Is it common for a new car of about $16k to be worth only $4-6k after three years?
It depends completely on the car.  Some cars retain their value much better, and others drop in value like a rock (no pun intended).  The mileage and condition on a car also has a huge impact on value.   According to this site, cars on average lose 46% of their value in three years, so seeing one that drops 62% in roughly 3 years does not seem impossible. That value could also have been trade-in value, which is significantly lower than what you could get with a private party sale (or what you'd pay to get that same car from a dealer) One example: a new Ford Taurus (lowest model) has a Kelly Blue Book value of $28,000.  A 2014 Taurus (lowest model) with average mileage and in fair condition has a private party value of about $12,000, for a 57% drop in value. Note: I picked Taurus because it's a car that should not have exceptional resale value (unlike BMW, trucks, SUVs), not to make any kind of judgement of the quality or resellability of the car) "It's possible the $16,000 was for more than the car.  Perhaps extras were added on at purchase time; or perhaps they were folded into the retail price of the car.  Here's an example.  2014: I'm ready to buy. My 3-year-old trade-in originally cost $15,000, and I financed it for 6 years and still owe $6500.  It has lots of miles and excess wear, so fair blue-book is $4500. I'm ""upside down"" by $2000, meaning I'd have to pay $2000 cash just to walk away from the car.  I'll never have that, because I'm not a saver.  So how can we get you in a new car today?  Dealer says ""If you pay the full $15,000 retail price plus $1000 of worthless dealer add-ons like wax undercoat (instead of the common discounted $14,000 price), I'll eat your $2000 loss on the trade.""  All gets folded into my new car financing.  It's magic! (actually it's called rollover.)  2017: I'm getting itchy to trade up, and doggone it, I'm upside down on this car.  Why does this keep happening to me?  In this case, it's rollover and other add-ons, combined with too-long car loans (6 year), combined with excessive mileage and wear on the vehicle." It isn't common to lose that much value in 3 years, but it is possible. If you don't take care of small dents, scratches, etc., you can quickly reduce the value far beyond what you might expect looking at graphs.  Another big factor is the trim level of the car that you purchase. If you spend $30,000 for the highest trim level of a car, instead of $22,000 for the lowest trim level, the higher trim car could lose 50% of it's value while the lower trim car loses only 35%. There's no way to know why the OP of your linked question had such a large loss, but again, that's not the usual experience. It is definitely a good idea to consider used though.
New tires will increase the resale value of the car; while not by the full cost of the tires, it will not be entirely a sunk cost. You'd need to factor that in and find out how much the new tires increase the resale value of the car to determine how much they would truly cost you.  However, I suspect they would cost you less than a $25,000 car a year early would.  That new car would cost some amount over time - it sounds like you buy a new car every 8 years or so? So it would cost you $25/8 = $3.3k/year.  That would, then, be the overall cost of the new car a year early - $3.3k (as it would mean one less year out of your old car, so assuming it was also $25k/8 year or similar, that year becomes lost and thus a cost). Edmunds.com has a really cool guide that calculates some of these intangibles for a wide swath of cars under their True Cost to Own Ratings section. I highly recommend it. Nothing's generating a whole lot of interest right now.  But more liquid and stable is better (cash or cash-like). But a related question:  Why a new car?  You can knock thousands of dollars off of the price of a comparable vehicle by buying one that's one or two years old.  Your new vehicle loses thousands of dollars in value the moment it goes off the lot. I tend to agree with Rocky's answer.  However it sounds like you want to look at this from the numbers side of things.  So let's consider some numbers: I'm assuming you have the money to buy the new car available as cash in hand, and that if you don't buy the car, you'll invest it reasonably.  So if you buy the new car today, you're $17K out of pocket.  Let's look at some scenarios and compare.  Assuming: If you buy the new car today, then after 1 year you'll have: If you keep the old car, after 1 year you get: After 2 years, you have: And after 3 years, you're at: Or in other words, nothing depletes the value of your assets faster than buying the new car. After 1 year, you've essentially lost $5K to depreciation.    However, over the short term the immediate cost of the tires combined with the continued depreciation of the old car do reduce your purchasing power somewhat (you won't be able to muster $25K towards a new car without chipping in a bit of extra cash), and inflation will tend to drive the cost of the new car up as time goes on.  So the relative gap between the value of your assets and the cost of the new car tends to increase, though it stays well below the $5k that you lose to depreciation if you buy the new car immediately.  Which is something that you could potentially spin to support whichever side you prefer, I suppose. Though note that I've made some fairly pessimistic assumptions.  In particular, the current U.S. inflation rate is under 1%, and a new car may depreciate by as much as 25% in the first year while older cars may depreciate by less than the 8% assumed.  And I selected the cheapest new car price cited, and didn't credit the tires with adding any value to your old car.  Each of those aspects tends to make continuing to drive the older car a better option than buying the new one. I respectfully disagree with @JohnFX's comment regarding new vs used.  (John knows what is talking about though; he gave an awesome answer on buying a car:  What are some tips for getting the upper hand in car price negotiations?) The answer to your question is based on whether or you not you can stand to have a small, loud, cheap but reliable car for the next 10 or 15 years. If you plan to keep your new car until it dies 20 years from now, then a new car can be a fine choice.  I just bought a car and the difference between my 2013 Hyundai and a comparable 2012 Hyundai wasn't much.  Furthermore, it was hard to even find a 2012 (which justifies the higher price from dealerships and the private market).  Doing math in my head told me the reduced usage I will get out of the car wasn't offset by the slightly lower price. Depending on the specific age, insurance on newer cars can be cheaper than insurance on older cars. (But you have to have carry more insurance, so consider that as well.)  There might not be a different between a 2010 and a 2012, but there will likely be for a 2005 and the 2013. New cars can be cheaper to operate.  Lower fuel costs, better safety and possibly pollution costs.  They are tuned up and you know everything about their history. Repairs and factory warranties might not be available on a used car, so if you car turns out to be a problem, your out of pocket is limited. These programs don't mean anything.  Get an independent certified mechanic to check out any used car you buy.  If the dealer won't let you get the car checked out, then they aren't worth your business.  Certified cars don't justify their cost according to consumer reports, they are more for marketing than reliability. Don't waste money on a third party warranty.  Either the car is good and doesn't need it, or it needs a warranty and you shouldn't buy it.  If you new car comes with a factory warranty, that is fine.  Radio host Clark Howard is indifferent if you want to purchase a factory warranty separately, but never a third party. Just out of college, you probably will be better off spending the least amount of money you can for a good used car. If for no other reason, this likely isn't going to be your car in the near future.  (Only you can answer that) If you have a feeling you won't keep your tiny car well into your 30s, then definitely don't buy a new car.   Also, my experience only applies to my make and model.  Certain models of cars keep their value and the difference between new and used isn't much for the most recent model years. But there are many more makes and models that don't pan out that way. "A while back I sold cars for a living.  Over the course of 4 years I worked for 3 different dealerships.  I sold new cars at 2 and used at the last one. When selling new cars I found that the majority of people buying the higher end cars honestly shouldn't have been - 80%+.  They almost always came in owing more on their trades then they were worth, put down very little cash and were close to being financially strapped.   From a financial perspective these deals were hard to close, not because the buyer was picky but rather because their finances were a mess.  Fully half, and probably more, we had to switch from the car they initially wanted down to a much cheaper version or try to convert to a lease because it was the only way the bank would loan the money.  We called them ""$30,000 millionaires"" because they didn't make a whole lot but tried to look like they did.  As a salesman you knew you were in serious trouble when they didn't even try to negotiate. Around 2% of the deals I did were actual cash deals - meaning honest cash, not those who came in with a pre-approved loan from a bank.  These were invariably for used cars about 3 to 4 years old and they never had a trade in.  The people doing this always looked comfortable but never dressed up, you wouldn't even look at them twice.  The negotiations were hard because they knew exactly how much that car should go for and wouldn't even pay that.   It was obvious they knew the value of money. That said, I've been in the top 3% of wage earners for about 20 years and at no point have I considered myself in a position to ""afford"" a new ""luxury"" car.  IMHO, there are far more important things you can do with that kind of money." You can negotiate a no penalty for early payment loan with dealerships sometimes. Dealerships will often give you a better price on the car when you finance through them vs paying cash, so you negotiate in a 48 month finance, after you've settled on the price THEN you negotiate the no penalty for early payment point. They'll be less likely to try to raise the price after you've already come to an agreement.  My dad has SAID he does this when buying cars, but that could just be hearsay and bravado. Has said he will negotiate on the basis of a long term lease, nail down a price then throw that clause in, then pay the car off in the first payment.  Disclaimer: it's...um not a great way to do business though if you plan to purchase a new car every 2-3 years from the same dealer. Do it once and you'll have a note in their CRM not to either a) offer price reductions for financing or b) offer no penalty early payment financing. If you buy a new car, the odds that it will require repairs are fairly low, and if it does, they should be covered by the warranty. If you buy a used car, there is a fair chance that it will need some sort of repairs, and there probably is no warranty. But think about how much repairs are likely to cost. A new car these days costs like $25,000 or more. You can find reasonably decent used cars for a few thousand dollars. Say you bought a used car for $2,000. Is it likely that it will need $23,000 in repairs? No way. Even if you had to make thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the used car, it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying a new car. I've bought three used vehicles in the last few years, one for me, one for my son, and one for my daughter. I paid, let's see, I think between $4,000 and $6,000 each. We've had my son's car for about 9 months and to date had $40 in repairs. My daughter's car turned out to have a bunch of problems; I ended up putting maybe another $2,000 into