article from Oct 2012 but seems older than that referring to Saab And Chrysler financial issues.

http://www.investopedia.com/financia..._ptp-cp_geo-na

Here are few models that depreciate the most.

Luxury Models
Range Rover
This is a staid, timeless SUV that unfortunately used some very subpar electronics in a few model years. Word spread quickly and that new Range Rover that was purchased for $60,000 can be now had for $5,500.

Cadillac Escalade
As the luxury carmaker tried in earnest to create a luxury SUV, gas prices soared and interest in this gas guzzler died. Carrying a sticker price of over $80,000 new, you can pick up a low-mileage Escalade for less than $30,000 today.

Jaguar S-Type
Although there is nothing inherently wrong with the Jag S, its design looks dated. Originally selling for $60,000, models can be found for around $10,000.

Mercedes-Benz S-Class
Oddly, this model has taken one of the worst beatings in the depreciation department, with the ability to lose more than 80% of its value in five years. Again, it is an old, respected brand and even the experts can't figure out why the value has dropped so significantly.

Mid-Size and Compact Cars
Experts warn you away from any carmaker that has financial issues, such as Chrysler and Saab. Values of models from both these manufacturers have plummeted, particularly the Chrysler Sebring and the Saab 9-3.

 

This is so true. Take a look at your craigslist for sale ads for used vehicles and you will see numerous vehicles listed for sale at very low prices. But there are some fools who refuse to wake up to the reality that their luxury took a dive and still list it for higher than the value in KBB. In the end their listing stays for sale for a very long time.

Jaguar is a good example, you can find some very nice used XJ6, XJ8, or even XK8 for less than $5k but there are some who still want to list it for over $10k when the KBB has it valued at only $3k. My friend is a perfect example, he wanted to do a straight trade with his XJ6 for my show car classic beetle, no way that is happening. My beetle may be very old and not so luxurious compared to his XJ6, but in the end my classic is worth $10k to his XJ which is worth only $2k.

 

Another seemingly horribly written "article" if you can even call it that.

Most of the cars don't even give a reference to the timeframe in which it is being measured.

Of course a Range Rover could be had for $5,500... but how old is it? 1990?

Similar for the S-Type. Are they referring to a 1999 model? 2008?

 

Some of those super-low prices could also reflect vehicles that have flood/weather damage, as many cars, in the Northeast, recently did with Sandy.

 

What about BMW 6? They cost over 80~100k brand new, and I see many of them being sold at 25k after 3~4 years.

 

Exactly!! Talk about dated misinformation. I didn't even bother to click the link, especially after seeing the "info" on the Range Rover and Escalade.

Yeah I'm not understanding that either. I'm with you Bagwell....Why are they even discussing Chrysler financial issues at this stage in time?

 

Jaguars in general take a huge hit once off the dealer pavement

 

Range Rover, Jaguar, and Chrysler take a huge hit in the marketplace from a reputation for junk that has followed them for 20+ years. Newer models have been considerably more reliable, but may show some variation in quality. I figure if a car's made it to 80K on the speedo and is still running well, it must be one of the good ones. The real lemons sort of eliminate themselves along the way to 50K. One man's trash . . .

 

It's true, there is a stigma to buying those cars, or even almost worse is the ones with a good rep that go bad. For instance the majority of Honda's and Toyota's are very reliable, but that doesn't mean they are perfect despite what is expected of them. They do make lemons too. Likewise, a BMW out of warranty doesn't necessarily mean it will break down. It could be a good one that goes on for a long time with proper maintenance.

 

Talk about a bad investment.

 

newsflash - all cars are a bad 'investment'.

 

Yup, they are a purchase, not an investment.

 

Actually if all you are doing is using them for non work use I would agree. Such as track or show cars. However, if you use your vehicle for work then it becomes an investment. Think about it, if you work out of town, how long would it take you to walk to work? Or take a taxi, or rent a room? See how it can be a good investment?

 

article doesnt have enough info but it is correct... those cars do lose most value.... it is probably KBB report.

 

makes me feel good that my car is still worth about 50% after almost 6.5 years