New mx5 why loosing value so fast ?
Discussion
I am looking for a car for the other half and initially started looking for a 2004 mx5 for about 8k ish but having watched the market for the last 6 months I keep seeing 2006 ( new shape) mx5's for 9 / 9.5k.
Now I have not driven the new one but have driven plenty of the old ones which were great fun. But the prices look very tempting for the new shape are there any particular reasons why the new ones are shedding value so fast ? I just dont remember the old ones devaluing so fast
Any advise welcome
Phib
Now I have not driven the new one but have driven plenty of the old ones which were great fun. But the prices look very tempting for the new shape are there any particular reasons why the new ones are shedding value so fast ? I just dont remember the old ones devaluing so fast
Any advise welcome
Phib
Probaly depends on the model, but I've not experienced this. I was looking at Mk3 2 litre sport couped and found the prices very keen.
I went to see one in a dealer that had 8k on the clock and was 15 Months old, it was 17.5k
So in the end I bought a new one, with all the associated discounts and 0% finance, it turned out to change it cost me another 2k because they want to sell new cars.
Great car, really pleased.
I went to see one in a dealer that had 8k on the clock and was 15 Months old, it was 17.5k
So in the end I bought a new one, with all the associated discounts and 0% finance, it turned out to change it cost me another 2k because they want to sell new cars.
Great car, really pleased.
The Mk3 hasn't had the same glowing reviews the older cars did. An acquaintance of mine recently drove one for development purposes and was less than impressed, even thought it was fitted with the "lowering" springs and had had a full alignment. He is a chassis engineer and also a Mk2 owner. 
Also worth noting, as said, that the model may make a difference. I was surprised to find out the other day that the 1.8 Mk3 has less power than my 1.8 Mk1.
Also worth noting, as said, that the model may make a difference. I was surprised to find out the other day that the 1.8 Mk3 has less power than my 1.8 Mk1.
Suppose it depends on what you are looking for. We tried the Mk 2.5 and didn't really like the closed in feel of the cabin.
Tried the Mk 3 coupe and loved it, it felt a lot more spacious (although it probably isn't). Handling is fine, although the engine doesn't feel very powerful, but for a fun sports car its very good IMHO.
I also have a Caterham 7 for trackdays, so wasn't looking for an out and out sports car.
We have only had the car since Friday, so still in the honeymoon period
And I thought the topic was about prices not the "which MX5 is the best", they are all very good and people buy what they want.
Tried the Mk 3 coupe and loved it, it felt a lot more spacious (although it probably isn't). Handling is fine, although the engine doesn't feel very powerful, but for a fun sports car its very good IMHO.
I also have a Caterham 7 for trackdays, so wasn't looking for an out and out sports car.
We have only had the car since Friday, so still in the honeymoon period
And I thought the topic was about prices not the "which MX5 is the best", they are all very good and people buy what they want.
The prices of the MK3 will be affected by the fact that the earlier versions are still reliable and great fun. You can spend £10,000+ on a MK3 or £5000 on an earlier model and have the same sort of experiance.
New they have the appeal of a "New" car. But 2nd hand....well it's got to be cheap to compete.
New they have the appeal of a "New" car. But 2nd hand....well it's got to be cheap to compete.
Munter said:
The prices of the MK3 will be affected by the fact that the earlier versions are still reliable and great fun. You can spend £10,000+ on a MK3 or £5000 on an earlier model and have the same sort of experiance.
This is one case where the newer model doesn't bring much to the party over and beyond what the older ones have on offer - in terms of pure driver appeal I'd say the reverse is true. Even taking the 'discounted' prices into account, you may also suffer more depreciation on the Mk3s - a similar thing happened with Saab 900s where the newer Cavalier-based model dropped below the prices of late 'classic' ones rather quickly.casbar said:
And I thought the topic was about prices not the "which MX5 is the best", they are all very good and people buy what they want.
True, the title is, in essence, why is the Mk3 unloved - demand drives prices and if there's no demand the prices slip. I think when you combine the fact that the Mk3 hasn't had stellar reviews, that it's still a fairly sizable chunk of cash to be spending on a car in the current economic climate, the British "summer" isn't exactly inspiring people to rush out to buy convertibles and there are certain models that might have even less demand (the somewhat lacklustre 1.8 compared to the 2.0) then you can see why some Mk3s are coming down in price to within the price range of the more sought after Mk2.5 models.I don't want to labour the point, I was just giving my opinion as to why the depreciation of the Mk3 is high in some cases.
