I am nowhere near in the same market as you guys but I know depreciation on these cars can be savage. There is a 1993 XJ40 V12 for sale near here which was sold for NZ$248k new and is on the lot for NZ$10k now

 

It was a fun car and got lots of stares--it was dark gray metallic (Grigio Granito) with black interior and the Sport GT model. Not as quick as the '11 Jag XJ SC I traded it in on, but it handled and sounded better. It was a fairly small sedan though--the new ones are larger to compete better with the MB S class and others, but I don't like the exterior design as well. The older ones were a classic Pininfarina design--the new ones were designed in house.

 

That isn't that bad!

 

Can anyone explain the economics of what causes the first 3 years' depreciation to be so high? I find it hard to believe that the supply exceeds the demand, and think other factors such as lease rates as mentioned earlier may play a greater role.

 

If I didnt have my XKR I would own this right here

16k miles on this blue beauty 2007 coupe with a 6 speed. looks clean. $60k

Aston Martin : Vantage WE FINANCE!! in Aston Martin | eBay Motors

 

I agree 100% sports cars/fun cars need to be looked at a hobby too. I think too many people get wrapped up in the math (Yes being an informed consumer is very important) but XJ are a toy/hobby. this isn't a real smart economical purchase any way you slice it. That is why most of us prolly have a daily driver too. My 2001 bmw 740i is my downtown "work truck". I plan to have that daily till 250k miles plus.

 

People who buy these cars come from different backgrounds and have different financial means. When I was a young professional, although I could have bought one of these cars with cash, I decided to invest my money into real estate. My financial independence was paramount when I was a recent graduate. Thirty years later with substantial net worth I can easily afford a new XKR-S. However, with every purchase there is opportunity cost--that is the cost of not making your next investment to grow your wealth. The cost of ownership of a luxury GT car is a life style choice that you must be comfortable with. People have different needs, goals and financial means and must be practical relative to ones means and future.

Wealth accumulation when young should always to paramount and ones future should never suffer financially as a result of purchasing an exotic perishable car.

It would be interesting to see some polls on the demographics (age, income, and net worth) of ownership of these cars and other exotic cars. I have substantial net worth and purchasing power and I still ponder on the thought of watching by money evaporate in front of me in the form of depreciation.

If a personal purchase substantially impedes ones ability to grow financially then it is a bad purchase. Everything is relative. We need to be prudent and at the same time treat ourselves to the luxuries which make us happy.

 

Wow, that Vantage looks cool. My list for next cars are (all being used) Vantage, Evora S, or XKR-S.

Anyone own an Evora or Evora S?

 

+ 1 for DGL

 

I shopped all those cars and more before I bought the XKR-S. There is no comparison once you begin really looking into it. The XKR-S easily stomps them but it does boil down to what you are looking or in the car.

The Lotus is much lighter but the interior is nothing like the Jag. The transmission is also not that great in either form, lots of reviews about this. The steering feels great in the Lotus, but its engine is also a bit down on power. I came from an Elise a few years ago and Lotus makes fun cars, they are just more of a raw experience and it can get old after a year or two if you are not visiting a track frequently.

The Vantage had a power bump and slight interior upgrade in 2009, which is why many of the older cars have really taken a hit. Most people shopping that marque are willing to spend a little more to get the revisions and power. Either way, the XKR-S will still run away from the 09+. What really made me think, you can buy a 2012 XKR-S for the price of a 2009 Vantage yet the Jag is still under warranty and has free service. With The Aston you will be taking your chances while having a 3 year older and less capable vehicle.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

 

DGL,

Well said! Words of wisdom! Simply put, live below your means and never stop investing for your future - you'll be glad you did.

I think it would also be interesting to see how many brand-new Jags are either leased or purchased outright for cash, by age range.

I suspect that most brand-new XK/XKRs are leased, and that an "artificial" residual value is the driving force behind the big depreciation hit after 3 years. I also suspect that many of those lessees are high income/low net worth individuals who care less about depreciation and more about affording the monthly payment and deducting it as a business expense, hoping they don't get audited. Just my

Stuart

 

As a recently retired Financial Advisor-Investment Officer of 31 years, I agree with you 100%. Well written and so true.

 

Hi
I have an 07 xk here in the uk,
I payed £52500 for it at 3 mouths old,its now about £15000.

 

I have bought and sold many luxury cars over the years and, on average, 50% depreciation after 3 years is a realistic market driven number. Current lease residuals at or close to this number are a result of that market, not the other way around. Car manufacturers used to set unrealistically high residuals to push more leases but stopped that (at least most have) because they got burned big time when they had to dispose of the cars at the end of the leases and their value didn't even come close to the residual. I believe that the residuals are set a lot more realistically now in line with the actual market value of the cars.

