https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZhL9fF0T0&t=337s
He took a while to make his point. And his point is obvious. For the most part, the best indicator of when older cars peak in value is when people who grew up with them become wealthy enough to buy them. The more of them that want to do that, the more the price goes up. Eventually the price goes back down except in special cases. Makes sense.
Rob Ferreti on old car investments
Re: Rob Ferreti on old car investments
So you are saying hang on to your late-90's and early 00's Japanese cars?
Re: Rob Ferreti on old car investments
No, hang onto the cars that were popular when you were, say, 12-20. And by popular I actually mean desired, which is not the same thing. I guess the correct phrase would be "popularly desired." It also goes without saying that the reasons for this desirability can span a very broad range. Those reasons may include:
1) People liked the way they looked
2) People liked the way they drove
3) People liked the way they were portrayed by Hollywood
4) People liked the country they were designed in
Bear in mind the vehicles I am talking about were not really held in high esteem necessarily due to anything like
1) Fuel economy
2) Reliability
3) Practicality
4) Affordability
My evidence is that a car like the FD RX-7 scores poorly in all four of those last ones, but is still highly coveted because of one or more of the first four reasons.
1) People liked the way they looked
2) People liked the way they drove
3) People liked the way they were portrayed by Hollywood
4) People liked the country they were designed in
Bear in mind the vehicles I am talking about were not really held in high esteem necessarily due to anything like
1) Fuel economy
2) Reliability
3) Practicality
4) Affordability
My evidence is that a car like the FD RX-7 scores poorly in all four of those last ones, but is still highly coveted because of one or more of the first four reasons.
Re: Rob Ferreti on old car investments
Just for kicks.
1995 Corvette, 300hp, $36,785 ($59,538.84 today)
1995 300ZX turbo, 280hp, $42,579 ($68,916.79 today)
1995 Supra Turbo, 320hp, $48,700 ($78,824.02 today)
1995 RX-7, 255hp, $37,800 ($61,181.68 today)
1995 3000GT VR-4, 320hp, $43,898 ($71,051.68 today)
All are base prices.
Only the RX-7 was as cheap as a Corvette, and that was a pretty bare bones sports car. The other cars are more a GT/sports mix. Unfortunately it would take some real research to uncover typical transaction prices. I only looked up MSRPs.
Also for fun, as the Corvette is the only one still in production, a 2017 Corvette base price is: $55,450. Given how good the C7 is compared to a 95 C4, that is real value as it is CHEAPER than the inflation adjusted 95 was!!
Next I'll try to compare US sales.
1995 Corvette, 300hp, $36,785 ($59,538.84 today)
1995 300ZX turbo, 280hp, $42,579 ($68,916.79 today)
1995 Supra Turbo, 320hp, $48,700 ($78,824.02 today)
1995 RX-7, 255hp, $37,800 ($61,181.68 today)
1995 3000GT VR-4, 320hp, $43,898 ($71,051.68 today)
All are base prices.
Only the RX-7 was as cheap as a Corvette, and that was a pretty bare bones sports car. The other cars are more a GT/sports mix. Unfortunately it would take some real research to uncover typical transaction prices. I only looked up MSRPs.
Also for fun, as the Corvette is the only one still in production, a 2017 Corvette base price is: $55,450. Given how good the C7 is compared to a 95 C4, that is real value as it is CHEAPER than the inflation adjusted 95 was!!
Next I'll try to compare US sales.
Re: Rob Ferreti on old car investments
Now here's a data point:
1995 Camaro Z28, 275hp, $18,160 ($29,393.10 today).
If I had to take a stab at it, I would be willing to bet a paycheck that as much better as the C7 is than the C4, the gen 6 Camaro is even MORE better than a 4th gen, hence the fact that you are looking at ~$38k for an SS. I think that is a fair comparison. The 4th gen was really an old muscle car hold out in terms of what you got for your money. They made it handle alright all done up in SLP trims but it was still a very basic car, packed with horsepower per dollar.
The Gen 6 Camaro is worlds more sophisticated. Conversely, the C4 was actually pretty advanced in terms of hardware. So again, relatively, the Camaro had a lot more ground to make up, which is why it costs $9k more after adjusting for inflation. Or, that's the argument I am making anyway.
We see the same kind of thing with trucks. They used to be really cheap (and extremely basic, not that comfortable, slow and unsafe). Now they are fancy and expensive. Kind of a similar situation as with the Camaro. Conversely, some fancy stuff (like a C7) has actually gotten MORE affordable.
