| 开启辅助访问 DIY

买什么车最保值

查看数: 5888 | 评论数: 17 | 收藏 0
关灯 | 提示:支持键盘翻页<-左 右->
    组图打开中,请稍候......
发布时间: 2014-8-10 01:11

正文摘要:

本帖最后由 蓝哥哥 于 2014-8-11 09:29 编辑 周末闲来无事 打算发挥下平时工作时做analysis的技能 做了一份各牌汽车的贬值率分析。 本人比较倾向于每5年换车,所以做的事5年的分析,其中残值价格是通过搜索car ...

回复

Raymond.ma 发表于 2014-12-18 09:12:38
買金條最保值
要保值就不買車
買車...其一是用車
其二是玩樂

我只會買自己喜歡的車
天人合一 发表于 2014-10-9 06:56:57
当然是保时捷,绝对的保值哈
love1314 发表于 2014-10-9 00:07:36
安睡如婴 发表于 2014-10-8 23:37:43
Kampfer 发表于 2014-10-8 14:21
Your question is about "最保值", affordability was not part of the question. As you've said people ...

1. so what's the point comparing them?

didnt u see "列入表格的是本人比较感兴趣的车辆", I can afford Q5 but also very fancy lancer. so the whole comparison is based on cars I interested, but rgardless the price.

2. Which IMO is manipulating data in order to make Q5 sound better than it is

not at all, the only thing I believe in my life is number, so the findings are all based on numbers only.

3. comparison should only be vailded between cars with similar market price.

well, again, "列入表格的是本人比较感兴趣的车辆", do you think a sedan will have the similar price with a SUV, most family prefer sedan+suv, what happened then? Your point is perfect right in business research or a uni essay, but I am talking about famly cars, not the study, relax.


Kampfer 发表于 2014-10-8 14:21:37
本帖最后由 Kampfer 于 2014-10-8 14:22 编辑
安睡如婴 发表于 2014-10-5 21:29
people could afford Lancer dont mean they also could afford Q5, for those people with annual incom ...

Your question is about "最保值", affordability was not part of the question. As you've said people who consider Q5 will not look at Lancer, so what's the point comparing them?
I brought the point up because you mentioned Q5 and Lancer in your comparison. Which IMO is manipulating data in order to make Q5 sound better than it is. (I have nothing again Audi.)

When comparing depreciation by percentage, comparison should only be vailded between cars with similar market price.

My 0.02c
安睡如婴 发表于 2014-10-5 21:29:14
Kampfer 发表于 2014-9-9 09:03
The logic is flawed.

Q5 is ~$70k new, from the graph Q5 worth 60% ($42k), you lose $28k.

people could afford Lancer dont mean they also could afford Q5, for those people with annual income around 55K, buying a lancer and lossing 13.5K in 5yr could be painful. While for those with annual income more than 100K, buying a Q5 and lossing 28K in 5 years could be accepted.  So your logic is also flawed. People should value this depend on their income level and total asset and I sitll believe dep. should based on the %.
solomonkk 发表于 2014-9-30 21:08:38
Q5、大切?老外很喜欢修车么
Kampfer 发表于 2014-9-9 09:03:26
本帖最后由 Kampfer 于 2014-9-9 09:07 编辑

The logic is flawed.

Q5 is ~$70k new, from the graph Q5 worth 60% ($42k), you lose $28k.
Lancer is ~$22k new, loss 62% mean $13.5k

Lancer is much, MUCH cheaper to run and service with 5 yr warranty.

You save more money with Lancer.

Buy a new Suzuki Alto for $12k, dump the car in 5 years and buy another one, dump it again in 5 years and still cost less than a Q5...
Depreciation should calculate in $, not %.


huarong8585 发表于 2014-9-4 21:00:20
四驱车相对后驱或者前驱更保值
柴油相对汽油更保值

可是偏爱汽油后驱车  

Copyright @ 2017 OZYOYO.com. All rights reserved.

分享本页

客服号

公众号