it. But now she's got a car she's very happy with that cost me maybe $6,000 between purchase and repairs, still way less than a new car. My pickup had big time problems, including needing a new transmission and a new engine. I've put, hmm, maybe $7,000 into it. It's definitely debatable if it was worth replacing the engine. But even at all that, if I had bought that truck new it would have cost over $30,000. Presumably if I bought new I would have had a nicer vehicle and I could have gotten exactly the options I wanted, so I'm not entirely happy with how this one turned out, but I still saved money by buying used. Here's what I do when I buy a used car: I go into it expecting that there will be repairs. Depending on the age and condition of the car, I plan on about $1000 within the first few months, probably another $1000 stretched out over the next year or so. I plan for this both financially and emotionally. By financially I mean that I have money set aside for repairs or have available credit or one way or another have planned for it in my budget. By emotionally I mean, I have told myself that I expect there to be problems, so I don't get all upset when there are and start screaming and crying about how I was ripped off. When you buy a used car, take it for granted that there will be problems, but you're still saving money over buying new. Sure, it's painful when the repair bills hit. But if you buy a new car, you'll have a monthly loan payment EVERY MONTH. Oh, and if you have a little mechanical aptitude and can do at least some of the maintenance yourself, the savings are bigger. Bear in mind that while you are saving money, you are paying for it in uncertainty and aggravation. With a new car, you can be reasonably confidant that it will indeed start and get you to work each day. With a used car, there's a much bigger chance that it won't start or will leave you stranded. $2,000 is definitely the low end, and you say that that would leave you no reserve for repairs. I don't know where you live or what used cars prices are like in your area. Where I live, in Michigan, you can get a pretty decent used car for about $5,000. If I were you I'd at least look into whether I could get a loan for $4,000 or $5,000 to maybe get a better used car. Of course that all depends on how much money you will be making and what your other expenses are. When you're a little richer and better established, then if a shiny new car is important to you, you can do that. Me, I'm 56 years old, I've bought new cars and I've bought used cars and I've concluded that having a fancy new car just isn't something that I care about, so these days I buy used. Another bit of advice specific to your scenario. Consider buying an ALMOST new car. Buying last year's model can knock a huge amount off the price and the car is going to still feel very new to you, especially if you buy from a dealer who has had it detailed. Any way you look at it, this is a terrible idea. Cars lose value.  They are a disposable item that gets used up.  The more expensive the car, the more value they lose. If you spend $100,000 on a new car, in four years it will be worth less than $50,000.*  That is a lot of money to lose in four years. In addition to the loss of value, you will need to buy insurance, which, for a $100,000 car, is incredible. If your heart is set on this kind of car, you should definitely save up the cash and wait to buy the car.  Do not get a loan.  Here is why: Your plan has you saving $1,300 a month ($16,000 a year) for 6.5 years before you will be able to buy this car.  That is a lot of money for a long range goal.  If you faithfully save this money that long, and at the end of the 6.5 years you still want this car, it is your money to spend as you want.  You will have had a long time to reconsider your course of action, but you will have sacrificed for a long time, and you will have the money to lose.  However, you may find out a year into this process that you are spending too much money saving for this car, and reconsider. If, instead, you take out a loan for this car, then by the time you decide the car was too much of a stretch financially, it will be too late.  You will be upside down on the loan, and it will cost you thousands to sell the car. So go ahead and start saving.  If you haven't given up before you reach your goal, you may find that in 6.5 years when it is time to write that check, you will look back at the sacrifices you have made and decide that you don't want to simply blow that money on a car. Consider a different goal.  If you invest this $1300 a month and achieve 8% growth, you will be a millionaire in 23 years. * You don't need to take my word for it.  Look at the car you are interested in, go to kbb.com, select the 2012 version of the car, and look up the private sale value.  You'll most likely see a price that is about half of what a new one costs. I like Nathan's answer some, but am horribly curious as to why you have not made payments on a $3500 student loan?  If you are wealthy enough to afford a new car, this should be paid off next week.  IMHO. Above all else your financial goals should dictate if you buy a new car.  What are they for you?  If the goal is to build wealthy quickly then Nathan's advice may be to unfrugal for you.   If your goal is to impress people with the car you drive and accumulate very little real wealth then purchasing or leasing a car should be a top priority. So to answer your question correctly one must understand your goals.   For 2016, the average car payment is $479 per month.  If you invested that in a decent growth stock mutual fund in 40 years you'll have around 2.6 million.  However, you do need something to drive now.  If you can cut your car expense to $200 per month, and save the other $279 you will still end up with about 1.5 million in that same 40 years.   Personally I attempt to shoot for $200 ownership cost per car per month.  Its a bit difficult as I drive a lot.  Also I would not purchase a new car until my net worth exceeded 2 million.  