Honda CR-V vs Santa Fe vs Outlander

Great, I'll definitely be looking at the Outlander more closely.

This question might be impossible to answer but as Jazzetc mentioned, at 25k I'm going to get a lot of depreciation over the next few years. Obviously I can't avoid markdown but why am I most vulnerable at this price! Is something in the 10ks or 30ks range always going to depreciate more slowly! I would love to avoid a massive drop in value if possible but we can't afford $30k+. Isn't it based on brand popularity! Surely the Outlander and Santa Fe (being so popular) wouldn't have such a drop! I know Subaru hold there value well.

Phew, sorry for the rant. It would be good to get clear on this.

As a rule of thumb most vehicles 1/2 their value every 3 years.

Thats why I buy 3 year old cars, because they will never lose as much again.

Its more a function of the price bracket and age, those vehicles are sort of due for the "transition" from newer to older and tend to drop a fair bit in the next 5 years. Also the bracket you are looking at are "high fashion" items which tend to be more vulnerable.

There is also a funny thing going on in this bracket, some of the vehicles you are looking at are twice the price or more new than others you are looking at. Yet they are in a similar ballpark secondhand.

Interestingly sometimes even though those vehicles that were twice the price new have depreciated much worse than the cheaper ones to that point, from there on in depreciation can be less.

Thats what makes the XC70 fantastic value, with some carefull looking around you can get a 2003 model in great condition for around 13K compare what you are actually getting in terms of a vehicle between that and say the Hyundai and you will start to see how skewed things are.

I do appreciate though that the XC70 may not be the right thing. its just used here as an extreme example.

Unfortunately the cars that you really like are in that "fashion segment" so its going to be a hard one to solve. But its worth pondering whether its worth paying several thousand dollars more per year in ownership costs to have the "look" of the SUV/Cross vs say the Touran which should do the job as well or better.

If its worth paying the premium thats all good. but it makes sense to be aware of the cost.

I just did a real rough and ready approximation, over the next 6 years a 2006 CRV is likely to depreciate at about $2500 a year whereas a 2006 Touran might depreciate about $1500 a year, plus you have the further gain of having less money tied up in the first place with the Touran.

This might not be enough to make it worth the compromise of going for something a little less fashionable, but at least you have an idea of the premium you pay.

I would take the DSG over any CVT for reliability any day. The DSG has proven exceptionally reliable in the VW Golf that has had it for 7 years. If you compare the reliability of those early cars against cars of the same age running the basic and bulletproof Toyota 4 speed auto reliability is much of a muchness.

I am a CVT fan (love the unit in the Punto) don't get me wrong but definitely not for towing and I disagree with their usage in anything being used for any work that is remotely heavy/taxing.

BTW, you need to be carefull when researching the DSG, you will find more anecdotal evidence of problems simply because of its popularity. From memory its currently used in two of the top 5 biggest selling cars by volume. It has been around for 7 years and is THE staple gearbox for Skoda, VW, Audi and others right accross their range from 4WD to big cars to tiny commuters. The volume produced is massive.

Its just easy to forget about the numbers when we live in NZ with its very skewed cross section of auto-mobiles.

The DSG by design is super resiliant as its effectivly a manual gearbox taking the load. Even better its got twin clutches that can't be "slipped" by poor driving. The pre-select nature also preserves the gears well.

By comparison all CVT's even though they vary in design from cones to pully's and belts etc are at the end of the day all friction drive units. hence by design are just not as hardy.

GRRRRRR, forget the Santa FE, I LOVE Mine, well until I put it through a fence 2 weeks ago, also did the transmission when it hit a stumpby the fence. Has been at panel beaters for 2 weeks now and they say another month at least be fore all fixed,it is going to take a month to get a head light into the country, and a hose clamp for some brake line is going to take 7 days to arrive,that is just bull shite, this is a popular model ( not to mention expensive) you can't tell me they don't have ONE head light in the country for a Santa FE,yes yesmy fault, should have stayed on the road but surely 6 weeks to fix a Santa FE iscrap.

Would be nice of you to thank jazz for his comments too!
He has written the most txt regarding your question yet they seem mute lol
Personally I'd go the CR-V(not that theres much choice) overal it will prob use lessfuel than the others and when things get boring(which they will) bang a vtec head on the b20 engine and *Presto*!
You got a 12second crv;)

Great!.
All it needs is a headlight on eachside of the pillars;)

LMAO, touche!