Acura NSX - Top 10 Best Residual Value
- Thread starter POWERED by HONDA
- Start date
Is it just me, or do a lot of those values seem awfully low to you? A three-year-old NSX for only $54,800? Sounds like a great deal. Same thing for the prices of a three-year-old Odyssey, 911 Turbo ($74K???), S2000, mini cooper, etc. No?
Those may simply be lease residual values. There is no such thing as a three year old 996 Turbo but that would be the approx. residual at the end of a 36 month lease (depending on terms of course).
The number one vehicle is the CLK class mercedes?
This is a bunch of crap. I had one and the resale value was terrible on it, more so than any other vehicle I owned and even more so after the body change in 2003. They look like an Acura CL.
This is a bunch of crap. I had one and the resale value was terrible on it, more so than any other vehicle I owned and even more so after the body change in 2003. They look like an Acura CL.
jlindy,
that is true CLK price in Bay area is VERY strong!
When I bought my 2002, People are willing to pay $3000 over MSRP. I sold it 8 months (~6k miles) later for only $2500 less than MSRP.
that is true CLK price in Bay area is VERY strong!
When I bought my 2002, People are willing to pay $3000 over MSRP. I sold it 8 months (~6k miles) later for only $2500 less than MSRP.
When was this and which model? I had a 430 Coupe one year ago and when I had it on ebay/autotrader, I had people from CA offering me insulting prices, more so than any other area. CA dealers were telling me that it was a buyer's market over there. If you sold it for not much less than you paid for it, then good for you, but it certainly didn't come my way. I couldn't even sell it period and eventually had to wholesale it to a dealer and it was PERFECT with low miles.
insx said:
I realize that they are lease residual values - the amount that you would need to pay at the end of the lease to own the car instead of turn it in. Do they generally set residual values less than market value - to give the buyer an incentive to keep the car rather than turn it back in at the end of the lease? And if so, why would they set it at a higher percentage (of the expected market value) for some cars than for others?SCS2k said:
nsxtasy said:
Good question...
...I'm not certain, but could offer a couple of potential insights.
Manufacturers may vary the percentage (of expected market value) to
1) Remain competitive - Manufacturers/dealers may alter the residual value to make their lease more attractive or competitive than other marques. A Civic and Grand Am may have the same MSRP, but certainly have different depreciation curves. A consumer purchasing one of those two would experience similar monthly payments. In a leasing situation, the Civic should be cheaper (because it has a higher expected market value). The Pontiac dealer may subvert the lease (raising the residual) to remain competitive. This manufacturer/dealer may be able to sell the same quantity of units, but may do so at much less profit per unit.
2) Align with their business situation - Manufacturers or dealers may prefer buyers to lease vs. buy (or vice versa) depending on the state of their business. Altering the residual may steer consumers in one direction.
3) Mitigate risk - The volatility in future values of all cars are not the same. Perhaps Honda can predict with better certainty the value of a 2003 Odyssey in 2006 than a 2003 S2K in 2006. Given this situation they may elect to be more conservative with the S2K residual value.
Any thoughts?
nsxtasy said:
After leasing many cars in the last few years, I can answer this one. Some car companies set the residual value lower than the real value and to even things out, they raise the lease payments. This strategy causes most people to purchase the car at the end of the lease since it will be a good buy, and thus it means there will be less used cars on the market, which will cause the particular car to hold its value better.
BMW has been using this strategy for years. If you go to lease a 3-series, you will see the payment is much higher than most of its competitors. Meanwhile, you could go lease a Cadillac of the same MSRP for much less. This seems exactly the opposite of what would seem logical: Since the BMW holds its value better and the Cadillac depreciates more over the lease term, you would actually expect the Cadillac lease payments to be higher and the BMW to be lower. But BMW artificially inflates the prices, and the end result is a lower residual and therefore, fewer used cars on the market.
Of course, some would argue that if Caddilac tried this, their sales would suffer. I guess only a company with a top-notch product like BMW can get away with this.
Some car companies who are suffering low sales will actually do the opposite. They will lower the lease payments and raise the residual as an incentive to new car buyers. However, this strategy tends to backfire since they end up getting stuck "up-side-down" with these cars at the end of the term, and end up taking a loss when they have to auction them off.
About 10 years ago I leased a 3000GT with a MSRP of $36k for only $390/month. The residual was $17k, but after the 42 month term, the book value on the car was only $14k. Since the leases were so cheap, most people were turning in their cars and leasing a new one, which caused there to be too many 3-year-old 3000GT's on the market, so value suffered.
Residual values are all about marketing strategy and only partly reflect the car's actual projected value after the lease term.
Similar threads