At that point my investments could mitigate the steep depreciation costs of owning a new car. "Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future.   Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house.   So when you go back to buy another car they'll say ""fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.""   I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future.  This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times." I think you are making this more complicated that it has to be.  In the end you will end up with a car that you paid X, and is worth Y. Your numbers are a bit hard to follow.  Hopefully I got this right. I am no accountant, this is how I would figure the deal: The payments made are irrelevant.  The downpayment is irrelevant as it is still a reduction in net worth.   Your current car has a asset value of <29,500>.  That should make anyone pause a bit.   In order to get into this new car you will have to finance the shortfall on the current car (29,500), the price of the vehicle (45,300), the immediate depreciation (say 7,000).  In the end you will have a car worth 38K and owe 82K.  So you will have a asset value of <44,000>.  Obviously a much worse situation.  To do this car deal it would cost the person 14,500 of net worth the day the deal was done.  As time marched on, it would be more as the reduction in debt is unlikely to keep up with the depreciation. Additionally the new car purchase screen shows a payment of $609/month if you bought the car with zero down.  Except you don't have zero down, you have -29,500 down.  Making the car payment higher, I estamate 1005/month with 3.5%@84 months.  So rather than having a hit to your cash flow of $567 for 69 more months, you would have a payment of about $1000 for 84 months if you could obtain the interest rate of 3.5%. Those are the two things I would focus on is the reduction in net worth and the cash flow liability.   I understand you are trying to get a feel for things, but there are two things that make this very unrealistic.  The first is financing.  It is unlikely that financing could be obtained with this deal and if it could this would be considered a sub-prime loan.  However, perhaps a relative could finance the deal. Secondly, there is no way even a moderately financially responsible spouse would approve this deal.  That is provided there were not sigificant assets, like a few million. If that is the case why not just write a check? I work for an auto finance company and have performed some job related analysis looking into this as well. From what I can tell I don't think the numbers are there for a 2008 recession. The loans are smaller, the asset is already known to depreciate, and the auction market is pretty effective at cutting deficiencies even more.   Something to watch out for if you are analyzing this stuff though is the influx of used cars into the market. Remember, more defaults means more repossessions which means more used cars on the market.   I'm curious to see what happens with this influx of used, relatively reliable cars onto the market and how this impacts the constant pumping out of new vehicles  that manufacturers are forced to meet. We've already seen scaling back by some big players. There's definitely something happening in the auto industry but I don't know what to make of it yet and I would hardly say we are looking at Great Recession 2. I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just asking how we know this.  It's one thing if it's a logical deduction you've made, but it's another if there's direct objective evidence.  Do these statistics pertain to all car sales or just factory car sales?  The car I own today is the car I've owned the longest, but it's not because I can't afford to buy another one, it's because I have absolutely no reason to.  My car was made in 2000; it has 115k miles on it.  I could write a long list of things that are still performing just as adequately as they did when it was new, and how aside from being somewhat less powerful it doesn't actually do anything worse than comparable new cars; I'll spare you. :)  Cars in 1970 were never expected to be driven past 100k miles without major service work, including an engine and transmission overhaul.  Many cars well into the late 70s didn't even come with that many digits on the odometer.  The economic conditions you mention, including the astonishing transfer of wealth between classes, are not good signs and it obviously needs to be reversed or this country is going to be a really shitty place to live soon.  And hell yes I believe it's affecting car sales.  But I'm really not convinced it's the main reason car sales peaked 40 years ago.  Housing sales only peaked a few years ago, and both markets have screwed themselves over-issuing credit, albeit in different ways.  Point is, you don't need to be able to afford a car when you can get a loan practically at the push of a button; Americans don't think in terms of what something costs, they think in terms of what it costs *per month*.  Income shrinkage has been allowed to happen because people have been allowed to spend money they don't have.  I know people living paycheck-to-paycheck who spend $150 - $250 per month on just data.  They also have $10k's of revolving credit card debt and, even worse, $10k's in student loans.  $250 per month won't save up for a new Cadillac anytime soon, but it *will* put you into a Cadillac if you don't mind having spent $63k on a $38k car by the time your loan matures.  (Edit: those numbers are pretty exaggerated, $250/mo. wouldn't get you a Cadillac until it was several years old.  You'd still end up paying several thousand more than if you'd paid cash, though... the point is that our economy is floating on credit, and this has allowed rampant overspending and living above means in the average household).  You see what I'm saying?  All other factors being equal car sales should have peaked a few years ago, or at least in the late 90s during the (first?) dot com bubble.  There was *far* more spending power out there - not income, but spending power.