Jeff Williams wrote:My wife likes the new Q, I like the M. I think it has something to do with curves, and straight lines.
The resale shouldn't be any worse than the Q, although, it does have a price advantage, right off the bat.
My 2000 I30t has kept its value, fairly well. It has depreciated 40%, over the last 42 months. I have kept ahead of the depreciation, from day one.
I am glad I didn't get the 1999 Q45t that was in the showroom, for $52,000.00 I would still owe over $30,000.00 for the car, and be sick.
I'll go with the 5 year old M45, for under $20,000.00 in about 4 years. Until the, I will put another 100,000 miles on the '94, then I'll pick up a 2 year old G35 Coupe for the little woman, and drive the '00 I30t.
Sounds like a good plan, if I can stand to go back to a FWD V6 for a couple of years. That will be the tough part.
don85259 wrote:I understand your point, although right now you cannot buy a Q for under $50k. Best price I can find is $52,545 at carsdirect.com for the base model, and I would prefer the premium model ($62,145), which is more comparable to my current Q.
Jason B wrote:Remember, those are STICKER prices, not what you can get them new for. I got my loaded '02 Q for much less than the $60k sticker. For 2003, they are now $62k loaded and will be going up every year. Still, no car gives you what the Q does for the money you pay. No S class, no 7 series, unless you pay $$$$ more and everything is optional.
Honda could make a vehicle with that quality build, but Ford never could. Besides, the closest vehicle appearance in profile to an M45 is a 1966-1967 Chevelle. They had even less rear seat legroom, I assure you.longrunQ wrote:I am sure that more of you would agree had it been made by Ford or Honda.
Good eye, and a trés exotic association.palmerwmd wrote:I think the M45 bears a striking resmeblence to the 1987 Monteverdi.Fred...