Hyundai diesel versus petrol value

why is it that a santa fe diesel is worth much more than a petrol equivalent with twice the miles and same with hiluxes but a sonata diesel sedan seems the same if not less than a petrol sedan even with less ks in some instances, is it they are undervalued/appreciated recognised or diesel suvs just a sought after product as peugeot cars and wagons hold a premium over petrol and the sonata diesel saloon was 10k more than the petrol equivalent when new.

There is no logic to the value of cars in NZ, its all based around fashion and the corrupting of the public psyche from decades of nonsense told to sell used Japanese imports.

The great news however is if you do your own proper research you can find real bargains which have been unfairly shunned by sheep zombies who just blindly follow the nonsense.

You can also avoid the grossly over priced and under delivering rubbish that is "in fashion" and sold on intangibles such as "reliability" (which dosn't mean the car is reliable at all).

With regard to Hyundai, with the possible semi exception of some of the only just released models. They are over priced rubbish, in fact the very worst kind as their Diesels are inefficient, expensive to fix and prone to catistrophic failure at low km's. Their petrol vehicles are under featured, thirsty and over priced in NZ.

There will be a bunch of haters along shortly to personally attack me and try and belittle my views but if you actually do your own objective research you will likely conclude the same.

I suggest you start with the Hyundai Van thread on here for an idea of how Hyundai dealers treat their customers. There is another similar case on TVNZ's Fair Go which you can see online.

Follow up with some comparisons of technical spec in terms of fuel economy, features, service intervals and costs.

Aside from the above issues, the other key problem is almost no one does their own math. Often Diesels will be "seen" to be more economical to run when they are actually dearer to run than their petrol equivalent. This of course does not stop the price of the Diesel version becoming highly inflated. I remember doing the math on a particular newly sold Hyundai Diesel some years ago. it was even promoted by Hyundai as "super economical" yet it was indeed dearer to run than the petrol equivalent.

You would think if you were parting with tens of thousands of dollars you would whip out the calculator or zip up a quick spreadsheet. but no, standard buying procedure seems to be to buy whats advertised best and/or what everyone else is paying too much for.

Vehicles like Hyundai, Suzuki and Toyota tend to attract non-thinking mathematically illiterate types by the droves so expect some really extreme illogical pricing differences with these brands.

Happy shopping (if that's what you are doing).

Hyundai's are so nice nowadays. They used to be cppary. Not today by any means. There quality is equal to a lot of competitors and I think that the hybrid sonata is the most beautiful and most advanced hybrid on the road yet. The fusion hybrid follows second.

Roger, I'm slightly grpilapng with this. A current litre of diesel at 138p ($8.35 per US gallon) consists of 58p fuel tax and 23p VAT, total 81p, c. 60%. (VAT is charged on the fuel tax as well as the product price.)The tax burden as a % has fallen - it was in the 70%'s in the second half of the 1990's - as the product price has risen sharply and the tax has a fixed element per litre.If the UK government was indifferent between taxing road fuel and something else, and cut 30p off the total tax on fuel and added the equivalent to property (say), that would shift gasoline intensity by over 20% (not allowing for any demand change).The UK spends c. 4.5x as much of GDP on RTF as the US, equalising prices ($8.35 vs $3.20 in Boulder?) would take that down to 1.7x as much (and presumably some price elasticity would take that back to 2x or more).What conclusions do you draw from this other than the obvious inference that RTF has a very low price elasticity? Why might we consume so much more per unit of gdp?I note from Buffett's 2011 letter 'Measured by ton-miles, rail moves 42% of America's inter-city freight' and from Wikipedia 'rail freight occupies an 11.5% market share for surface freight transport in the UK' (measured by ton-miles also).What conclusions are you thinking of?

Marlowe - thanks re rail, I spteotd the inter-city but have no clue what the US ton-mileage of intra-city is as a proportion of the whole, I would guess very small, simply because of US mileage? So I was ok leaving it out. Instinctively I'd have thought the US, because of geography, would shift a higher proportion of goods by rail, and stuff like coal which we don't have and is heavy would slant the stats to rail. Our UK default is truck for everything afaik.If I remove all UK tax (60%) and use a plug number for US of 50c (Wikipedia), so c. 15%, the UK/US ratio would fall from 4.5x (RPJr's number) to 4.5 x 40% x 1.15 - over 2x. So I'm not sure how you say that the UK consumes less (/GDP)?I don't know if that finding is surprising or interesting or not. I tend to agree with you - that the UK, with its fuel taxes, compact form, more efficient road vehicles, should consume over twice the US as % of GDP after backing out taxes is perhaps odd. Which is why I threw in rail as a possible reason.