Jason & Sandra

Its nice that you put figures like this in front of us. Keep note that you
pay less for it up front anyway. In the long run you will have this van
longer because of that long ass warranty it has. Take a look at all of the
complaints about the Chrysler vehicles throwing transmissions 5-6 times
before it even reaches 100K. The repair costs alone make these other vans
not worth the time and hastle. I owned a Grand Voyager for 3 months, it was
the biggest piece of SH&% I have ever owned, got a good deal on it then
ended up dishing out another $1k before I dumped it for the Sedona. I
haven't owned it long but this is definitely something to look at. If you
spend $20K on a van and keep it for 10 years (because of the massive
powertrain warranty.) ANY vehicle would be worth virtually NOTHING anyway.
My opinion, they are willing to stand by their product (LONGEST warranty in
America!,) come forth!

"Allen Crawford" <acrawford1@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XWrXa.134878$TJ.8081528@twister.austin.rr.com ...
>
> "Robert Henry" <nospam@nospam.cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5HiXa.12054$5f.7704@lakeread05...
> >
> > "Allen Crawford" <acrawford1@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:webXa.151468$xg5.83468@twister.austin.rr.com. ..
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, the figures speak for themselves.
> >
> > They're percentages - based upon so many unknown variables. The last
> thing
> > they do is speak for anything.
> >
> > Quick quiz, which is better: 50% of 28000 or 65% of 20000?
> >
> > I'll even concede that it's about even. Now add the $8K diff in
original
> > purchase price back into the 50% versus 65% depreciation equation- who
> comes
> > out ahead? Have you counted in the difference in cost to finance the
> > difference in price? (using 0%/60mo versus 6%/60)? With percentages,
you
> > have to run the numbers - they are insignificant without context.
> >
> > Obviously, car ownership philosophy matters. I come from the school of
> > thought that says a car is not an investment, but rather a consumable
> asset
> > over time. One buys a car that will peform the function/provide the
> service
> > needed, at an affordable cost. It needs to do that for as long as it
is
> > possessed. When an auto can't perform, mechanically or to meet owner
> > requirements, it has little value.
> >
> > The originator of this thread asked a question to find out how the van
> > performs for its owners, concluding that its configuration met his
> > requirements.
> >
> > There's no buyer's remorse here after 19 months and numerous 300+ miles
> > trips through all terrain and weather. The Sedona is a great choice.
> >
> > BTW - the misinformation comment was in the context of the assertion
that
> > Sedona vehicle information from Edmunds.com was not available.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> When 20k is depreciated 65% the remaining value is then
> worth 35 %.
> Which is better? 50% of 28k or 35% of 20k would be a more realistic
> comparison. Put in another way, is your
> auto worth 14,000 after 5 years or 7,500? To the loyal
> buyer, if he were to buy the same vehicle who would
> have less to pay for a new vehicle at 5 years? About the
> the same except the Toyota owner is financing a superior
> vehicle with less stress while the KIA owner is awarded
> 1/3 of the former value of his vehicle for his trade.
>
>