Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Falcon depreciates fastest

  • By Neil Dowling
  • The Sunday Times
  • image

    The Ford Falcon BF MkII slid from $39,890 when new in 2007 to a mere $19,100. Photo Gallery

Car prices tumble as depreciation eats into some of Australia's favorites.

The humble Ford Falcon depreciates faster than any other car on the Australian market, retaining only 47.9 per cent of its value after two years. The Falcon BF MkII slid from $39,890 when new in 2007 to a mere $19,100 to delight used car buyers but create a financial headache for its first owner.

But though it topped the list for the car to lose more money in two years than any other, information from automotive researchers Glass's Information Services show the Falcon wasn't much different from its rivals, the now-obsolete Mitsubishi 380 SX and the VZ Holden Commodore.

The 380, dumped from Mitsubishi's line up after its Adelaide factory closed last year, retained the same 47.9 per cent as the Falcon and is according to Glass's data, is now worth only $15,800.

Glass's operations manager, Chris D'Sousa, says there should be no surprises that the large car sector — of which the 380, the Falcon and Commodore belong — has been hit the hardest on the used car market because of last year's surge in petrol prices. However, he acknowledges that the niche market of the FPV range resulted in the GT Cobra retaining 92.2 per cent of its value after two years.

On the other side of the ledger, small cars fared much better. The 2007 small car that retained its value more than any other was the Honda Civic Hybrid with a massive 87.6 per cent of its value retained. It is listed as costing $32,990 new and is now $28,900.

But it isn't all good news for the little cars with the worse performer being the Alfa Romeo 147 GTA three-door that fell from $63,990 new to $37,600 now. Even the baby light-car segment has its heroes — the Mazda2 with a whopping 92.1 per cent retained value — and losers. In this case the Proton Satria lost 40.5 per cent of its value, slipping from $18,990 new to $11,300 now.

There were interesting winners in the medium-car class, where the Mercedes-Benz C-Class diesels occupied the top 10 places. Sports car winners were dominated by the Ferrari models — the best is the Scaglietti with a 101.9 per cent retention meaning it's worth more after two years than when new in 2007.

Even more bizarre is the Ford F250 and F350 range that record a retained value of between 112 per cent and 122 per cent. Mr D'Sousa says these cab-chassis and crew-cab trucks wee highly sought after by tow-truck operators and fifth-wheel buyers and, because they were now out of production, the used market has soared.



2007 LARGE CARS (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Ford Falcon BF — 47.9%
2. Mitsubishi 380 — 47.9%
3. Holden Commodore VZ — 48%
THE BEST:
1. Ford FPV GT Cobra — 92.2%
2. Mercedes E-Class — 72.9%


2007 MEDIUM CARS (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Saab 9-3 sedan — 56.4%
2. Jaguar X-Type V6 — 56.4%
THE BEST:
1. Mercedes C-Class diesel — 80.8%
2. Ford Mondeo LX — 76.7%


2007 SMALL CARS (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Alfa Romeo 147 GTA — 58.9%
THE BEST:
1. Honda Civic Hybrid — 87.6%


2007 LIGHT CARS (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Proton Satria — 59.5%
THE BEST:
1. Mazda2 — 92.1%


2007 SPORTS CARS (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Citroen C4 VTS — 51.9%
THE BEST:
1. Ferrari Scaglietti — 101.9%


2007 SUV COMPACT (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Ssangyong Actyon — 54.4%
THE BEST:
1. Mazda CX-7 — 82.7%


2007 SUV MEDIUM (retained value):
THE WORST:
1. Holden Adventra V6 — 56.8%
THE BEST:
1. Toyota Prado diesel — 88.9%


2007 SUV LARGE (retained value):
THE WORST:

1. Ford Explorer — 55.7%
THE BEST:
1. Mercedes GL diesel — 92.2%

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 17 comments

  • It's just a pity that this information is incorrect, based on fiction and not really what is happening out in the field. Let me explain, the real story is Glass's and RedBook DON'T BUY CARS, dealers do. If i had a dime everytime a customer claimed "RedBook said my car is worth $XXXX" the simply reality check and reply is "Get them to buy it", they don't and so the price shown is a nonsense

    OttoAu of Sydney 2015 Posted on 06 December 2010 12:16pm
  • Its all about the way you look at it. You could also argue that the Falcon provides the best value for used car buyers.

    Dave S Posted on 13 October 2010 8:49am
  • From a reality point of view, the actual $$$ do not matter as much. If you are an everyday average aussie, you are not buying a $100000 plus vehicle, so the percentage value really does count. 1 or 2 percent means nothing really - it's the extremes that make a big difference. Who would really notice the 0.1% difference between holden and ford .........it's a whole $40 or less!!. Also - remember that both companies had significant specials or special deals going - that completely throws the figures into disarray

    Kezza of Canberra Posted on 09 September 2009 9:56pm
  • justlogical, i dont think thats the case at all. They are clearly comparing percentages of retained values,(thats whats listed at the bottom) not comparing which car lost the highest dollar amount. If that was the case, im sure you find that some $100,000+ euros could easily have lost 25,000+ in two years and therefore easily have outdone the Falcon in just pure dollar terms. These stories really are just about manufacturing headlines, and whether these sites realise it or not (I'd tend to say that do) some readers are dumb enough to read just a headline and think, " ha, what a piece of crap that car must be..."

    Teddiez of Victoria Posted on 09 September 2009 11:10am
  • LOL Gazza, is that in comparison to HOLDEN HUGE increase in $$$ over two years? a whole 0.1% higher than Falcon dont forget! I'm glad you came along and posted that comment, evidence of people just reading headlines and not having a clue what theyre talking about smile

    Journodrivel of Victoria Posted on 09 September 2009 9:49am
  • I just attempted to submit my comments about FORD'S huge drop in $$$$....but after clicking SUBMIT the screen said I am not authorized to submit my honest comments. Why not???

