Toyota Camry

[RobbieL2415]

The only Camry I'd buy would be a '99 V6 with a 5-speed.

[jakeroot]

I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful."  Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of.  There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.

I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.

To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old.  They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either.  To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around.  Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable.  I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.

My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).

* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful."  Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of.  There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.

I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.

To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old.  They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either.  To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around.  Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable.  I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.

My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).

* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.

My wife had a 2018 Forester and I have a 2019 Impreza.  In the handling department I'm easily able to smoke her CUV on any curvy mountain road.  I'm finding that I have to take most curves at 5 MPH less in the Forester.  I got her handily beat by 3-4 MPG in economy.  Cargo space and the 2.5 flat four soundly beat my car with the kinda of weak 2.0.  Off road capability in my opinion is kind of a wash.  She isn't clearing any large dips in that Forester just like I wouldn't in the Impreza but both did well on the primitive Sierra Forest Road 6S40.  Her deal is that she likes the high riding height and more cargo room for her junk all her nieces carry around.  Personally I much rather have the better handling vehicle unless there was something like outright top not off-road capability.  I'm probably off of paved highways more than 95-99% of drivers and I can make due with a sedan easily.  Even that Sonic would make through most dirt or gravel roads albeit with a bumpy ride.   

[nexus73]

I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful."  Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of.  There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.

I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.

To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old.  They certainly aren’t really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either.  To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I’d rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around.  Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable.  I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.

My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).

* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.

My wife had a 2018 Forester and I have a 2019 Impreza.  In the handling department I’m easily able to smoke her CUV on any curvy mountain road.  I’m finding that I have to take most curves at 5 MPH less in the Forester.  I got her handily beat by 3-4 MPG in economy.  Cargo space and the 2.5 flat four soundly beat my car with the kinda of weak 2.0.  Off road capability in my opinion is kind of a wash.  She isn’t clearing any large dips in that Forester just like I wouldn’t in the Impreza but both did well on the primitive Sierra Forest Road 6S40.  Her deal is that she likes the high riding height and more cargo room for her junk all her nieces carry around.  Personally I much rather have the better handling vehicle unless there was something like outright top not off-road capability.  I’m probably off of paved highways more than 95-99% of drivers and I can make due with a sedan easily.  Even that Sonic would make through most dirt or gravel roads albeit with a bumpy ride.   

Sonics sound good compared to Geo Metros.  I drove a brand new Metro over a lousy gravel "street" in the unincorporated area just south of Coos Bay's Empire District.  Despite the newness, that suspension wallowed around like a 1958 Buick with bad shocks on the uneven surface.  At least the vehicle drove decently enough on smooth pavement.

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful."  Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of.  There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.

I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.

To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old.  They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either.  To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around.  Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable.  I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.

My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).

* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.

My wife had a 2018 Forester and I have a 2019 Impreza.  In the handling department I'm easily able to smoke her CUV on any curvy mountain road.  I'm finding that I have to take most curves at 5 MPH less in the Forester.  I got her handily beat by 3-4 MPG in economy.  Cargo space and the 2.5 flat four soundly beat my car with the kinda of weak 2.0.  Off road capability in my opinion is kind of a wash.  She isn't clearing any large dips in that Forester just like I wouldn't in the Impreza but both did well on the primitive Sierra Forest Road 6S40.  Her deal is that she likes the high riding height and more cargo room for her junk all her nieces carry around.  Personally I much rather have the better handling vehicle unless there was something like outright top not off-road capability.  I'm probably off of paved highways more than 95-99% of drivers and I can make due with a sedan easily.  Even that Sonic would make through most dirt or gravel roads albeit with a bumpy ride.   

Sonics sound good compared to Geo Metros.  I drove a brand new Metro over a lousy gravel "street" in the unincorporated area just south of Coos Bay's Empire District.  Despite the newness, that suspension wallowed around like a 1958 Buick with bad shocks on the uneven surface.  At least the vehicle drove decently enough on smooth pavement.

