2007 Limited 5.7l V8 5.7l Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are the cars with the best and worst depreciation after 5 years

The average new vehicle sold in America loses nearly half of its initial value after five years of ownership. No surprise there; we all expect that shiny new car to start depreciating as soon as we drive it off the lot. But some vehicles lose value a lot faster than others. According to data provided by iSeeCars.com, trucks and truck-based sport utility vehicles generally hold their value better than other vehicle types, with the Jeep Wrangler — in both four-door Unlimited and standard two-door styles — and Toyota Tacoma sitting at the head of the pack. The Jeep Wrangler Unlimited's average five-year depreciation of 30.9% equals a loss in value of $12,168. That makes Jeep's four-door off-roader the best overall pick for buyers looking to minimize depreciation. The Toyota Tacoma's 32.4% loss in initial value means it loses just $10,496. The smaller dollar amount — the least amount of money lost after five years — indicates that Tacoma buyers pay less than Wrangler Unlimited buyers, on average, when they initially buy the vehicle. The standard two-door Jeep Wrangler is third on the list, depreciating 32.8% after five years and losing $10,824. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the least depreciation over five years. On the other side of the depreciation coin, luxury sedans tend to plummet in value at a much faster rate than other vehicle types. The BMW 7 Series leads the losers with a 72.6% drop in value after five years, which equals an alarming $73,686. BMW's slightly smaller 5 Series is next, depreciating 70.1%, or $47,038, over the same period. Number three on the biggest losers list is the Nissan Leaf, the only electric vehicle to appear in the bottom 10. The electric hatchback matches the 5 Series with a 70.1% drop in value, but since it's a much cheaper vehicle, that percentage equals a much smaller $23,470 loss. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the most depreciation over five years.

Cheap, honest transportation | 2017 Toyota Yaris iA

In The Love Bug, the main character (aside from Herbie) is a down-on-his-luck racing driver named Jim Douglas. Early on, he steps into an exotic car show room, and when the dealer asks him kind of car he's looking for, Douglas replies, "What do you have in the way of cheap, honest transportation?" The dealer quickly snatches his fancy liquor back from Douglas and soon after Herbie shows up from the back of the showroom. But if this happened today, you could easily replace the classic Beetle with a 2017 Toyota Yaris iA. The poor thing isn't nearly as endearing to look at as a classic Bug, as a result of the rather unattractive nose, and it's now using a second pseudonym (first Scion iA, then Toyota Yaris iA) to hide its Mazda heritage. However, everything else about it nails the description of cheap, honest transportation. And for that reason, it's a lovely little car. Let's start with honesty, and it begins from the minute you start equipping the car – the iA is a "what you see is what you get" proposition. You see, the iA moniker isn't the only holdover from the Scion era. The Toyota Yaris iA retains its "monospec" configuration, which means it comes with only one option: the transmission. Customers can choose from either a 6-speed manual like our test car, or a 6-speed automatic which costs $1,100. Everything else is standard, and "everything" includes some choice features. You get alloy wheels, air conditioning, cruise control, USB and Bluetooth integration, a rear-view camera, tilt and telescoping steering wheel with audio controls, and keyless entry with push-button start. Technically there are a number of dealer-installed accessories too, including your typical fare of mudguards, rear spoiler, cargo organizers, and such. However, none of them are really necessary, with one exception. For some odd reason, the Yaris iA does not come with a center armrest. It's a $195 accessory, and frankly it should be a standard feature because it's so useful. If you hadn't guessed, ours wasn't equipped with it. Everywhere else the iA is a thoroughly pleasant car, if not as sporty as the old Mazda2. The little 1.5-liter four-cylinder under the hood isn't particularly potent with 106 horsepower and 103 lb-ft of torque. But with a Miata-like 2,385-pound curb weight and our car's manual transmission, it manages to feel fairly sprightly, and never has any trouble dicing it up with traffic. That transmission is pretty decent, too.

Scion was slain by Toyota, not the Great Recession

Scion didn't have to go down like this. Through the magic of hindsight and hubris, it's easier to see what went wrong. And what might have been. What the industry should understand is this: Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. This is more than just the failure of a sub-brand. It's the failure of a company to deliver new and compelling products over an extended period of time. Toyota will point to the Great Recession as the reason it hedged its bets and withdrew funding for new vehicles, instead of using that as an opportunity to redouble efforts. This was as good as a death warrant, although myopically no one realized it at the time. Sadly, GM's Saturn experiment was a road map for this exact form of failure. No one at Toyota seemed to think the Saturn experience was worth protecting their experimental brand from. Or they weren't heard. Brands live and die on product. Somehow, Scion convinced itself that its real success metric was a youthful demographic of buyers. It seems like this was used to gauge the overall health of the brand. Look at the aging and uncompetitive tC, which Scion proudly noted had a 29-year-old average buyer. That fails to take into account its lack of curb appeal and flagging sales. Who cares if the declining number of people buying your cars are younger? Toyota is going to kill the tC thirteen years [And two indifferent generations ... - Ed.] after it was introduced. In that time, Honda has come out with three entirely new generations of the Civic. Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. At launch, the brand could have gone a few different ways. The xB was plucky, interesting, and useful – a tough mix of ephemeral characteristics – but the xA didn't offer much except a thin veneer of self-consciously applied attitude. That's ok; it was cute. Enter the tC, which managed to combine sporty pretensions with decent cost. It took on the Civic Coupe in the contest for coolness, and usually managed to win. More importantly, an explicit brand value early on was a desire to avoid second generations of any of its models, promising a continually evolving and fresh lineup. At this point, the road splits. Down one lane lies the Scion that could have been. After a short but reasonable product lifecycle, it would have renewed the entire lineup.