CRV, not sure what the certified program offers but a lot of the times they are extended warranties and sometimes free oil changes for a period of time. Considering both vehicles are nice and reliable I would figure out which one will give you the most "perks" and use that as your decision.
Certified CRV or Sante Fe?
- Thread starter Doog
- Start date
- Status
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: wemay
1. Santa Fe Sport 2.4 (none-turbo)
2. CRV
3. Santa Fe Sport 2.0T
...and i own the turbo version. The less complex the engine the better for a novice. That also goes for the transmission. The Santa Fe group uses a typical stepped gear 6spd AT. The CRV, i believe is CVT.
The Santa Fe Sport 2.4 is the least complex of the three.
But not a bad choice in the bunch.
The 2014 CRV uses a conventional 5-speed automatic. 2015 was the first CRV/CVT combination.
Thanks for correcting me Dahn, Then 1 and 2 are a toss-up.
Originally Posted By: wemay
1. Santa Fe Sport 2.4 (none-turbo)
2. CRV
3. Santa Fe Sport 2.0T
...and i own the turbo version. The less complex the engine the better for a novice. That also goes for the transmission. The Santa Fe group uses a typical stepped gear 6spd AT. The CRV, i believe is CVT.
The Santa Fe Sport 2.4 is the least complex of the three.
But not a bad choice in the bunch.
The 2014 CRV uses a conventional 5-speed automatic. 2015 was the first CRV/CVT combination.
Thanks for correcting me Dahn, Then 1 and 2 are a toss-up.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I think you need to consider which is a better value. Hondas don't depreciate much, and as a result, are a horrible, if not stupid value in the used market when just a few years old. Ill bet she can find a new one for nearly the price of one with 40k and 2 years.
Interesting. We were out car shopping this weekend and stopped in at a Honda dealership and looked at both new and used CRVs. The new 2016 CRVs were all around $27,000. Certified 2014 CRVs similarly equipped with anywhere from 22,000 miles to 35,000 miles were all under $20,000. I guess I don't consider less than $20,000 "nearly" $27,000.
The used certified Honda CRVs were priced competitively with other similar sized/equipped CUV/SUVs such as the GMC Terrain and Rav4, all of which are within 300 or 400 of $20,000 when comparing similarly equipped models.
I think you need to consider which is a better value. Hondas don't depreciate much, and as a result, are a horrible, if not stupid value in the used market when just a few years old. Ill bet she can find a new one for nearly the price of one with 40k and 2 years.
Interesting. We were out car shopping this weekend and stopped in at a Honda dealership and looked at both new and used CRVs. The new 2016 CRVs were all around $27,000. Certified 2014 CRVs similarly equipped with anywhere from 22,000 miles to 35,000 miles were all under $20,000. I guess I don't consider less than $20,000 "nearly" $27,000.
The used certified Honda CRVs were priced competitively with other similar sized/equipped CUV/SUVs such as the GMC Terrain and Rav4, all of which are within 300 or 400 of $20,000 when comparing similarly equipped models.
My vote goes for the Santa Fe. We have the 2015 with the 2.4 and are very happy with it.
Go with the Santa fe its a much nicer car and if its a certified hyundai i believe its the 10 year 100.,000 mile warranty included but check that..
Hyundai makes great vehicles.
Hyundai makes great vehicles.
Quote:
The new 2016 CRVs were all around $27,000.
You don't buy the new car at the listed price. Having said that, I have no idea if this was the listed price or the actual price. If it is on the lot, then it most likely is the listed price and not the actual price the will be sold for.
The new 2016 CRVs were all around $27,000.
You don't buy the new car at the listed price. Having said that, I have no idea if this was the listed price or the actual price. If it is on the lot, then it most likely is the listed price and not the actual price the will be sold for.
This is one of the few times I will recommend a Hyundai over a Honda product.
The Hyundai has significantly lower MPG vs Honda CR-V. I'd peek at those numbers as that will add up in cost of ownership.
Last edited:
The CRV has had a good reputation since 2002. I can't say that about the Hyundai Santa Fe.
I would choose the Honda CRV.
