"The estimated 250,000 cars flooded by Superstorm Sandy on the East Coast will drive up used-car prices, even as far away as California. The supply shortage comes on the heels of an already tightened used-car market in the wake of the recession, when new car sales dried up. Some experts say prices could rise $700 to $1,000 on the typical used car in the short term. Although those effects will be felt most acutely near the flood zone, the increasingly digital and national market for used cars will spread the price shocks widely."
formatting link
And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
I have no doubt of it. After Obama bought up all the clunkers, used prices went up for a long time. I got good trades on my last two cars because of it. The dealer sold them on his lot for top dollar, not to auction. Buying new was easy the last couple of times and I just got one a few months ago.
I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change that.
Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a genrator should command good prices.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
formatting link
I have no doubt of it. After Obama bought up all the clunkers, used prices went up for a long time. I got good trades on my last two cars because of it. The dealer sold them on his lot for top dollar, not to auction. Buying new was easy the last couple of times and I just got one a few months ago.
I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change that.
It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in Staten Island and New Jersey. Many of the shore homes on the barrier islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. In a few places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility of rebuilding. Those families will want permanent housing, probably inland like Kansas.
You can take that to the bank! ....well, the dirtbags can.
A few years back, there was an expose on "salvaged" cars --cars condemned by insurance companies-- and how multiple Southern and Central states had manipulated their registration laws to make it impossible to NOT exploit this market by essentially "laundering" titles between those states, thus allowing a car condemned in one state --say for flooding (wet wiring - fire danger)-- to be legally registered with a newer un-"salvage" title after selling the car into another state. This with full complicity of state and federal officials bought off by major insurance and auto industry dirtbags.
Obama, Obama, Obama! Gawd, don't you ppl ever get tired of being the political dupes of the power elite? Like Romney would have been one Mitt different? Used EVERYTHING goes up when the economy goes down, and the economy has been going down for 10 YEARS!! ...not jes when Oh Bummer! took office. But, it pays --literally!-- to keep you rubes fighting amongst yerselves. Dolts.
The cash for clunkers deal was an expensive abomination. No matter who decided to do it, more harm was done than help.
Maybe you were a wealthy teenager, but most of us were not. We bought cars for $15, $25, and got them to run. They got us to school and part time jobs and we took our dates to the drive-in.
Suddenly,a few years ago, the affordable cars for low income families were gone, snatched up by the government under the guise of helping people. Maybe it was old, maybe it was a gas guzzler, but that $8 and hour worker was able to get to his job in it.
Somebody's got to be the scapegoat. Besides the new car sales being down because of the economy, improved car quality and longevity play a big part. I only drive used so I do occasional checks of the market for the cars I drive. Used car prices have been getting "out of whack" for years now. By that I mean a big jump in price relative to "average income." Really started about 10 years ago for the cars I look at. Reminds me of about '76 or '77 during one of those "energy crisis." Bought my first V6 when my V8 got totaled. I had paid $500 for the V8 and had to pay $1400 for the V6 in large part because sixes were pulling a premium. Something like that. I was in a hurry and needed a replacement car. The upside is cars are better if you choose right. They can commonly go +200k miles. Watch out for those "flood" cars. Happens after every flood. Carfax is your friend.
Many different data [oints to look at. In 1969, when I bought my first car, a 10 year old car was junk - and could be bought for $60 here in Ontario. Bought my 1961 mini for $60 and though I got a good deal. I likely spent another $60 by the time I had it on the road. At that time a licenced mechanic made, mabee, $4 an hour - and as an apprentice I made $1.35 to start - so that was
60/1.35= 44.4 pre-tax hours of work.
Convert that to today's $10.75? minimum wage, and 44.4 hours is about $477. An apprentice makes more than minimum wage - let's say $14 per hour - and you are looking at close to $625.
A kid can still buy a fixable junker for $625 - but it is going to be more than 10 years old.
I generally buy 10 year old cars in half decent condition - and pay $5000 for them, more or less. In driveable condition.
You will generally pay a sizeable premium for a good small car - the land yachts go cheaper - but if you don't put on many miles, the lower cost more than ballances the lifetime fuel cost - and the bigger cars often cost less to maintain over, say, 200,000 miles.
The "Law Of Unintended Results" reared its ugly head with Cash For Clunkers or did it? It could have been a conspiracy because certain people knew darn well what it would do to the market. It would be very interesting to find out who made out like a bandit because of the Cash For Clunkers program. ^_^
Yeah, and lots of apples and oranges. For instance, whether you can do repairs yourself or not. And it seems you don't see as many with bad cosmetics for sale. Like a creased fender or 2 can lower the price a lot but are easy to replace. Used cars look a lot better, don't know why. Maybe because I don't go to lots any more.
All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke down. $25 bucks. The guy told me it was a smoker, but I didn't know squat. First day she took it to work she got a ticket driving it on the x-way. Junked it the next day. Man. that was stupid. And it was hard to get a ticket for that in '68.
What I go by mostly is book price, usually Kelly's, private seller, good condition.. Example is when I bought my '97 Lumina 8 years ago the book was about $3k for that 8 year old car. Now the equivalent
8 year old replacement would be a 2005 Malibu. Book is about $5k. Big jump.
But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale. You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and current blue book for a 2005 civic.
Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours? Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them. So if you got burned, that's your fault. I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out. As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina. Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high. Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda? I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain. You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.
I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them. I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars - having been a mechanic for several decades.
Which year Malibu?
Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala, and a 2008 impala.
Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's is not as good, because the different generations are totally different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are totally different vehicles as well. As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only $325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50 less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125) for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.
That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the '92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.
Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years. In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070 for a 2000.
Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic, and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with it. How did that happen? I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40 years. Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan.. Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down. I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to me about used cars. I've got a better track record. Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that didn't stop you. And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you neither owned one or put a wrench to one. A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles," or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to fail." Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know nothing about. Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.
No sense complicating this. As models are discontinued you compare brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll. I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period. So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and oranges.
Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. My sweet spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the changing prices as they relate to age and milage. I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it? Used car prices are UP.
I'll take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.