In my opinion, the only reason to lease instead of finance is to avoid the hassle of disposing of the vehicle yourself, unless you can write off the lease payment as a legitimate business expense (which is a big plus). It's really no different than conventional financing if the residual is close to what the car will actually be worth at the end of the lease term--you can usually lease or finance for about the same interest rate. Of course, paying cash only makes sense if you feel you can't invest and do better than paying the interest rate and with some of the current low interest rates out there it still makes sense to finance even if you have the spare cash. Just because someone choses to lease or finance doesn't mean they don't have the cash to buy the car outright--it's just a straight financial decision. If you can buy 4% tax-free muni bonds why would you not pay a 2%-3% interest rate and finance the car?

 

Bang on with mine: Oct 2010 car originally sold for £85k, purchased May 2013 for £40k

My situation precisely. I have the funds to purchase outright, but the money is currently helping to offset my mortgage. The fixed Jaguar finance rate was only slightly higher than my variable mortgage rate, costing only £900 more over 4 years, and I'm betting that my mortgage rate will be rising sometime in the next 4 years. Plus the dealer threw in some goodies with the finance package that offset most of the £900. And I get to keep my funds liquid. A no-brainer, really.

 

Yep. As a purchase incentive for my other car they offered me 0% financing. I said, "how long can I take to pay it off?" They said, "Whatever you want." So I said, "How 'bout 6 years?" They said, "Sure." So there you go. I'm actually making money on that deal, when you consider inflation. While I couldn't afford to pay for the car outright, I was prepared to pay X monthly and reduce the plan to three years (negligible interest at that time frame). But when they came up with 0% I couldn't think of why I should. If I ever want to I could pay it off early, but why would I? I put the other 0.5X amount toward other debts and/or savings.

This was not the case with my Jag, however. I could not afford it, either, and they do charge me interest on that loan...

But I really wanted it.

 

Another more affordable alternative to buying a new Jag is to find a dealer that is selling a factory demo. This is not a sales demo. It is a demo driven by say a factory rep. Last Sept. I purchased a factory demo 2012 XJL SC with sport & speed pack and Illumination package that had 3K mi with an MSRP of $102,750 for about a 25% discount. Paid $78K. Warranty starts when you take delivery minus the miles already on the clock. Downside is I had to travel to Chicago from NJ but I think it was worth it.

 

Thanks for all the replies...my apologies on the math; yes my car has been "in service" for 3 years 9 months. I do know that cars depreciate. But sometimes knowing something may not prepare someone for the actual effect of something...

AXR6 - Wow - that's quite a drop in value in one year for the XJL!!

So, I have read through all the replies and I don't remember seeing something that occurred to me...

Maybe these cars are priced to high to begin with...

If the cars are depreciating 30% in the first year, it seems to me that the car probably was not worth what it sold for. Of course - at least in a capitalistic market - the car will sell for whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

The reason I was *so* shocked about the depreciation was that part of getting the car financed with my credit union is they put it through a software program that calculates the depreciating value of the car over time. If it falls below a certain percentage, they *require* GAP insurance be purchased. I remember seeing the graph of the value of the car computed against my payment schedule. The graph of the residual value of the car never fell below the graph of the payment schedule. I've done business with my credit union since 1986, and have financed a number of cars with them. The last 3 Jags (02 XKR, 2005 VDP, 2007 XKR) have all performed (cost wise/purchase wise) according to their predictions (well, within a $1000 or so). They all depreciated of course, but this car has not performed (cost wise) as their software predicted.

Well, anyway, it is what it is. After seeing this, I am going back to my original plan, which is to keep this 2010 XKR and in 4 years buy a 2013 AM Vanquish.

I can afford to buy a brand new Jag. However, with the car depreciating 50% in 2 years, 25 to 30% in one year, I've got a lot more money to earn/acquire before I can justify throwing $25K to $35K onto the road. It's almost like the Geico commercial...20's, 50's, and 100 dollar bills just flake off these cars as you drive them down the road.

 

A 911 is actually a much cheaper alternative to the XKR if you consider depreciation.

 

Totally agree with the above comments......Quite true....personally I also feel these cars are overpriced to begin with off the dealers showroom floor or lot. But it's no different with any luxury brand. The luxury brand will attract the high end buyer, who usually has a large net worth and can afford the price and the depreciation. For those that don't have the ultra "deep pockets", then the greatest value is in the secondary market, low mileage cars after 3 years. Doing your due diligence can really pay off when shopping for the high end vehicles. Many of these low mileage cars can be found in showroom condition or very close to it.

Volume sales is the key in any retail business. If Jaguar would price these right to begin with, and the depreciation scaleing would be lower, they would attract more buyers and the end result is more sales volumes. I don't know the true cost to build a $108,000 Jaguar XKR Convertible, but I do know that the dealer invoice is about $8,000 to $9,000 below the MSRP.

If you have a car more than one year old, you can run the VIN # via the internet to determine the original MSRP and dealer invoice. In many cases the dealer invoice might be considered worthless as there are dealer holdbacks and incentives from the manuafacturer, but it is nice to know the original MSRP of the car and what the dealer invoice was.

1st caveat.......Never let a automobile be an "impulse purchase".