sorry to bust yr bubble cyber, but that statement can be voided ler. one can check with motor trader & confirm that for the past 2 years, lancer 2.0 has never gotten into the top 20 sales model in msia. even triton outsells lancer.

but a quick look at mudah, we can see a '07 lancer gt still sells for around 90k. thats about 25% depreciation ya?

i've checked also the figure for civic 2.0 & altis 1.8, they too, sell for around 24%~26% depreciation. but of course we all know these two models easily tops lancer in terms of number in sales. (since lancer isn't top 20, i guess around thrice?) so ya, resale value determined by number of sales is not necessary so.

i think it's the "want to get" factor. simply put, alot of people wanted to get the lancer 2.0gt too (as much as civic or altis?), but not at its' original asking price of 120K. there is alot of reason for that; plasticky interior, questionable handling, etc etc. but at 2nd hand price, these weakness are more acceptable (or we say, overlooked). that's why alot of people are so hyped up by the new waja now, it's just like getting a new lancer at 2nd handed lancer's price.

T&H always excel at creating the "want to get" factor with most of their models, whether it is new or 2nd hand. that's why their resale value are strong. peeps wanted their cars, old or new. but there are exceptions too.

now back to forte, i believe the "want to get" factor is similar to lancer, and provided naza doesn't butthurt current forte owner like how proton did with lancer owners, i think the residual value for 2nd hand forte should be quite as remarkable as lancer, even if the sales figure doesn't shine.

sorry...bad with summary,

friend,

don't practise double standard with the things said. what you said is true, but do you know why i used lancer as an example? it's because it is being distributed by EON/Proton. Proton SC is famous for being notorious just as Naza SC is, don't we all agree? And infact, Lancer sales was never significant. but you said that resale value is determined by sales volume, which i really don't think so. the oldest lancer 2.0 is 3 years old, therefore if i say, lancer resale value will be weak because 1) low sales volume 2) bad aftersales because of associations with EON/proton aka lousy which is according to your assesment; will that still be true for another 2 years? who knows....but for now, the figure shows it doesn't.

same thing with forte, the car is barely 1 year old. but already you gave your assesment that Resale value will be poor since its Naza, which is more like speculation. you can't consider speculation or your perception as a fact, and then bring it as point. it's not, because we still can't tell. you said it aint fair to compare lancer because the car is not "old" enough, well same thing with forte. but using lancer as a comparison is not that far off because of they have almost similar associations (bad SC, not as strong branding as T&H, etc. etc)

you know what, i would agree with your assessment if you would stop using poor resale value as a point when discussing forte. infact, the last time i got into a discussion with you, i've already stated this, but somehow that discussion got carried away. so do we have an agreement now that you are speculating on the poor resale value of forte? other points are also questionable but since you agree that resale value cannot be determined by short period comparison, so at least this point is clearly "out of question & discussion" until time can tell. ok?

This post has been edited by eddie_al: Oct 5 2010, 06:06 PM

sigh...whatever. as it seems now, whatever you said - FACTS. whatever others said, no matter how it is put up, NON-FACTS. guess we all have been living in an imaginary world, .

not finding fault with yr facts, unless you have problem understanding my post. i am saying that fact is not yet a fact until forte reaches the years where the resale value is indeed bad. you have already gaven your assesment even before that happened. that's FACT, according to you.

i remembered you saying, "dont take example of one bad experiance and concludes it as a general statement". you don't need me to find where you said that right?

---

Added on October 6, 2010, 9:54 amFacts are facts and none of it will change <- you said

brother, stop spinning around. it's getting ugly.

i already said i agree with your assesment, only not the resale value part because it's still not time to tell.

This post has been edited by eddie_al: Oct 6 2010, 09:55 AM

don't drag the discussion further from where it was originally. please refer back your own post. you gave your assessment on VIOS vs Forte, i am only disagreeing "the resale value will be poor", because there is no substantiate info yet to say so. is it so hard to recognize that keep "poor resale" out of the discussion? it is called speculation. you speculated because you had bad experiance with Kia/Hyundai. Well, thank you for your info.

But don't make it a critical point as the way you put in yr assessment. it shouldn't be there. drop the defensive stance and read with open mind.

i used lancer as a poor comparison since even the model itself is also new, but since you see it viable to say Forte will be weak without it reaching it's period, so i thought i could too. but you do not seem to practise same standard with the things you said.

please don't change subject. you want to talk about the grammar status of "will be" now?

if that's how you want to say it, the correct term would have been "might be". please, stop being defensive.

i quote your whole post unless you so conviniently overlook it.