Are you the original owner of your MX-3 that you still own?

Post by **MX-3.com** » March 24th, 2006, 9:10 am

Are you the original owner of your MX-3, or did you buy second hand.
(Original owner means that you bought the MX-3 brand new from a certified Mazda dealer, and it was not previously owned by anyone else.)

Personally, I bought my MX-3 brand new back in August 1994, and have loved driving it ever since. I hope to drive it for many years to come.

It is approaching 200,000km's, and I should hit that mark sometime in April or May.

precidian · Post by **precidian** » March 24th, 2006, 9:31 am

good Poll question... come April 26th, it will be 12 years since I picked up my car from the dealer. The car was the only green one they had and was the dealer's show room car.

PATDIESEL · Post by **PATDIESEL** » March 24th, 2006, 9:45 am

Mine was not new, but close at 30,000 miles some years ago. I wouldn't buy a new car due to immediate depreciation...
I consider it new in my eyes since that is as new as I will ever buy a car.

mr1in6billion · Post by **mr1in6billion** » March 24th, 2006, 4:36 pm

According to carfax, i'm the third owner, bought with 100K km (60K mi).

Nd4SpdSe · Post by **Nd4SpdSe** » March 24th, 2006, 5:22 pm

I am second owner. I bought it in a private sale from the original owner almost 4 years ago.

mitmaks · Post by **mitmaks** » March 24th, 2006, 7:13 pm

as far as I know, im second owner

relisys_3200 · Post by **relisys_3200** » March 24th, 2006, 7:20 pm

2nd owner of one, 3rd owner of the other........i was only 6 years old when my cars were made

neutral · Post by **neutral** » March 24th, 2006, 7:23 pm

I'm second owner of mine - bought 4 yrs ago. I always wanted one since they came out in 92 but had to wait til I could afford it, and that turned out to be = to the depreciated value of a 7 yr. old 1995 model.

fowljesse · Post by **fowljesse** » March 24th, 2006, 7:53 pm

I'm the 2nd owner. It was traded in to a Ford dealer by an employee. I talked the sales guy down to $280 more than they gave for it. The finance people could not believe it! It has 130,xxx miles, and everything is absolutely perfect except the seatbelt [Knock on wood]. BTW knocking on wood is suposed to scare the mischievious faeries, so they don't play tricks on you.

mxmaz · Post by **mxmaz** » March 24th, 2006, 8:32 pm

PATDIESEL wrote:I wouldn't buy a new car due to immediate depreciation...
.

Yes but that immediate depreciation balances itself out after a few years.

Post by **MX-3.com** » March 24th, 2006, 9:03 pm

mxmaz wrote:
PATDIESEL wrote:I wouldn't buy a new car due to immediate depreciation...
.
Yes but that immediate depreciation balances itself out after a few years.

I would tend to agree, good point mxmaz.

exdream_mx3 · Post by **exdream_mx3** » March 24th, 2006, 9:09 pm

2nd owner bought my 95 back in 98 with 56k on it.

fieval79 · Post by **fieval79** » March 27th, 2006, 12:37 am

I'm on my 3rd mx3......two gs's....and one Rs. Bought my first one, the rs, in Jan of 98 and it was a 94. I was the second owner. It's been the only car I've ever driven that has made me love the road!

Hell, I'm one of the originals on this board

lol

Balhirath · Post by **Balhirath** » March 28th, 2006, 4:07 am

MX-3.com wrote:
mxmaz wrote:
PATDIESEL wrote:I wouldn't buy a new car due to immediate depreciation...
.
Yes but that immediate depreciation balances itself out after a few years.
I would tend to agree, good point mxmaz.

And I have to disagree

The normal reason that it balances itself out, is that repairs on an old car equals the payments on a new car and in my experience thats simply not the case with the MX3. Apart from the parts that always needs replacements from time to time (Breakes ect), the car is simply too well build to cost that much in additional repairs.

I have also noticed that because it's a relatively rare and goodlooking car, it loose value rather slowly.
If I wanted a car equal to the one i bought 3 years ago, i would have to pay almost the same since they only lost about 10% in those 3 years.

The reason for this is IMO that the MX3 1.8 V6 (I can never remember what you call them over there) was really a well equiped car when it came out. Electric windows/mirrors/sunroof, disc-brakes on all wheels and all the rest, is simply not normally found in 15 year old cars at the same price-level.

So you got car that looks good, drives really good, is well equiped, have a V6 engine that runs like a dream (and is easy to swarp with a 2.5L), got a lot of bodykits and is put together so well, that the reason that people use money on them is not to repair the car, but to make it look better and go faster.

(And in case of the 1.6, it can be swarped or turbo'ed

mr1in6billion · Post by **mr1in6billion** » March 28th, 2006, 5:19 am

Balhirath wrote:
MX-3.com wrote:
mxmaz wrote: Yes but that immediate depreciation balances itself out after a few years.
I would tend to agree, good point mxmaz.
And I have to disagree

And I'll have to disagree with you. (meaning I agree with mxmaz.)

The normal reason that it balances itself out, is that repairs on an old car equals the payments on a new car and in my experience thats simply not the case with the MX3.

How so. After a car has reached the 100kmi+ zone you have to start rethinking your suspension, new clutch, new belts, etc. It probly wouldn't work its way up to the total origional price of the car, but you essentially are buying the car over again.

I have also noticed that because it's a relatively rare and goodlooking car, it loose value rather slowly. If I wanted a car equal to the one i bought 3 years ago, i would have to pay almost the same since they only lost about 10% in those 3 years.

Thats because, if i'm not mistaken, the curve is (roughly) an exponential decay, meaning, depreciation over time levels out. I bought my car for $2500. Chances are, in a few years it will still be worth that much.

The reason for this is IMO that the MX3 1.8 V6 (I can never remember what you call them over there) was really a well equiped car when it came out. Electric windows/mirrors/sunroof, disc-brakes on all wheels and all the rest, is simply not normally found in 15 year old cars at the same price-level.

This part of your arguement became invalid when I smote your last paragraph

So you got car that looks good, drives really good, is well equiped, have a V6 engine that runs like a dream (and is easy to swarp with a 2.5L), got a lot of bodykits and is put together so well, that the reason that people use money on them is not to repair the car, but to make it look better and go faster.

Most people buy cars to get them places, not so they can become pimps.

Conclusion:
If you buy a new car there is a high price up front, but if you keep that car for the next 15 years, you wont pay much in repairs.
If you buy it used, small price up front, lot of repairs over those next 10 years.

It's all the same and it's all gravy.
or more likely different strokes for different paychecks.

.
..
...
....
but we all digress

Are you the original owner of your MX-3 that you still own?

Do you still own your MX-3, that you bought brand new?

Are you the original owner of your MX-3 that you still own?