1995 Camaro Z28, 275hp, $18,160 ($29,393.10 today).
If I had to take a stab at it, I would be willing to bet a paycheck that as much better as the C7 is than the C4, the gen 6 Camaro is even MORE better than a 4th gen, hence the fact that you are looking at ~$38k for an SS. I think that is a fair comparison. The 4th gen was really an old muscle car hold out in terms of what you got for your money. They made it handle alright all done up in SLP trims but it was still a very basic car, packed with horsepower per dollar.
The Gen 6 Camaro is worlds more sophisticated. Conversely, the C4 was actually pretty advanced in terms of hardware. So again, relatively, the Camaro had a lot more ground to make up, which is why it costs $9k more after adjusting for inflation. Or, that's the argument I am making anyway.
We see the same kind of thing with trucks. They used to be really cheap (and extremely basic, not that comfortable, slow and unsafe). Now they are fancy and expensive. Kind of a similar situation as with the Camaro. Conversely, some fancy stuff (like a C7) has actually gotten MORE affordable.
Re: Rob Ferreti on old car investments
I would add:1) People liked the way they looked
2) People liked the way they drove
3) People liked the way they were portrayed by Hollywood
4) People liked the country they were designed in
5) Higher end trim/model/package
6) Rarity
I know these aren't definite factors, but take a Monte Carlo from the 80's for example. The SS is much more valuable than the base V6. Same for 60's Camaros. The base 60's Camaro has far less appreciated when compared to a COPO or Yenko. These are some examples of rare (Yenko) and top trim/model impacting price significantly.
A prediction with the Gen 5 Camaro, not going to surprise anyone:
A V6 or SS V8 will be far less valuable in the future compared to a 1LE (rare) or ZL1/Z28 (higher model trim and rarity)
Re: Rob Ferreti on old car investments
That's true of course.
Look at a GNX vs GN even. Or how about my favorite - 94-96 Impala SS vs any other B-body, even an LT1 B-body.
The thing with cars is, the new vs used buyer is often a completely different demographic. So different factors are responsible for new vs used sales and market prices.
Sometimes it is hard to figure. Look at Bob's comment about the Saab 9-7X Aero. You'd think they would all be worthless but no. Rare and interesting is a big driver there I think, for the few floating around.
One thing that I always wanted to do is chart performance per dollar (we could do trap speed but that is just one area) on used cars and see which over or under perform. Over performers may do so because of:
1) Perceived reliability (actual is irrelevant - perception is reality)
2) Styling
3) Intentional overlooking (i.e. not the hotness of their youth or otherwise an object of desire in qualitative terms)
4) Sheer ignorance (people can often forget about cars in the used market place, vs when everyone is like "I want a Supra Turbo because reasons!")
I'd put the CTS-V1 in the #3 and #4 department, or it was for a while. It was GM's first credible BMW M/AMG/whatever type car and it took years for Cadillac to continue building that reputation before regular people really started looking back and going "Hey, the V1 was a thing." Before that, it was undervalued, which is one reason I got such a great price on mine in 2010.
I think the CTS V-sport is in this same bucket. But now I realize I'm diverting from the "old cars" topic I started...
Look at a GNX vs GN even. Or how about my favorite - 94-96 Impala SS vs any other B-body, even an LT1 B-body.
The thing with cars is, the new vs used buyer is often a completely different demographic. So different factors are responsible for new vs used sales and market prices.
Sometimes it is hard to figure. Look at Bob's comment about the Saab 9-7X Aero. You'd think they would all be worthless but no. Rare and interesting is a big driver there I think, for the few floating around.
One thing that I always wanted to do is chart performance per dollar (we could do trap speed but that is just one area) on used cars and see which over or under perform. Over performers may do so because of:
1) Perceived reliability (actual is irrelevant - perception is reality)
2) Styling
3) Intentional overlooking (i.e. not the hotness of their youth or otherwise an object of desire in qualitative terms)
4) Sheer ignorance (people can often forget about cars in the used market place, vs when everyone is like "I want a Supra Turbo because reasons!")
I'd put the CTS-V1 in the #3 and #4 department, or it was for a while. It was GM's first credible BMW M/AMG/whatever type car and it took years for Cadillac to continue building that reputation before regular people really started looking back and going "Hey, the V1 was a thing." Before that, it was undervalued, which is one reason I got such a great price on mine in 2010.
I think the CTS V-sport is in this same bucket. But now I realize I'm diverting from the "old cars" topic I started...