I drove an EB Mustang back-to-back with a ND Miata and BRZ when I was shopping this past spring. The Mustang just didn't feel fun or fast. If I needed it as a commuter *and* fun car, then maybe I could see it. It was quiet comfortable.
But as my second car is just a toy - the BRZ was way more fun.
Also agree on dealers not dealing on new BRZs. I liked the car but not $26k much. I got a clean, stock '14 instead for 17k.
Duke said:In reply to bcp2011 :
I admit I didn't recreate your math, but your numbers seem to correlate to the salvage rate of each model versus ALL cars, not versus the number of each model sold originally. So if twice as many new Mustangs are sold as Frizbees (which seems conservative to put it mildly), of course Mustangs are salvaged at twice the rate.
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong.
You are. I'm putting the relevant section here:
"If I add up the twins on the site currently I see 76 cars. Using database from http://carsalesbase.com/ i found that there were 102,419 cars sold through end of 2017 (from beginning of sale in 2012). This implies salvage rate of 0.074%. If we just use the same methodology for Mustangs (since it was brought up below), the numbers are 1208 salvage cars, and if we assume average life of 10 years that's 855,081 cars sold, implying a salvage rate of 0.141%, almost double that of the twins. But since Mustangs have been around for a really long time, maybe the total denominator should be a million, or 1.5mm (last 15 years of sales), or even 2.0mm (last 18 years of sales). I don't have the right number for sure, but I haven't been able to find a source that says how many are still on the road today. Either way, unless you think that the number is 2.5mm+ I think the stereotype that somehow twins owners are just drifting idiots is not justified."
Assuming there's 10 years worth of mustangs on the road (and I'm not saying it's a good assumption, just seems reasonable), then mustangs are likely to show up 2x vs. BRZ/FRS/86 on the website that I mentioned per 100 or 1000 or whatever base you want to compare it to. I'm just trying to demonstrate that whatever's people's perception of the twins drivers are it may be misguided, unless it applies to other sports cars as well.
In reply to bcp2011 :
Yeah, went rhough that a second time, and I still don't really see where you're normalizing the number of salvaged cars for each model against the number intially sold. I just see some assumptions about length of time on sale, not on initial units sold per model.
Oh well.
Duke said:In reply to bcp2011 :
Yeah, went rhough that a second time, and I still don't really see where you're normalizing the number of salvaged cars for each model against the number intially sold. I just see some assumptions about length of time on sale, not on initial units sold per model.
Oh well.
I don't understand what you mean by "normalizing." If 100 cars sold, and 5 crashed, then I divide 5/100 and get 5%. If 1000 cars sold and 30 crashed, then I divide 30/1000 to get 3%. That's all I'm doing except using data from sources that I can access.
Numerator: salvage cars source: https://erepairables.com/salvage-cars-auction/
Denominator: new car sales: http://carsalesbase.com
So there are two ways to do this: Take all the 2017 (as an example) salvage cars, and divide by 2017 cars sold. I was not going to count the number of cars for a particular year, so I took the other approach, which is to take all the salvage cars on that site (regardless of model year), and divide by a numerator that makes sense. Since the twins only started selling in 2013, I added the total number of twins ever sold in the US. For Mustangs, I took the last ten years of cars sold, while acknowledging that the number is not nearly as solid as the twins number since I don't know how many Mustangs are on the road today.
Makes sense?
You'll need to log in to post.
