civic 2.0
inspira 2.0PREVE 1.6 CFE (same segment)
* merc c200 forte 2.0   

407 is D segment then 508 is E segment lar ! 

y when ppl question the statement and u end up calling ppl calculate then? y cant u accept something even when u know it's wrong? some ppl just don have the knowledge like u to come out with those graph...

back to the topic, it's just a myth...i choose camry even if it's more expensive....coz chinamen mentality mar.....

in this case, preve win lor... eventhough the resale value is lot lower, but the price already low  at the first place

Excellent.
Please allow me to illustrate, based on your figure examples and using some crude calculations.

Peugeot 407 Premium 2.0L
Purchase price (2008) = $136888
Downpayment = $13688 (10%)
Interest rate = 3%
Tenure = 60 months (5 years)
Monthly loan payment = $2361
Total loan paid  = $2361 x 60 = $141679
Total paid for car = $141679 (loan) + $13688 (dp)= $155367
Resell car 2013 (after 5 years) for $74k (45% loss)
Total loss (after 5 years) = $74000 (what you get) - $155367 (what you paid for) = -$81367

Toyota Camry 2.0L
Purchase price (2008) = $154990
Downpayment = $15499
Interest rate = 3%
Tenure = 60 months (5 years)
Monthly payment = $2673
Total loan paid = $2673 x 60 = $160414
Total paid for car = $160414 + $15499 = $175913
Resell car 2013 (after 5 years) for $94k (39% loss)
Total loss (after 5 years) = $94000 (what you get) - $175913 (what you paid for) = -$76408

For simplicity, let's assume service/maintainance costs, FC, intangible costs are equal or negligible.
Thus, after 5 years, 407 vs, camry:

407 have HIGHER total lost (bad)
$76408 (camry) -  $81367 (407) = -$4959 difference

407 have LOWER start-up cost (good)
$15499 (camry) - $13688 (407) = $1811 difference

407 have HIGHER monthly cash flow (good)
$2673 (camry) - $2361 (407) =  $312 difference

So i guess we can safely say 407 trades-off (poorer) total loss for better cash flow & lower start-up cost.
Or to put in perspective, buying cars with lower resale value can be justified by lower purchase price.
Whether the amount is significant or not will depend on individuals needs and actual purchase price & resale value.

This calculation was shared by a LYN forumer some time back which ive tweaked to suit.

Very often, we always focus on the resale value of a particular model while ignoring the start up costs and monthly loan repayment costs. This tabulation will show you why cars with lower resale value may actually be a cheaper. This is of course assuming maintenance costs are similar.

Peugeot 407 Premium 2.0L

Purchase price (2008) = $136,888
Downpayment = $13,688 (10%)
Interest rate = 3%
Tenure = 60 months (5 years)
Monthly loan payment = $2,361
Total loan paid = $2361 x 60 = $141679
Total paid for car = $141679 (loan) + $13688 (dp)= $155,367
Resell car 2013 (after 5 years) for $70k (49% loss)
Total loss (after 5 years) = $155,367 (what you paid for) - $70,000 (what you get) = $85,367
Toyota Camry 2.0L

Purchase price (2008) = $154,990
Downpayment = $15,499
Interest rate = 3%
Tenure = 60 months (5 years)
Monthly payment = $2,673
Total loan paid = $2,673 x 60 = $160,414
Total paid for car = $160,414 + $15,499 = $175,913
Resell car 2013 (after 5 years) for $100k (35% loss)
Total loss (after 5 years) = $175913 (what you paid for) - $100,000 (what you get) = $75,913

For simplicity, let's assume service/maintenance costs are equal. Thus, after 5 years, a Peugeot 407 vs Toyota Camry:

407 has HIGHER total loss
$85,367 (407) - $75,913 (Camry) = $9,454

407 has LOWER start-up cost
$15,499 (camry) - $13,688 (407) = $1,811

407 has HIGHER monthly positive cash flow through lower installments
$2,673 (camry) - $2,361 (407) x 60 months = $ 18,720
SUMMARY

This clearly shows that although the Peugeot 407 has RM 9,454 lower trade in value after 5 years but it gains a total of RM 20,531 from lower start up costs and lower monthly loan installments.

Thus, buying cars with lower resale value isnt actually a poor financial decision. So i think with this, we should not allow resale values to govern our choice of vehicles. Safety, value for money, specifications and maintenance costs should take precedence.

What do you think?

I guess it depends on a persons' wealth. I'm a poor person, so I always make calculations when making or considering major purchases that costs hundreds of thousands. Of course rich guys can just splurge, or pay other people to calculate for them.

sometime they talk only wanna sell in short period, when time passes they just aiya, still can drive ma, why change, end up driving the car for 7-10 years

When he posted this a few months back, i immediately saved the calculations on my computer for reference. I was going through my files this morning when i found this and decided to post it.

And your point is?

Not just about driving satisfaction. How about peace of mind driving?
Driving a least-safe car equal waiting for disaster happen!

Resale value can be sacrificed but definitely not for your legs!


Here are the example car with premium price tag, high resale value but with poor safety rating:

This statement is true depending who you ask and how they rate safety. Many parents (including myself) will never let their children get motorcycle license or ride bikes. Road traffic fatality rates are highest among riders. I also already saw too many cases of "unnecessary" severe head injuries and fractures resulted from "minor" accidents to the extent that i feel bikes should be banned. "Unnecessary" here means that it could have been avoided had they had drive instead of riding. For those who couldn't afford cars, use public transport instead.

With the right protective gear and attitude it's not that bad. Of course, in Malaysia both are usually bad.

I guess the "joy/satisfaction" of driving can only be afforded by the rich and famous, no?
If one can only afford a Proto*, then he/she should limit his/her imagination (only in terms of driving) and just enjoy the ride.

My point here being, we need to generalise when we discuss about the impact and importance of a vehicle's RV to the masses.
Unfortunately, the masses also means ordinary Joes like myself and a majority of others whom are not equipped with deep pockets.
I think it has already been mentioned that for vehicles of similar values, no calculations are required. Less RV = rugi.
Unless u want to factor in the "intangibles".