SL55 vs NSX? Price drop gap?
 

Just curious on depreciation and why....both have strong repuations and are considered higher end cars. New lets say a 2005 sl55 retails in the area of 124K range ....Now they can be had at 70+K at low miles, thats a 50++K plummit!!!! will they fall another 25K in two more years? Now regards to the NSX, lets say a 2005 retailed at 85K they are still selling used in the near 70K range with low miles, thats a slight drop compatively speaking to the MB. Yes the SL55 is higher priced so has more room to drop but come on this is such a gap? I can see why a Porsch 911TT 2001 may be selling for 70K where it was once 125K as its now 6++ years old. But just with the MB such a drop so fast.....really like this car as an option to consider but the depro factor is a bit scary!!!

I am narrowing my field based on my prior post and some great feedback I have gotten by people....

I am looking at the following cars more seriously in the spring to replace the S. 2001 996TT, 2005 SL55 and 2002+ NSX....

I would sooooo do the SL55. Forget the others. Something about buying a 7yr old porsche would bother me.

Then again, I'm driving a 6 year old Honda and just picked up a 7 year old Range Rover... :D

I hate you Ckit...haha. Lemme get the keys to the ROVER TRUCK!!! It dosent matter how hold the RR is. Its still the planets most desirable SUV. :thumbup:

[QUOTE=mickfluff,Nov 6 2007, 10:26 AM] Just curious on depreciation and why....both have strong repuations and are considered higher end cars.

My personal philosophy is that reliability becomes less of a concern if not daily driven and limited miles accrued. Buying a used car becomes more of a "bargain."

I have driven the Range Rover only ~ 3 times in the past few weeks. But those times, I PACKED the crap out of the back to haul supplies to refinish my garage. I love the truck. For most of the time, it makes me happy just sitting tucked away in the garage as I walk past... think of it like jewelry, marble flooring, or a decorative chandelier. Its purpose for me is not so much of a "regular car," but it's nice to know it can perform when called upon (if it doesn't break first). :p

If I'm understanding Mickfluff, he wants something that oozes status and show, without the premium price.

I think the SL55 would fit that very well. If driven more than a few thousand miles per year, I'd pick the 911 or the NSX.

It's like tools. For regular work, the random Home Depot set of wrenches is fine. But if durability is really a concern, you'll pay for that (Snap-On, etc). The flipside is: Why pay for durability if you aren't going to use it?

So same for a car: you'll be paying for driving it essentially on a "per mile" cost basis. At higher mileage, the operating costs for Audi / MB / Range Rover / Jag go way up. For Japanese cars, not so much. Part of the charm of the NSX and S2000 was the ability for sports car performance with Accord reliability. If you drive, say 12k miles per year on an 80k miled SL55amg, it'll only last a few years before needing lots of cash input. However, if you only drive 2-4k miles per year it might last you forever....

I've used this example before: We handed "up" a CLK to my mother. She's put maybe 4k miles on in two years. The car looks good and she feels happy when she looks at and drives it... but it's not worth jack on resale. However, she'll never sell it and it's lost less money in that time than a new Ford Taurus.

As a follow up:

When starting to do some basic wrenching on my cars, I bought a cheap "mechanics" tool kit from the local store. It had 200 pieces or something like that.

All the tools that I've used on a regular basis from that set have broken. :eek: I've replaced about 15 tools with Craftsman because I'm not wrenching enough to make Snap-On worthwhile.

But the tools that I've only infrequently used (the other 185 pieces) are just fine and I didn't have to spend the extra money getting a durable, high quality Torx bit set... but I have it if I need it in a pinch.

That's the same way in my mind for multi-car garages.

We have an 07 RS4 that's under warranty. That car sees most of the commuting and road trip miles. We had the S2000 as the "limited use" car (due to Midwest Winters) and an 04 S4 for additional daily driving use.

With the aging of the S2000 and the installation of the Racelogic Traction Control, I've moved to "use it up" mode. I want to hit 80k miles by the time the vehicle is retired, but at current rates that won't be until 2014... That's too long, so my goal is to put ~15k miles per year on it for a few years, then retire the Honda.

With the RS4 and the S2000 in daily use mode, that didn't leave very many miles for the S4 to pick up and we thought that was a waste. So we gave it to my father a few weeks ago. :chums:

But then we needed something to use a few times per month for hauling stuff and for blizzards. With the fantastic depreciation of the Range Rovers, we hunted for and found a clean 1-owner extended warrantied vehicle for less than the cost of a Honda Fit.

At the rate we use it, hopefully it'll last for a while.

So for Mickfluff: the only way to get into something "exotic" or "exclusive" and not pay for it... is to buy one on a limited use basis.

I do agree with sahtt's points of target demographic and latest greatest phenomenon at the higher price scales. I think that applies very well to the Cayenne Turbo group. At $100k for a sport SUV, you have people who aren't looking for a "bargain." However, on the used car market, at $40-60k there are many other alternatives (Jeep SRT-8, Trailblazer SS, Subaru wagons, Audi S wagons) that people can buy NEW. Someone willing to spend that much money on a car may also be averse to buying used... perhaps explaining the soft resale on those vehicles.

As for NSX competitors, I would argue that a Corvette or even a Cayman S would be modern-day competitors. I would get an NSX if it was FI. That would be more along my personal tastes.

I agree on some points, but we need to know more about how the buyer is using the car before we can rule out reliability as not being a consideration. This is alot of money we are talking about to only drive a car a few miles here or there in fear of reliability problems.

As others have mentioned earlier, the difference in depreciation has to do with the reliability, as well as the demand and exclusivity of the vehicle. Some would argue there has never been a car like the NSX and there may never be another quite like it. While the Benz is a great car, I wouldnt necessarily say it is as revolutionary or as rare as the NSX. As far as reliability goes, the NSX is the exact opposite of most high end cars (not just exotic sports cars) in that it has actually shown to get better with age. Engines have been shown to gain horsepower after 100,000 miles. And the body is virtually rust proof.

But the original poster should research and test drive both to see what suits him.

Well, you've heard my views of the NSX...again, not many can speak from experience. I've lived with one as a daily driver for 3 years. I sold my NSX and bought a '97 Viper Coupe (blue with white stripes).

I absolutely love this car. Fine, not as comfortable or ergonomic as an NSX, but the car was FUN!!! I regret selling mine. The only thing that hurt the Viper was mileage...add mileage to the car (much like a Ferrari, the value would quickly drop). With an NSX, due to the superior visibility and ergonomics, the car became "boring". I know this sounds weird, but with my experience, it was true. You "forget" what your driving, and at times, you think its just another Honda (double edged sword).

The Viper or hell, even my Rx-7, you NEVER FORGET what your in....the whole car rumbles, you see the two large wheel humps in front of you. It felt like something out of the ordinary. That's my experience. :D :D

Have you driven either?

I've had a go in both, and they're just so different... ok, so they've got 2 seats and 4 wheels, but, the "feel" you get is just so very different.

The NSX is definitely a "sports car" compared to the SL which is a "grand tourer". The SL will get you from point A to point B in comfort and style. The vario roof opens up the world for you (i.e. more open space around you then in the NSX) and the power (ponies and torque) is massive (and hugely fun).

But the NSX will give you more fun in the twisties. The gearbox is more fun for those who're not so hot on automatics. You may not have that much trunk space, and it might not be quite as comfortable (I remember the NSX giving my body more feedback from the bumps, rattles and shakes that an uneven road would produce), but you'd most likely lap a track quicker in an NSX then you would in an SL.

I don't know if you're into creature comforts and gadgets (the SL has, after all, tons of little things, going down to brakes which dry themselves out in the rain, a TV tuner, massaging chairs...), or if you want a more sporty, down-to-earth drivers machine that revs high up and gives your senses more of an overload, but if you're not someone who goes to the track and mostly considers the car a way of commute, then the SL might be more for you.