My final point on this will be: Evo Knowledge
Mazda MX-5 1.8i (mk 3) = 2.5 stars: + Gearchange, interior- Has lost a lot of the charm of old MX-5s
Mazda MX-5 2.0i Sport (mk 3) = 3 stars: + Er... gearchange, interior- The old intimacy and fluidity have gone AWOL
Mazda MX-5 1.8i (mk 2) = 4.5 stars: + Affordable ragtops don't get much better- Cheap cabin
My final point on this will be: Evo Knowledge
Mazda MX-5 1.8i (mk 3) = 2.5 stars: + Gearchange, interior- Has lost a lot of the charm of old MX-5s
Mazda MX-5 2.0i Sport (mk 3) = 3 stars: + Er... gearchange, interior- The old intimacy and fluidity have gone AWOL
Mazda MX-5 1.8i (mk 2) = 4.5 stars: + Affordable ragtops don't get much better- Cheap cabin
I think mk3's will depreciate more quickly as the MX5 is a car that people have known for a long time and liked, like the drive, liked the look. The mk3 changed too much for people, I bet loads of people who bought a new mk1 went and bought a mk2 when they arrived as it was a very slight tweak. The mk3 looks a totally different car with very marmite looks, they said they were trying to make it more masculine,.. I think they made it look like a dyke. If you like the look of the mk1 & 2 its unlikely you'll like the look of the mk3.
Best looking mx5 is the mk2.5 and I can't see them trading in for a mk3, thats coming from a mk1 owner (raw driving experience was more important than looks for me).
Best looking mx5 is the mk2.5 and I can't see them trading in for a mk3, thats coming from a mk1 owner (raw driving experience was more important than looks for me).
Herman Toothrot said:
I think mk3's will depreciate more quickly as the MX5 is a car that people have known for a long time and liked, like the drive, liked the look. The mk3 changed too much for people, I bet loads of people who bought a new mk1 went and bought a mk2 when they arrived as it was a very slight tweak. The mk3 looks a totally different car with very marmite looks, they said they were trying to make it more masculine,.. I think they made it look like a dyke. If you like the look of the mk1 & 2 its unlikely you'll like the look of the mk3.
Best looking mx5 is the mk2.5 and I can't see them trading in for a mk3, thats coming from a mk1 owner (raw driving experience was more important than looks for me).
Sort of agree, but I think it does look more masculine. It will bring a whole new band of owners who wouldn't normally have bought an MX5. As for the Evo mag reviews, well funny how they disagree with most of the other popular press reports.Best looking mx5 is the mk2.5 and I can't see them trading in for a mk3, thats coming from a mk1 owner (raw driving experience was more important than looks for me).
As I said earlier, ours is 4 days old now and we are very pleased with it. I bought it for my wife, if I wanted an out and out sports car I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the MX5. As for raw driving experience, I think my Caterham offers that.
Guys, Thanks for the replys so far.
My original post was on 'Price' really just was trying to work out why the mk3 was falling so fast, the car is for my other half to keep the miles off mine !!!
When we started looking decent MK2.5's were about 8kish but now they seem to be about 7ish but with mk3's comming in at about 9k ish as we were happy spending 8k ish so 9k isnt much of an issue.
I guess I need to go and drive both of them ( as its a present) and see how we go.
Thanks for the replies
My original post was on 'Price' really just was trying to work out why the mk3 was falling so fast, the car is for my other half to keep the miles off mine !!!
When we started looking decent MK2.5's were about 8kish but now they seem to be about 7ish but with mk3's comming in at about 9k ish as we were happy spending 8k ish so 9k isnt much of an issue.
I guess I need to go and drive both of them ( as its a present) and see how we go.
Thanks for the replies
Perhaps simply because people are a little hard up right now?
I had a MK1 from new - loved it - turboed it - owned it eight years - fantastic car. I don't like the Mk2 at all - for aesthetic reasons. I'm personally watching the Mk3 prices pretty closely - when they fall a little more I'll likely go for one - I like the look of them and they'll make a great new turbo/SC project car. Needs to fall another 2K or so - won't be long. Fingers crossed.
I had a MK1 from new - loved it - turboed it - owned it eight years - fantastic car. I don't like the Mk2 at all - for aesthetic reasons. I'm personally watching the Mk3 prices pretty closely - when they fall a little more I'll likely go for one - I like the look of them and they'll make a great new turbo/SC project car. Needs to fall another 2K or so - won't be long. Fingers crossed.