    Captain Gazza of Western Suburbs...SYDNEY Posted on 09 September 2009 12:31am
  • justlogical, i dont think thats the case at all. They are clearly comparing percentages of retained values,(thats whats listed at the bottom) not comparing which car lost the highest dollar amount. If that was the case, im sure you find that some $100,000+ euros could easily have lost 25,000+ in two years and therefore easily have outdone the Falcon in just pure dollar terms. These stories really are just about manufacturing headlines, and whether these sites realise it or not (I'd tend to say that do) some readers are dumb enough to read just a headline and think, " ha, what a piece of crap that car must be..."

    Teddiez of Victoria Posted on 08 September 2009 5:54pm
  • i guess my thoughts on your article wont get on

    ant crap media Posted on 08 September 2009 3:17pm
  • yup it is the normal stuff we see from this jockey/journo that thinks ford is crap and the gm product is better/aussie made get over the stuff you are putting in print and get behind the real companies that are keeping people in jobs. You keep this up and you will drive them out of australia..... oh thats right you and the rest of the anti other than holden ( the least aussie builder of them all ) media have driven this sort of reality i got paid to write this sort of stuff. i bet you wont let this get up on the site

    ant crap media of aus Posted on 08 September 2009 3:02pm
  • The Ford depreciated worse than the 380 because the Ford had a higher purchase price. So although they lost the same percentage of their value, the Ford lost more of its purchase price in real money terms, compared to the 380.

    just logical Posted on 08 September 2009 2:16pm
  • The Holden is simply better!

    Vincenzo of Toowong Posted on 08 September 2009 1:05pm
  • Teddiez, I get your point. I guess I was also attempting to explain why they chose to single out the Falcon. If a story were to lead with "380 depreciates the most" then most would reply with a "well, duh" and click elsewhere. The headline, I feel was engineered to garner the most hits, as I don't think "Falcon and 380 worst for depreciation" has the same sort of punch as singling out one of the red or blue products. If people were to read the entire story and process the facts themselves, they could see that this is really a non-story, but I fear that many readers across many sites simply read the headline and draw conclusions from that. As for bias, I'm still not sold. Whether it's red or blue, I'm sure carsguide would single out a brand just so they get more traffic and discussion on their page. Besides, look at how many responses they're getting on their "Be Our Ford FPV Tester" story. But in short, yes, I see your point.

    Andy Posted on 08 September 2009 11:31am
  • Andy, I get what youre saying, but actually the Falcon is not the worst. How can it be the worst out of all these cars when the Mitsubishi 380 depreciates exactly the same amount? It's almost as if people cant see that there wasnt a SINGULAR car that fared worst than all the others. There were two! If the Mitsubishi 380 and Falcon retain exactly the same percentage, then how is it possible to declare the Falcon as being the worst? Its like two people both finishing a race first at exactly the same time and yet you somehow declare only ONE as the winner.. doesnt make any sense. It just shows that these writers care more about creating a headline that appeals to their own Bias then one that is FACTUALLY correct.

    Teddiez of Victoria Posted on 07 September 2009 2:39pm
  • Rick, the percentage is for the value retained rather than the rate of depreciation. Therefore the Falcon is worse than the Commodore (albeit by the slimmest of margins). As for the headline, it's still correct according to the data in the article. However, to obtain more clicks the headline needs to grab attention. What better way than to play on the heated rivalry between our locally produced twins? My opinion, though, the margin between retained value between the Falcon and Commodore (0.1%) is so slim it's pretty much redundant. 0.1% of $39890 is, what, $40?

    Andy Posted on 07 September 2009 11:20am
  • Actually 47.9% vs 48.0% is the retained value after two years. And yeah, WOW big differnce! What I dont understand is why they even singled out the Falcon as depreciating fastest when the Mitsubishi 380 also retains 47.9% of its value! Journodrivel, I agree with your sentiments, its just more Ford bashing on this site, Falcon + Negative headlines is an age old past-time at this place (second only to Drive and Toby Holden-agon) the Commodore rarely gets those negative headlines, even when theres 0.1% difference in depreciation simply because Aussies love their Holdens. Or should that be Journos love their Holdens?

    Teddiez of Victoria Posted on 07 September 2009 10:55am
  • As usual, carsguide cant wait to have a crack at their LEAST favourite OZ Car Maker, Ford. You'll notice the headline reads 'FALCON Depreciates faster' and when you click on the photo gallery link the first thing you see is a Falcon with the caption ' WORST VALUE: Ford Falcon BF '. Obviously the author has put much effort into maximizing the air of negativity relating to our humble Falcon. What I'd like to know is why he didnt go to the same trouble for the Commodore? The article merely mentions that Falcon 'wasnt much different to its rivals' and yet according to the stats at the end this article the mitsubishi wasnt ANY different at all, and the commodore was a whole 0.1% better. Lets put that into perspective people, the Falcon retains 47.9% of its value after two years and the Commodore retains 48.0%. In real world terms on a car thats worth $40,000 when new, it means that if you decide to sell in 2 years time you will get approximately $50 more if its a Commodore than you will if its a Falcon. Well, no wonder the headline doesnt read 'Falcon, Commodore and Mitsubishi Depreciate Fastest'. Be warned people, steer clear of the FALCON. (Let me emphasize again, FALCON)

    Journodrivel of Victoria Posted on 05 September 2009 11:08am
  • The headline says BF Falcon depreciate fastest at 47.9% but the the VZ Commodore is 48%, so isnt that the worst then? Headline should have said Commodore depreciates fastest shouldnt it?

    Rick Harris of Victoria Posted on 04 September 2009 6:50pm
Read all 17 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links