|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review From Truck Trend Magazine
2008 SUOTY Contender Road Test: 2008 Land Rover LR2A Luxury Crossover--Still Land Rover / By Matt Stone /
Article provided by: Truck Trend Magazine
The LR2 is based on the same unibody chassis architecture as the Volvo XC90 and uses a variant of its transverse-mounted straight-six, replacing the outdated and generally less-than-stellar Freelander. The aforementioned 3.0-liter six spools out a smooth 230 horsepower--less than the class average, but enough. It's backed by a six-speed automatic with standard drive, Sport drive, and manumatic modes that make the most of the powerplant. While the LR2 doesn't offer a low range, it has full-time all-wheel drive, excellent ground clearance, aggressive approach and departure angles, Hill Descent control, and Land Rover's remarkable Terrain Response. In short, the LR2 packs more off-road capability than most any other crossover. A super-stiff structure, full of high-strength steel, seven standard airbags, Traction, Corner Brake, and Roll Stability controls plus ABS, makes for what should prove an exceptionally safe package. Our tester came loaded with dual sunroofs, leather interior, navigation system, and all the usual power goodies. Unlike some previous Land Rover offerings, this one has good on-road dynamics, too. The LR2 costs as much as many larger, three-row crossovers that have even more creature features. This is the main factor that kept it from earning the prize in this year's competition. Relax, Roverites: While the LR2 won't hop rocks with an old Defender 90, it's still a doer in the dirt--and now, a joy to drive on-road as well. | 2008 Land Rover LR2 SE | | Base price range | $34,700 | | Price as tested | $40,050 (SE) | | Vehicle layout | Front engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV | | Engine | 3.0L/230-hp/234-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve I-6 | | Transmission | 6-speed automatic | | Curb weight (f/r dist) | 4307 lb (58/42%) | | Wheelbase | 104.7 in | | Length x width x height | 177.1 x 75.1 x 68.5 in | | 0-60 mph | 9.1 sec | | Quarter mile | 16.8 sec @ 82.8 mph | | Braking, 60-0 mph | 129 ft | | Lateral acceleration | 0.72 g (avg) | | MT Figure Eight | 29.5 sec @ 0.53 g (avg) | | EPA city/hwy fuel econ | 16/23 mpg | | CO2 emissions | 1.05 lb/mile | | Ratings | | Engineering | **** | | Design | **** | | Interior/Functionality | *** | | Performance | *** | | On-Road Refinement | **** | | Off-Road Ability | ***+ | | Value | *** | | Bottom Line | Casts a wide net of capability in an attractive, compact package. |
|
|
|
| |