|
|
|
|
IntelliChoice Value Rating
The chart above shows the purchase price versus ownership cost for each car from a specific vehicle class. The cars with better than average ownership cost/purchase price correlations are the best values, and these best value cars are represented by the dots below the curve. (i.e. the cars that have a lower ownership cost compared to its purchase price.) Those cars, which are worse than average or poor values, appear above the curve.
One way to view the graph is to draw a vertical line through any purchase price. You may see several dots that fall on this line - each of which is a car with a similar purchase price. However, notice the difference in ownership costs of each car represented by the vertical position of the dot. Two cars with the same purchase price can have thousands of dollars difference in ownership costs. This is what separates "good value" cars from "poor value" cars.
What is a good car value?
A "good car value" is one whose cost to own and operate is less than expected. The lower the cost to own and operate a car compared to what is expected, the better the value of that car.
But how do we know a car's "expected cost"?
For each car in the class, IntelliChoice plots the car's purchase price against the total five-year cost to own and operate it as determined by IntelliChoice research. Each dot on the above chart represents a specific car. Generally, we find that as the purchase price of the car increases, the cost to own and operate that car increases. This is why the dots on the graph tend to rise upward and to the right. This phenomenon also makes intuitive sense - as the purchase price rises, financing costs tend to rise, as do insurance, depreciation, taxes, and most other car ownership costs.
This is an important concept. It's normal for car ownership costs to rise as purchase price rises. Therefore, we can't just establish one "average" ownership cost number for each class, since cars in the class have different purchase prices. (This is why the "Relative" shown on each chart is different for cars in the same car class.)
Using statistical techniques, IntelliChoice "connects the dots" to form a curve that defines, for this car class, the relationship between the car's purchase price and car's ownership costs. This curve is our "expected cost" curve. The curve defines, for any car in the class, the five-year ownership cost that we would expect to see at each possible purchase price. If every car in the class were an average value, then all the dots would fall exactly on the curve. However, it's rare that any dot is exactly on the curve. Some dots are a little higher or lower, and some are a lot higher or lower. The dots that are a little lower are better than average car values, while the dots that are a lot lower are excellent car values (A dot that is a lot lower than the curve has ownership costs much lower than expected for a car of its purchase price). Conversely, a dot a little higher than the curve is a poorer than average car value, while a dot that is much higher than the curve is a poor car value.
Value is a relative term, not an absolute term. It is performing better than the logical expectation.
So is a Mercedes-Benz E320 expensive to own and operate? Certainly in an absolute sense. Most other cars cost less. But, when its cost to own and operate is plotted against cars with comparable invoice prices, the E320 costs less. So the E320 is not expensive to own and operate - it is a good car value. The Mercedes does not have low ownership costs, but it has low ownership costs for its invoice price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article From Motor Trend Magazine
2007 Motor Trend Sport/Utility of the Year Award: Testing
Sure It's Handsome, But Can It Rescue Mitsubishi? By Ron Kiino 


Saviors never have it easy. Case in point: The all-new Outlander, a small sport/utility from Mitsubishi that, like it or not, is burdened with the lead role in a campaign to save a brand that sells roughly as many vehicles in one month as Toyota sells Camrys in 10 days. Suffice it to say the Outlander and its upcoming stablemates are faced with a tough road ahead. Now in its second generation, the Outlander is based upon Mitsubishi's new C-segment platform, which also will underpin the next-generation Lancer as well as the rally-tough Lancer Evolution X. While some editors found the new platform robust enough, others felt it paled to a few in its class, e.g., the RAV4 and CR-V. Ditto for the powertrain--a 3.0-liter, 220-horse V-6 and a six-speed automatic--which most staffers found competent yet underwhelming. Its lukewarm 0-to-60-mph time of 8.1 seconds and quarter-mile jaunt of 16.4 seconds at 86.2 mph considerably trail the RAV4's. Other nits: power steering that many judges felt needed its power recalibrated and an ultracozy available third row that some thought wasn't even worth the tooling costs. On the bright side, the Outlander does have a lot going for it; striking sheetmetal, competitive pricing, and a bevy of features either unique or rare in its segment--Xenon headlamps, 18-inch alloy wheels, an aluminum roof, a 650-watt Rockford-Fosgate sound system, DVD rear-seat entertainment, a 30-gig hard-drive-based navigation system, a Bluetooth hands-free interface, and a FAST-Key system that allows the driver to unlock the vehicle while carrying the remote in a pocket or a purse. In this tough, competitive field, however, those features, along with some less-than-stellar test numbers, weren't enough to save this would-be savior. | 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander | | Base Price Range | $21,000-$26,000 (est) | | As-tested price | $29,000 (est, XLS 4WD) | | Vehicle layout | Front engine, FWD/AWD, 5- or 7-pass, 4-door SUV | | Engine | 3.0L/220-hp/204-lb-ft SOHC 24-valve V-6 | | Transmission | 6-speed automatic | | Curb Weight, f/r dist | 3897 lb (55/45) | | Wheelbase | 105.1 in | | Length x width x height | 182.7 x 70.9 x 66.1 in | | Max Cargo Capacity | 72.6 cu ft | | Max Towing Capacity | 3500 lb | | 0-60 mph | 8.1 sec | | Quarter mile | 16.4 sec @ 86.2 mph | | Braking, 60-0 mph | 128 ft | | Lateral acceleration | 0.78 g (avg) | | 600-foot slalom | 62.7 mph (avg) | | MT figure eight | 28.3 sec @ 0.59 g (avg) | | EPA city/hwy fuel economy | 19-20/26-27 mpg | | Bet you didn't know | Evo-inspired aluminum roof panel saves 11 pounds and significantly lowers center of gravity. | | Sum up | Better the second time around, with some neat features, but far from the best. |
Prev |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Next
| |