|
Robert,
My view is that the resale value is largely driven by the popularity of the different makes. If I remember correctly, in 1961, Plymouth was in eighth place in national sales, with Ch**y and F**d in first and second place. Plymouth was behind Bu**k, O**s, Pont**c, Merc**y, and perhaps Cad****c. Of course, sales of Dodges and Chryslers were even lower than the Plymouths.
It should not be surprising that used car buyers also want the most popular cars. This means that there were correspondingly fewer buyers who wanted a Plmouth, Dodge or Chrysler in the 1950s or 1960s. In order for the dealers to move these slower selling brands, it was often necessary to lower the resale price in comparison to the most popular brands.
Of course, today, with the fewer older Mopars that were made, and perhaps with an even smaller percentage that were saved, old Mopars are in healthy demand and are bringing significant prices. Perhaps, the old Mopars are now on parity with the GM and Fomoco brands. I am sure that some fans would claim that the old Mopars are now doing better in resale value!
Jim
On 9/27/07, Robert Whitman <Robert.Whitman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So why do we seem to see fewer forwardlook Mopars than same year Fords &
Chevies? Many of us concluded that it was the poor built quality. That
may be partly true in '57 & '58 especially, but I offer another reason:
poor resale value.
I have been wondering this for a long time so I thought I'd dig up some
numbers and get some proof. I took the Red Book Used Car Guide for 1965
and 1962 and plugged in the numbers to better see how our cars stacked
up to the other makes. Not very good. The Red Book goes back 7 years
(by that time the value was so low, there was no reason to include cars
older than that and car dealers didn't care to re-sell them).
Here are some general stats: In '62, the average '55 low-line 6 cyl 2dr
sedan was worth about $160 (trade-in was $120). An upper-make '55 2drHT
maxed out at around $400-$500 (trade-in $250-350). These cars were only
7 years old and with average wear, in proper running condition. It
would be another 15 years before any normal person thought to collect
them or restore them. These cars had to spend the next 15 years
floating along as old beaters. worth almost nothing. Survival was low
because one fender-bender or mechanical issue meant you needed to decide
on fixing the problem (at more than the value of the car) or drive/tow
it to the junkman. Fortunately, steel prices were low and junkmen often
held the cars instead of crushing them, that saved a lot of '50's
junkyard cars for us to find into the '80s & '90s. (See this '64
Newsweek article for the junkyard story)
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389302369&context=photostream&si
ze=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389302373&context=photostream&si
ze=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=389302375&context=photostream&si
ze=l
Anyway, back to how this relates to finned Mopars dying at higher rates
than the 'other guys'. My statistics show that the entire Mopar line
consistently had lower resale value than the FoMoCo & GM cars. I tried
to be as objective at my evaluations as possible, by entering cars with
the same body style and organizing them by suggested retail price. I
then took the '62 resale value and compared it to the MSRP and found the
% value loss. That seemed to be the fairest way to compare apples to
apples. I did the same thing with the '65 resale value (which only goes
back to '58). The organized MSRP is also interesting to see because you
can really see what cars a certain model were competing against (i.e.
the MSRP of the '59 Impala 2drHT was within $3 the price of a Coronet
2drHT & Fury 2drHT). The Red Book was very specific, so I was able to
see the difference in value of each model in each body style. Two-door
sedans were worth the least and wagons were worth the most. Two-door
hardtops were worth the same as four-door hardtops and seemed to be
right in the middle of the line in regards to resale value. Four-door
sedans were worth a little less, and convertibles a little more. Used
car value differences were small within the line, so you could buy a
convertible for $35 more than a sedan.
When comparing all the different makes and models together, forwardlook
mopars almost never appear in the top 1/3rd in resale value percentage
for their market segment, for any year. Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Ford,
Olds & Pontiac are almost always in the top 1/3rd. DeSoto, Dodge,
Edsel, Imperial, Lincoln, Mercury, Plymouth & Studebaker all hang out in
the lower 1/3rd in most years for most models. Higher line models in
the Plymouth & Dodge brands faired the best, as did the low-end
Chryslers. DeSoto was a "failed make" by '62, so I would expect lower
resale, but it was not nearly as bad as Edsel. Studebaker had miserable
resale value across the board.
So what was it that hurt the Mopar brands? What was in the minds of the
'62 used car buyer that made it less desirable than other makes? We
would all say that styling was a bonus (but are we fooling ourselves?).
Was it a bad quality reputation? Was it poor marketing? Was it
overly-dated styling (but wasn't? Was it bad dealer service and
reputation? I wasn't alive at the time, so maybe some of you can answer
these questions.
If you use this information, please cite me as the source (I spent a ton
of time creating these data sheets!). Car models in red are in the
lower 1/3rd for resale value based on percentage left from the original
MSRP, cars in green are in the upper 1/3rd. The % numbers for 1962 &
1965 are shown in colors also. Red numbers are lower 1/3rd, blue
numbers are middle 1/3rd and green numbers are upper 1/3rd.
1955
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1357/1447713261_748719a8b0_b.jpg
1956
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1214/1447713645_2ab0827531_b.jpg
1957 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1397/1448566208_4fee617811_b.jpg
1958 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1246/1447714545_371da66112_b.jpg
1959
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/1448566964_5c1c86d852_b.jpg
1960 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1448567376_de3d28ad71_b.jpg
1961 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1186/1448565108_e1632a8469_b.jpg
Lower used-car resale = faster to go to the junkyard. Plain and simple.
What are your thoughts? Any surprises?
-----------------------------------------
I noticed that an average value of a '55 model in '61 was about 10% the
original MSRP. That can be seen across the board, from economy models
to luxury brands. That means the typical mid-level 1955 car, that sold
new for around $2400, was worth around $240 in 1962. That was a good,
solid, no-damage, reconditioned car sold at a dealership!
Relate that to today: A 7-year-old car today would be a 2001 model (the
'08s are out) I looked up a couple common '01 sedans to see what the
current value was on KBB.com for average options, mileage & wear.
2001 Chrysler 300M: MSRP: $29,640; used price: $10,465 (35% of
original price)
2001 Dodge Intrepid R/T: MSRP: $24976; used price: $9700 (39% of
original price)
2001 Honda Accord EX: MSRP: $21050; used price: $11835 (56% of original
price)
Cars retain their value much better for much longer these days. For the
300M to be worth only 10% of it's original MSRP, it would be $2900. The
Honda would be $2100. I looked up the dealer retail price for a '91
LeBaron sedan and it was about $2100. That is 17 years, not 7.
Cars stay on the road a lot longer these days because they are worth
much more, much longer. Must be the improved quality? Also might be
because car fashion changes much slower these days.
________________________________
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options,
please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
