo #2 in regard to the longest car owners kept cars. I simply can't find it online, but such stats would help here.