Mk 3 lost some of the magic I think.
Sure, it's a faster car, probably drinks less and I expect it'd pull more 'G' in cornering.
But look at who typically seems to own the different 'Marks' - I think it's fair to say the main split is the up to Mk 2.5 and Mk 3 groups.
The older cars are more likely to be in the hands of the enthusiasts, those who know how much fun it is to drive (it i a very rewarding car with safe limits at normal speeds, even for a beginner), it is easy to work on and it still is a good looking car. And of course most will only attract £185 in tax/year.
Mk 3 suddenly grew up, threw off the 60's roadster thing, added spangly things like a proper dash, all the toys and, if you want twin exhausts and 'sport' suspension - odd how the old car didn't need these?
Anyway, to get to the point, Mazda remade the roadster category with the older MX5's, with the newer one they turned up at the same party as pretty much everyone else, where's the unique selling point? It may be good but perhaps now only in the also ran with many of the other small roadsters.
I think Mk 3 buyers may not be so 'dyed in the wool' and would have considered many other convertibles alongside the '5,' undoubtedly the saloon based convertibles from other manufacturers would have been on many lists too.
Another problem for the Mk 3's is that the 1's and 2's do seem to last and be reliable and cheap to run with it. As a previous poster said, why buy new when you can have the same fun (more?) for less than half the money?
Sure, it's a faster car, probably drinks less and I expect it'd pull more 'G' in cornering.
But look at who typically seems to own the different 'Marks' - I think it's fair to say the main split is the up to Mk 2.5 and Mk 3 groups.
The older cars are more likely to be in the hands of the enthusiasts, those who know how much fun it is to drive (it i a very rewarding car with safe limits at normal speeds, even for a beginner), it is easy to work on and it still is a good looking car. And of course most will only attract £185 in tax/year.
Mk 3 suddenly grew up, threw off the 60's roadster thing, added spangly things like a proper dash, all the toys and, if you want twin exhausts and 'sport' suspension - odd how the old car didn't need these?
Anyway, to get to the point, Mazda remade the roadster category with the older MX5's, with the newer one they turned up at the same party as pretty much everyone else, where's the unique selling point? It may be good but perhaps now only in the also ran with many of the other small roadsters.
I think Mk 3 buyers may not be so 'dyed in the wool' and would have considered many other convertibles alongside the '5,' undoubtedly the saloon based convertibles from other manufacturers would have been on many lists too.
Another problem for the Mk 3's is that the 1's and 2's do seem to last and be reliable and cheap to run with it. As a previous poster said, why buy new when you can have the same fun (more?) for less than half the money?
Why so cheap? I suspect that might have something to do with the fact that shortly after they were tested many people implied that it wasn't as good as previous versions. I was having a chat about that with Tony at WIM who commented that if the car is set up correctly then it's a better handling car than the Mk1. If the car is left on 'factory' settings then it's not that special.
I read many reviews on the Mk3 MX5 before i bought mine and virtually all the magazines raved about it, the only article i found which didnt like it was the evo magazine. I really think the mk3 is a great price. I just bought a 1.8 mk3 its not amazingly quick but its good fun and with its modern gizmos inside its great for everyday use as well. I much prefer it over the older style as its just feels more modern. I think depreciation is that there alot of basic 1.8's which i guess would be the equivalent of the old 1.6's in the mk2.5 which are cheaper than 1.8's as the 2.0 version are mostly above the £11k mark.
TBH we wouldn't even consider an earlier model. I helped my other half get her mk3 2.0 sport and she drives it every day except when I occasionally get to drive it. The point about the experience is a very good one. The mk3 makes for a very good daily driver but if you wanted something for a bit of fun at the weekend then yes 5K on an older one seems to make more sense.
Also agree about the magazine reviews in that the only publication I can recall saying anything remotely negative about the mk3 is evo.
Also agree about the magazine reviews in that the only publication I can recall saying anything remotely negative about the mk3 is evo.
900T-R said:
Munter said:
The prices of the MK3 will be affected by the fact that the earlier versions are still reliable and great fun. You can spend £10,000+ on a MK3 or £5000 on an earlier model and have the same sort of experiance.
This is one case where the newer model doesn't bring much to the party over and beyond what the older ones have on offer - in terms of pure driver appeal I'd say the reverse is true. Even taking the 'discounted' prices into account, you may also suffer more depreciation on the Mk3s - a similar thing happened with Saab 900s where the newer Cavalier-based model dropped below the prices of late 'classic' ones rather quickly.Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff