That's a pretty accurate statement.....I fetched $220 at the junkyard for my
89 Taurus Wagon a few years back that had 185,000 miles and was pretty well
shot. They gave me more than a sedan, because they needed wagons. If it
has still been in decent running condition, it would have been worth $1,000
tops, even though it was in good physical shape. Older comparable Hondas
still fetch $2500.

"motsco_ _" <"motsco_ _"@interbaun.com> wrote in message
news:410FED42.6080608@interbaun.com...
> Fred Smith wrote:
> > I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> > The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> > for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
depreciation
> > and the Accord low depreciation.
> >
> > Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from
an
> > economic
> > point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> > eventually account
> > for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> > average mileage?
> >
> > I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
nicer,
> > tighter, better made car, and
> > some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
make
> > an business case for
> > the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend
the
> > extra money. : )
> >
> > Fred
>
>
>
> > ======================
>
> The RESALE VALUE graph for an Accord eventually levels out after a few
> years, so you'll always get a fair buck back out of it. The graph for a
> Taurus continues to drop and reaches close to ZERO. At least that's what
> the Auto Trader prices seem to show. :-)
>
> 'Curly'
>