Rick

It was probably pretty nominal at best.  The rear suspension on that Sonic was semi-independent and anything but smooth asphalt made it really unhappy really fast.  I drove that Sonic on Mineral King Road a couple times and Bodie Road four times among some other notable dirt highways.  Pretty much the back end of the Sonic bounced around even on the smoothest dirt surface.  I bought that Sonic while I was living in the Florida Keys and it was much more suited to the environment out east in the swamps...be they saw grass or urban jungle.

The Impreza has a double wishbone suspension up front and back.  Suffice to say the difference on a dirt or gravel roadway is massive to say the least. 

[PHLBOS]

$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles.  Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!

Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.

[ozarkman417]

$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles.  Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!

Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.

And being a Male certainly won't help with the insurance rates, either.

[Max Rockatansky]

$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles.  Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!

Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.

And being a Male certainly won't help with the insurance rates, either.

Funny, back in the 1990s I wanted a Camaro Z-28 but my Dad pointed out insurance would be a problem.  I ended up buying a 1997 Silverado 4X4 when I was 17 (made more than I let on at a shop in town) which surprisingly didn't have all that high of insurance rates (I want to say it was something like $80 a month) in spite of the 350 V8 under the hood.  I kind of wonder now if a V8 box frame truck would yield higher insurance rates for the demographic these days?

Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days.  All I can mentally associate with the term is this:

[formulanone]

$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles.  Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!

Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.

Given the ever-escalating rates for those under 25, a V6 Camry is a Q-ship for the young masses.

But too many miles for that price - $4,000 or less, but rust-free and in great mechanical shape.

[nexus73]

$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles.  Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!

Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.

And being a Male certainly won't help with the insurance rates, either.

Funny, back in the 1990s I wanted a Camaro Z-28 but my Dad pointed out insurance would be a problem.  I ended up buying a 1997 Silverado 4X4 when I was 17 (made more than I let on at a shop in town) which surprisingly didn't have all that high of insurance rates (I want to say it was something like $80 a month) in spite of the 350 V8 under the hood.  I kind of wonder now if a V8 box frame truck would yield higher insurance rates for the demographic these days?

Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days.  All I can mentally associate with the term is this:

Joe Cool is also Joe Flacco's nickname.  He is now playing for the Broncos so look for him to be literally cool when the snow comes...LOL!

Rick

[jakeroot]

Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days.  All I can mentally associate with the term is this:

Might be a stretch. Nexus is 63! LOL!

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days.  All I can mentally associate with the term is this:

Might be a stretch. Nexus is 63! LOL!

Yeah but I still hear people you see than me say it.  I would assume they have zero context as to who "Joe Cool"  even was. 

[nexus73]

Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days.  All I can mentally associate with the term is this:

Might be a stretch. Nexus is 63! LOL!

...and I turn 64 in September! 

Rick

[tolbs17]

the 2012-2014 camrys are a little boring, but still nice to drive. They are fun at first, but they get boring after a while.

Also, I'm going to maybe bring in another Camry and show the pictures and i will make sure i have the exterior of it. I'm going to shoot for the 2012-2014 camry this time. Because I think the ones form 2007-2014 are probably the best for a first car.

[ce929wax]

What I am about to say is probably going to be unpopular, but it is my $0.02, so here goes.

A car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make.  The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.  Insurance is another variable you have to consider, you are a young man so you are considered a high risk until you are 25 years old.  Sure, your parents are probably going to pay for your insurance for now, but it is something you should think about  because eventually you will have to buy your own insurance.

If you can wait to buy a car, I would wait until you absolutely have to.  I understand how you feel about getting a car at your age, but the other posters on the board are right,  $6,600 for a Camry with that kind of miles are way to high.  I personally wouldn't pay more than $2000 for it.  If you can buy a car outright, I would do that before taking on payments, as there are better ways to establish credit than a car payment.   

Speaking for myself, I would never spend more than $2000 on a car, but I don't drive that much and just around town and if need be I have a city bus stop about a quarter of a mile from my house.  If I want to take a road trip, I rent a car, just so I don't put extra miles on my car.

[PHLBOS]

Funny, back in the 1990s I wanted a Camaro Z-28 but my Dad pointed out insurance would be a problem.  I ended up buying a 1997 Silverado 4X4 when I was 17 (made more than I let on at a shop in town) which surprisingly didn't have all that high of insurance rates (I want to say it was something like $80 a month) in spite of the 350 V8 under the hood.  I kind of wonder now if a V8 box frame truck would yield higher insurance rates for the demographic these days?

