Honda Car Forum

Hi folks, I've been presented with a great price on an 2003 accord lx
and I've got a 2004 lx for only $100 more. I'm still considering the
'03 due to the $100, the fact that I'm planning to hold it for over 7
years and finally due to the fact that the excise tax over 5 years
will be less.

Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks.

Hi,
Considered depreciation factor? "03 is already year old. It lost more
than 100.00 I'd think. If they're identical model, I'd go for '04.
That's me any way.
Tony

John Adamson wrote:

> Hi folks, I've been presented with a great price on an 2003 accord lx
> and I've got a 2004 lx for only $100 more. I'm still considering the
> '03 due to the $100, the fact that I'm planning to hold it for over 7
> years and finally due to the fact that the excise tax over 5 years
> will be less.
>
> Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks.

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:35:27 GMT, Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Hi,
>Considered depreciation factor? "03 is already year old. It lost more
>than 100.00 I'd think. If they're identical model, I'd go for '04.
>That's me any way.
>Tony
>
>John Adamson wrote:
>
>> Hi folks, I've been presented with a great price on an 2003 accord lx
>> and I've got a 2004 lx for only $100 more. I'm still considering the
>> '03 due to the $100, the fact that I'm planning to hold it for over 7
>> years and finally due to the fact that the excise tax over 5 years
>> will be less.
>>
>> Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks.

I agree with the above but let me put it another way. Think of all
this as ...."you can pay me now or pay me later" . That is you can
get paid $100 now to take the 03 over the 04 or you can take the 04
and probably get paid back (amount unknown but probably can estimate
and my guess greater than $100) later at trade in time. Now if you
can determine what the amount later is, you can see if you think it's
to your advantage to get paid now or later.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:32:17 -0600, frankg <fg11@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:35:27 GMT, Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>Considered depreciation factor? "03 is already year old. It lost more
>>than 100.00 I'd think. If they're identical model, I'd go for '04.
>>That's me any way.
>>Tony
>>
>>John Adamson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks, I've been presented with a great price on an 2003 accord lx
>>> and I've got a 2004 lx for only $100 more. I'm still considering the
>>> '03 due to the $100, the fact that I'm planning to hold it for over 7
>>> years and finally due to the fact that the excise tax over 5 years
>>> will be less.
>>>
>>> Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks.
>
>I agree with the above but let me put it another way. Think of all
>this as ...."you can pay me now or pay me later" . That is you can
>get paid $100 now to take the 03 over the 04 or you can take the 04
>and probably get paid back (amount unknown but probably can estimate
>and my guess greater than $100) later at trade in time. Now if you
>can determine what the amount later is, you can see if you think it's
>to your advantage to get paid now or later.


I don't know about the Accords, but we recently bought a 2003 CR-V
instead of waiting for a 2004 because Edmunds showed a $12 difference
in the used value between a 4 year and a 5 year old CR-V when they
have the same features and mileage.

In article <ded38a7.0311150922.15fcf2d4@posting.google.com> ,
simplycooking@yahoo.com (John Adamson) wrote:

> Hi folks, I've been presented with a great price on an 2003 accord lx
> and I've got a 2004 lx for only $100 more. I'm still considering the
> '03 due to the $100, the fact that I'm planning to hold it for over 7
> years and finally due to the fact that the excise tax over 5 years
> will be less.
>
> Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks.

If it was up to me--I would get the 2004. It will be worth more than the
2003 forever. The 2004 may look exactly like the 2003 but minor changes
were made to correct any problems found in the 2003 model. Honda does lots
of research related to any money they spent related to warranty repairs
done on the 2003 models. They use that research to fix any apparent
problems found in the 2003 model when they build the 2004 model.

Oliver Costich <olc-caNOSPAM@cox.net> wrote in
news:vbcfrv4j61a65325kv5k9umb9925vkvpj3@4ax.com:

>
>
> I don't know about the Accords, but we recently bought a 2003 CR-V
> instead of waiting for a 2004 because Edmunds showed a $12 difference
> in the used value between a 4 year and a 5 year old CR-V when they
> have the same features and mileage.

I would check the manufacturing date (the decal on the driver's side door).
If the vehicle has been on the lot 10-12 months, some parts (like battery,
tires, fuel system) do wear and break down over time.

At a minimum, it should tell you something if they were not able to move
the car over a long period.

Good Luck.