I would choose the Honda CRV.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I think you need to consider which is a better value. Hondas don't depreciate much, and as a result, are a horrible, if not stupid value in the used market when just a few years old. Ill bet she can find a new one for nearly the price of one with 40k and 2 years.
Interesting. We were out car shopping this weekend and stopped in at a Honda dealership and looked at both new and used CRVs. The new 2016 CRVs were all around $27,000. Certified 2014 CRVs similarly equipped with anywhere from 22,000 miles to 35,000 miles were all under $20,000. I guess I don't consider less than $20,000 "nearly" $27,000.
The used certified Honda CRVs were priced competitively with other similar sized/equipped CUV/SUVs such as the GMC Terrain and Rav4, all of which are within 300 or 400 of $20,000 when comparing similarly equipped models.
Yeah, it is interesting. Any boob on the google machine could see that the CR-V is consistently one of the least-depreciating vehicles out there.
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/cars-that-depreciate-the-slowest/#slide-3339820
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/cr-v/2015/cost-to-own/
Edmunds shows about $6k depreciation over two years. Two years and 30k miles isnt new.
For the average owner who keeps a car around 100k miles, the per mile cost becomes:
Used: 20000/70000=$0.285/mile
New: 27000/100000=$0.27/mile
Gee whiz, I can do math!!! The differences are miniscule and very well could be in favor of new!
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I think you need to consider which is a better value. Hondas don't depreciate much, and as a result, are a horrible, if not stupid value in the used market when just a few years old. Ill bet she can find a new one for nearly the price of one with 40k and 2 years.
Interesting. We were out car shopping this weekend and stopped in at a Honda dealership and looked at both new and used CRVs. The new 2016 CRVs were all around $27,000. Certified 2014 CRVs similarly equipped with anywhere from 22,000 miles to 35,000 miles were all under $20,000. I guess I don't consider less than $20,000 "nearly" $27,000.
The used certified Honda CRVs were priced competitively with other similar sized/equipped CUV/SUVs such as the GMC Terrain and Rav4, all of which are within 300 or 400 of $20,000 when comparing similarly equipped models.
Yeah, it is interesting. Any boob on the google machine could see that the CR-V is consistently one of the least-depreciating vehicles out there.
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/cars-that-depreciate-the-slowest/#slide-3339820
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/cr-v/2015/cost-to-own/
Edmunds shows about $6k depreciation over two years. Two years and 30k miles isnt new.
For the average owner who keeps a car around 100k miles, the per mile cost becomes:
Used: 20000/70000=$0.285/mile
New: 27000/100000=$0.27/mile
Gee whiz, I can do math!!! The differences are miniscule and very well could be in favor of new!
I would go with the Honda...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The differences are miniscule and very well could be in favor of new!
I agree with this: the per-mile costs of Hondas are generally comparable for new and used because of the value they hold over time. This doesn't necessarily mean a used vehicle is a poor choice, though. If someone has or wants to spend $20k, then a $27k purchase is out of the question to begin with. Paying near new prices for a beater with rust on it certainly doesn't sound like a good deal, but if you're faced with a like-new Certified vehicle with lowish miles on it, the used one could very well represent a smart choice.
I paid $21k for a Certified 2008 CR-V with 42k miles on it. Its MSRP new was about $29k as I recall (it was an EX-L with AWD). I didn't care to spend close to $30k for a CR-V, and the '08 before me had the equipment I wanted at a fair price. There was added value to me, though, because this particular CR-V was first sold and serviced at the dealer from whom I bought it, and it was a one-owner vehicle. Some of those intangibles can also factor in to the value equation, but each of us may assign a different value to things like that.
In my opinion, there are too many variables at play to be able to make an accurate blanket statement about the value of new vs. used.
The differences are miniscule and very well could be in favor of new!
I agree with this: the per-mile costs of Hondas are generally comparable for new and used because of the value they hold over time. This doesn't necessarily mean a used vehicle is a poor choice, though. If someone has or wants to spend $20k, then a $27k purchase is out of the question to begin with. Paying near new prices for a beater with rust on it certainly doesn't sound like a good deal, but if you're faced with a like-new Certified vehicle with lowish miles on it, the used one could very well represent a smart choice.