Insurance companies typically don't rate a vehicle based on its engine.  Back in the 80s many were charging just as much for 4-cylinder Mustangs & Camaros (such existed back then) as they were for their V8 counterparts.  The reason... demand for body parts (which were obtained through theft).

A car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make.  The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.

I believe such severe depreciation applies towards buying new.  The OP's planning on buying a used car (2007 Camry) so the depreciation argument is moot in this case.

Insurance is another variable you have to consider, you are a young man so you are considered a high risk until you are 25 years old.  Sure, your parents are probably going to pay for your insurance for now, but it is something you should think about  because eventually you will have to buy your own insurance.

Which is one reason why it's more sensible to buy something as mundane as a sedan vs. a sports/sporty car.  Such was the reason (not the only one), why my cars (especially during my youth) were used all LTDs, Impalas & Grand Marquis' vs. Mustangs, Camaros, Cutlass Supremes and/or T-Birds.  The full-size land-yachts were relatively cheap to insure.

If you can wait to buy a car, I would wait until you absolutely have to.  I understand how you feel about getting a car at your age, but the other posters on the board are right,  $6,600 for a Camry with that kind of miles are way to high.

I do agree that paying $6600 for a high-mileage 12-year old mid-size car is excessive.  Unfortunately, and this was mentioned upthread by others; there's still a mindset out there that if the car has a Toyota badge on it, it's worth more than a similar type model from a competitor.  Had the car the OP was checking out had been a Fusion, Malibu, etc. of similar age & mileage; the asking price would've definitely been lower.

I personally wouldn't pay more than $2000 for it.  If you can buy a car outright, I would do that before taking on payments, as there are better ways to establish credit than a car payment.

Agreed.  I paid $300 for my first two cars ('69 LTD & '74 Impala) & $600 ('76 LTD) for my third car during the early-to-mid 1980s.   

Speaking for myself, I would never spend more than $2000 on a car,

These days, $2000 doesn't go as far in the used car market as it once did.  Today, that amount usually translates to buying an older and/or higher mileage vehicle than say 15 to 20 years ago (such was a lot worse 10 years ago due to the ill-advised & short-lived Cash-For-Clunkers program took many perfectly good used cars off the market).

...but I don't drive that much and just around town and if need be I have a city bus stop about a quarter of a mile from my house.  If I want to take a road trip, I rent a car, just so I don't put extra miles on my car.

Not everybody has that option/convenience readily available.

[jeffandnicole]

A car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make.  The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.

I believe such severe depreciation applies towards buying new.  The OP's planning on buying a used car (2007 Camry) so the depreciation argument is moot in this case.

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.  I'm pretty sure the term came from a used car salesperson.

Depreciation is mostly a tax term.  If you're buying a car and you're writing it off on your taxes, you're depreciating it.  Most of that aren't doing that.

Basically, this is what happens: You drive the car off the lot.  If you want to return that car the very next day, the dealership isn't going to give you the full value of what you paid for it, because they needs to take the car back, clean it, make sure it works fine, and then resell it.  To resell it, the seller needs to advertise it.  All of this costs money.

Yes, this works with used cars as well.  If you buy the car and decide the next day you don't want it, you probably won't get the full value for it.  Just as in the case of a new car, they needs to take the car back, clean it, make sure it works fine, and then resell it.  To resell it, the seller needs to advertise it.  Again, all of this costs money. 

Now, maybe you get lucky and the salesperson or dealership will give you 100% of the vehicle cost, but that's probably dependent on a number of factors; the most important of which is that the car is in the same condition you purchased it from the previous day; doesn't have several hundred miles on it, and you buy another vehicle from that sales person.

If you want bad depreciation...what did you eat at your last meal?  If you're hungry again, guess what - the money you paid for that meal depreciated 100%.

