We can’t compare a Ford Focus discounts with a CRV. At this time, the MSRP only exist in the minds of the manufacturer. It’s supply and demand and CRVs demand more money over time related to their used value then a Ford Focus does. That’s why you can negotiate down more on a Focus then a CRV, not because it’s new or used.
I am not advocating buying a new car every 2 years. In my case we hated the CRV and just turned out lucky on the sale. But I still say that certain cars are not worth buying used, at least up to 3 years. Most Honda’s would be on the list. I looked, and you can easily get $1500 off MSRP on a brand new 2014 CRV. I am sure the used ones would be priced very close to new, unless they had a lot of miles. You can get better finance terms on new (I always pay cash though), and you can call dealers up to 100 miles away and not have to see the car until you want to close the deal. Driving to each used car and kicking tires has a cost associated with it too.
I wanted a stick shift Focus and there were no used ones (2012 and up style) in my market.
"I am not advocating buying a new car every two years"
Sorry I misread your intent. I agree there are instances where buying new is preferable to buying used in many situations. Especially in your situations where used options (manual) was just not available. But, I can not think of one advantage that would not be instantly negated by dumping the car in two or three years and buying new again…regardless of the car model. There are indeed changes in circumstances that make such moves necessary, but in general, it isn’t economically advisable. Now, I agree, if you are looking for a used CRV with a particular set of options or color, then literally, why waste time and effort. But, I certainly wouldn’t repeat that in another two or three years. Cars are always poor investments as they aren’t investments at all. They suck you dry. The attempt is to minimize the financial damage by not buying into the idea that you make monthly payments for cars for perpetuity along with associated higher taxes, insurance premiums and other associated new car costs. It’s just better, Saving for cars when you can make better cash deals while gaining interest instead of paying it out as even at zero percent, there are hidden losses. You can only do this by buying seldom and prudently, new or used, whichever best suits your needs and pocketbook.
There was a Malaysian car called the Proton
When I lived in Germany, I know that it was sold in Europe, because the local car magazines reviewed it. And it was deemed to be a very mediocre car. I’m 99% certain it was never sold in the US
Probably just as well . . .
@dagosa when we were looking at new CRV’s back in 2007 the best deal we could get was $500 off sticker as opposed to paying the $1,500+ ADM that we avoided by going through the internet department. Honda dealers may be offering more discounts right now but that’s not always been the case in my experience.
Obviously it helps to get a good deal on one car over another. But, cost per year of ownership is the driving factor for saving money and with their lower depreciation costs, Honda cars do very well in each of the categories they are sold.
You can’t compare a CRV with a Focus but you can with an Escape or Jeep Liberty. Paying more initially for a CRV is worth it in many cases if the idea is to save money especially when depreciation is the highest cost during the first few years. Buying new cars frequently never makes sense if the goal is to minimize your car expenses. The cost per year of owner ship starts dropping significantly after the first five years when the car is paid off and you can start saving for the next. That only works if your cars are reliable and you are minimizing repair bills in years five through 8 and longer. Honda cars excel in this area. Chrysler products don’t even if they are much cheer initially for example. The same is true for many other competing makes.
@db4690 Yes, the Proton was a very mediocre car. The one I had in Malaysia was the 2001 Waja (means warrior) model, based on the earlier Mitsubishi Lancer model, sold in the US as the Dodge 2000 in the late 80s. The battery lasted less than one year, and the electric windows motor had a very short life; the service centers kept a good supply of them on hand. The 1.5 liter engine with a 3 speed auto was very lethargic.
But it had good seats and overall reliability was not bad. However, it was an out of date car and did not sell well in Europe where they wanted more modern designs.
The only way it suvived was because of very high Malaysian import duties making an imported Corolla or Civic cost twice as much.
"the only way it survived was because of very high…import duties."
You can substitute a lot of countries names in the past and now as a strategy that helped maintain the sales of poor cars in their “homeland”.