I paid $21k for a Certified 2008 CR-V with 42k miles on it. Its MSRP new was about $29k as I recall (it was an EX-L with AWD). I didn't care to spend close to $30k for a CR-V, and the '08 before me had the equipment I wanted at a fair price. There was added value to me, though, because this particular CR-V was first sold and serviced at the dealer from whom I bought it, and it was a one-owner vehicle. Some of those intangibles can also factor in to the value equation, but each of us may assign a different value to things like that.
In my opinion, there are too many variables at play to be able to make an accurate blanket statement about the value of new vs. used.
What are the perks of the "Certified" label? Both cars are evenly matched IMO. Both have nearly identical reliability. Hyundai might be a bit bigger. The 2015 Hyundai if it is used will have that 10 year warranty. It is a bit of a PITA to keep up, you have to read it like a hawk, but it is there. If you are up on your record-keeping, it is fine. If not, it might be a pain.
Now here is the other trick. Why not the Rav4 or Subaru Forester, Mazda CX-5 or Kia Sportage? You have large potential pool with a large used market to choose from so shopping around isn't a bad idea. This is the auto-industry's new bread and butter grouping. You have to go out of your way and land at a FCA dealership to find a bad crossover.
Now here is the other trick. Why not the Rav4 or Subaru Forester, Mazda CX-5 or Kia Sportage? You have large potential pool with a large used market to choose from so shopping around isn't a bad idea. This is the auto-industry's new bread and butter grouping. You have to go out of your way and land at a FCA dealership to find a bad crossover.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
why do people compare MSRP of a new car with the purchase price of a used car? apples and oranges here
Simple. Most vehicles have about a 10yr/200k lifespan--longer the more willing you are to spend money on repairs, but for most, they will be done before then. So, purchase price - residual is the cost to have the vehicle over that lifespan (let's ignore other costs for the moment). That that cost, divide by the miles (or years if you prefer) and come up with a cost per mile.
Then compare to if you had bought new. Again, most won't go past the same 10yr/200k "limit"; new therefore has more miles to divide by.
At this point, which has a lower depreciation cost per mile?
It's a somewhat tricky calculation, if one gets past 100k or so. Around that point "many" will drop collision insurance, which impacts running costs on a yearly basis. Similarily, as it ages, registration tends to come down in price. So the calculation can get to be a pain. But if a 3 year old vehicle can be bought for half price, generally speaking, it's going to have lower overall TCO (Total Cost to Own). If the used vehicle though depreciates in a linear fashion (as many CPO's do), then the cost/mile is about the same as new; and in those cases, if purchasing cost is not a consideration, then it may be better to buy new--it'll be the same cost/mile, but without any fears as to what the prior owner did, and one can get the exact options they want, etc.
Hokie has a good point about lowering the price to someone's price point. It may be the same running cost, but bringing the purchasing price down may be more desirable. I know in my case it was--I had a price I was willing to pay, and my Tundra hit that price as a CPO. But on a per mile basis I'm not ahead, just even--but I didn't care (that much) about being ahead.
why do people compare MSRP of a new car with the purchase price of a used car? apples and oranges here
Simple. Most vehicles have about a 10yr/200k lifespan--longer the more willing you are to spend money on repairs, but for most, they will be done before then. So, purchase price - residual is the cost to have the vehicle over that lifespan (let's ignore other costs for the moment). That that cost, divide by the miles (or years if you prefer) and come up with a cost per mile.
Then compare to if you had bought new. Again, most won't go past the same 10yr/200k "limit"; new therefore has more miles to divide by.
At this point, which has a lower depreciation cost per mile?
It's a somewhat tricky calculation, if one gets past 100k or so. Around that point "many" will drop collision insurance, which impacts running costs on a yearly basis. Similarily, as it ages, registration tends to come down in price. So the calculation can get to be a pain. But if a 3 year old vehicle can be bought for half price, generally speaking, it's going to have lower overall TCO (Total Cost to Own). If the used vehicle though depreciates in a linear fashion (as many CPO's do), then the cost/mile is about the same as new; and in those cases, if purchasing cost is not a consideration, then it may be better to buy new--it'll be the same cost/mile, but without any fears as to what the prior owner did, and one can get the exact options they want, etc.