So don't think that driving a car off the lot depreciates it 10% - 20%.  It doesn't, because the term isn't accurate.  Or better yet, buy a used car and tell the salesperson a month later you don't want it after you put 5,000 miles on the car and leave your slurpee and fish meal in the back seat.  You ain't getting back 99% of the value of what you paid for it either.  If anything, buying a used car involves numerous risks that a new car usually doesn't have, much of which is a warranty; worried about the ass that sat in the drivers seat before you, etc.  Which is why I'm certain the depreciation term came from a used car salesperson, to distract the purchaser from those very risks a used car buyer has to deal with.

[PHLBOS]

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.

Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term?  That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

Depreciation is mostly a tax term.  If you're buying a car and you're writing it off on your taxes, you're depreciating it.  Most of that aren't doing that.

Unless one is buying either a company vehicle or using theirs for business purposes beyond commuting; I don't believe that vehicle purchases are tax deductible anymore... at least not after 1986.  Prior to 1986, interest accrued on car loans was tax deductible.

[J N Winkler]

A car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make.  The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.

Yes.  From an economist's point of view, a car is consumption, not investment.

[jeffandnicole]

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.

Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term?  That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

Depreciation is mostly a tax term.  If you're buying a car and you're writing it off on your taxes, you're depreciating it.  Most of that aren't doing that.

Unless one is buying either a company vehicle or using theirs for business purposes beyond commuting; I don't believe that vehicle purchases are tax deductible anymore... at least not after 1986.  Prior to 1986, interest accrued on car loans was tax deductible.

Bingo on both points.  Apparently credit card interest was tax deductible at one point also...that came to a crashing halt a long time ago!

[Brandon]

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.

Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term?  That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

Which is exactly what some of us here do.  I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it.  This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.

Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term?  That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

Which is exactly what some of us here do.  I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it.  This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.

I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles.  At that point unless the car was super expensive it's hard to say you didn't get your money's worth.  Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market. 

[PHLBOS]

Apparently credit card interest was tax deductible at one point also...that came to a crashing halt a long time ago!

Correct.  Such went away at the same time car loan payments became no longer deductible as part of the Income Tax Reform Act of 1986.  I remember seeing ads from local dealerships when the '86 models came out enticing people to buy now before the tax laws changed.  To a degree, such advertising worked as sales of vehicles saw a noticeable uptick during that period. 

Of course over time when people could no longer deduct their credit card and/or car loan interest from their taxes; interest rates ultimately lowered.

...resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

Which is exactly what some of us here do.  I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm putting on it.  This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.

If one can do such, go for it.  But given the prices that new vehicles go for today; there are many out there that simply can not afford to do such... especially if they want/need something more than a subcompact/compact... which is the market/demographic that the used car market is for.

A friend of mine recently bought a used 2017 Navigator L because he needed a large vehicle to haul the family & stuff.  He probably couldn't afford the cost of a new 2019 model.

Additionally, if one wants a vehicle type that has since been discontinued; the only choice they have would be to purchase a used variant of such.  When I lost my '97 Crown Vic (my first new vehicle purchase) in an accident 3-1/2 years ago; the only way I could purchase a newer version of the same exact vehicle was to purchase a used one... which was what I did.  I now have a black 2011 model (the final year for the type) that was a former rental when new.  Had Ford still made the Crown Vic when I was looking for a replacement (March 2016); I would ordered one right then & there.

[kphoger]

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.

Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term?  That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

I think that's a better term.  In jeffandnicole's post, there was the assumption that a person is buying the used car from a dealership and then also selling it to a dealership.  Well, that's certainly not true for everyone.  If I buy a used car at a dealership, then turn around and sell it to a private individual, chances are decent I can get the full price I paid for the car.  Also, if I buy a used car from a private individual, then turn around and sell it to another private individual, chances are decent I can sell it for even more than I bought it for.  This simply cannot happen with new cars, as all new cars come from dealerships.

[nexus73]

Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.

Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term?  That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years.  If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.

Which is exactly what some of us here do.  I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it.  This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.

I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles.  At that point unless the car was super expensive it’s hard to say you didn’t get your money’s worth.  Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market. 

Driving 25K per annum means you cannot afford to have a beater which breaks down.  If your income allows for the expense, consider a lease.  Just figure you are paying a monthly expense to have reliable transportation and if the lease is for two or three years, you will always be under warranty and should the dealership have a good policy for loaners, you will never be bereft of wheeled transport.  Is that worth $200 to $400 a month? 

Rick