Hokie has a good point about lowering the price to someone's price point. It may be the same running cost, but bringing the purchasing price down may be more desirable. I know in my case it was--I had a price I was willing to pay, and my Tundra hit that price as a CPO. But on a per mile basis I'm not ahead, just even--but I didn't care (that much) about being ahead.
I will add one more thing about the new/used but supton hit is correctly.
The difference between a current model year and a 1-2 year old vehicle is very slim with less than 20K miles . If you start at 50K and a few more years, then it is more apples/oranges, but that is due to repair cost and a few other things. As supton has referenced, 1-2 years, you might have only used 10% of the mileage life of the vehicle but you would have felt 20%+ of the depreciation loss. Even at that time with a 1-2 year old car, the wearing components will still be very serviceable/good and the "fluids" save for oil would be not be at that critical change time. So it is harder for the original owner to do damage by neglect, heck you might have the warranty to bail you out. Still, this whole argument is dependent on you running the vehicle until its useful life is over or near over. The vehicle type and other items will determine that end-point. In my Fleet, I am set to rotate our of Sedans/SUVs in about 5-7 years and 120K miles. However, the minivans must run 12 years and 150,000K miles. There is a lot of fun number crunching.
The '14 Subaru Outback that I have was a CPO with 5,000 miles. $5K price difference. Used - no problem. I would not touch a used Hyundai Genesis Coupe, too many were "altered".
The difference between a current model year and a 1-2 year old vehicle is very slim with less than 20K miles . If you start at 50K and a few more years, then it is more apples/oranges, but that is due to repair cost and a few other things. As supton has referenced, 1-2 years, you might have only used 10% of the mileage life of the vehicle but you would have felt 20%+ of the depreciation loss. Even at that time with a 1-2 year old car, the wearing components will still be very serviceable/good and the "fluids" save for oil would be not be at that critical change time. So it is harder for the original owner to do damage by neglect, heck you might have the warranty to bail you out. Still, this whole argument is dependent on you running the vehicle until its useful life is over or near over. The vehicle type and other items will determine that end-point. In my Fleet, I am set to rotate our of Sedans/SUVs in about 5-7 years and 120K miles. However, the minivans must run 12 years and 150,000K miles. There is a lot of fun number crunching.
The '14 Subaru Outback that I have was a CPO with 5,000 miles. $5K price difference. Used - no problem. I would not touch a used Hyundai Genesis Coupe, too many were "altered".
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
What are the perks of the "Certified" label?
You sometimes get a basic warranty extension past what the original one was, and you usually get a powertrain warranty extension. It probably varies with each manufacturer. They're all similar, but I'm sure there are nuances to be found.
What are the perks of the "Certified" label?
You sometimes get a basic warranty extension past what the original one was, and you usually get a powertrain warranty extension. It probably varies with each manufacturer. They're all similar, but I'm sure there are nuances to be found.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
What are the perks of the "Certified" label?
You sometimes get a basic warranty extension past what the original one was, and you usually get a powertrain warranty extension. It probably varies with each manufacturer. They're all similar, but I'm sure there are nuances to be found.
In my case, I picked up my Tundra as a 3yr old / 73kmile CPO. Warranty was good for 7yr/100k, so I had, in effect, a 4yr/27k warranty from my date of purchase. New tires, new brakes, and a "thorough" inspection.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
What are the perks of the "Certified" label?
You sometimes get a basic warranty extension past what the original one was, and you usually get a powertrain warranty extension. It probably varies with each manufacturer. They're all similar, but I'm sure there are nuances to be found.
In my case, I picked up my Tundra as a 3yr old / 73kmile CPO. Warranty was good for 7yr/100k, so I had, in effect, a 4yr/27k warranty from my date of purchase. New tires, new brakes, and a "thorough" inspection.
- Status