That used to be the case, but lately all dealers seem to be using KBB (which seem to have come down quite a bit)

I paid several thousand dollars less for my Z new than It was "worth" 1.5 yrs later with 15,000 miles on it.


At the end of the day, kbb is a tool. Dealers will talk about it when selling because it looks favorable, and when taking a trade in because consumers have become obsessed. They care about black book because that's what they'll get, and anything they pay you over that is coming out of the new vehicle.

This is true. Every car I have purchased the they referance "what a deal" I am getting because I am at kbb or under, but when you want to trade in, thats when the "who's kelley? He doesnt work here" comments come in

Like I said, that used to be the case. Now it seems like blue book runs lower than black book and that's what they are using. I had posted something about it before.

When I said that interior was nicer. I meant it seemed nicer than my nismo( base cloth with some nismo badges and red stitching). With the leather, nav, sunroof it is nice IMHO than the nismo z which none of the above is even an option...oh wait except now in the 2013 models you get a bose system option. I love my z but I want the performace from the evo x for way less money. To properly boost my z from GTM it was over 15g. I will wait and see what comes next maybe a boosted z35 :). And i know the evo x rattles a lil but **** so does my z its a sports car i feel everything. And im comparing the nismo model not a touring. Now if only nissan offered touring options on my nismo lol.

That's pretty clearly not true based on a cursory look at blue book and black book values. What cars are you looking at to come to that conclusion?

I went to 5 different dealers when I was shopping for a new hybrid for my wife last month. At the time, I found my Prius to be worth $13420 from the black book in average condition and mileage. The bluebook returned with $12000-13000 with the same thing. (They almost never give you excellent condition). In all five cases, they came to me with the actual printout from the bluebook website. I basically walked out on all of them as I wanted $14K.

When I bought my Z three years ago, the blackbook was $1-2K less than the bluebook. And they never showed me anything from the bluebook.

So, like we've discussed, black book is based on auction prices. High demand cars like Prius' and supras and foxbody mustangs will tend to be undervalued on blue book because they use a fairly consistent formula. That doesn't mean blue book as a whole tends to overvalue cars.

I was on your side until I went car shopping the last two months. The prices were roughly the same for my Z and the Cube (which I eventually traded). The blackbook consistently came in HIGHER than the bluebook on all three cars. Also on the newer car I bought, the blackbook prices were so high that they were near some of the retail prices. I am not sure of the change either. I have this theory that bluebook got so popular that the dealer paid them to lower the prices so they can get more deals done.

Post your numbers then.

I'm just going to agree to disagree on the whole topic of value. It's obviously a very subjective thing and regardless of what yardstick you measure, it's only an approximate one. Now we have Red_Zed going full Troll to prove he's right. In the end, when the whole world disagrees with him, he will still try. He traded his car in for a reason, let him be happy with his car and I'll be happy with mine, you know, the one the forum is named after.

This has nothing to do with the car and everything to do with the fact that you made a claim you refuse to substantiate.


You can sit down with an auction book ad pretty readily determine things for yourself. I would invite you to do that and report back.

I feel like it might have something to do with the car ;)

You keep referring to auctions as if it's the only way of resale or determining factor of worth. I already substantiated my claim. In the middle of writing this NADAguides.com is currently down while I was "substantiating" my claim. I'm not sorry to tell you that you are still wrong when comparing value of the Z and Mustang. Didn't have time to do the EVO X. Either way your wrong. You claim that the 370z holds it's value substantially less than competing vehicles and that's been blown out of the water like a torpedo hitting a U boat. Sports cars period hold their value better than the run of the mill vehicle because it's a purchase made out of desire, not necessity. "I sure needed that EVO X to haul my family around..." I don't think that ever crossed anyone's mind. You think those dudes buying station wagon CTS-V's are buying them because they are worried about hauling **** around, no... they just want to haul a$$. 10 years from now, when there are a sea of Mustangs and Camaros driving around, wait, there already are... Because there are 10x less 370Z's, that alone will keep resale up. If you need a history lesson, look at the low volume Japanese sports cars of the 90's compared to the high selling domestics.

Go ahead and show me the post where I claim that.

Btw, comparing the 370z to the Japanese cars of the 90s is laughable.

I just showed it to you on my Prius, I will show you another one. How about that?

Blackbook listed my Lexus as such, KBB has it listed at $1K+ lower. How is that higher?

Black Book Trade-In as of 10/29/2012
Clean Average Rough
Base $39,570 $37,110 $31,105
Options $750 $750 $750
Mileage ($2,250) ($1,600) ($1,075)
Total $38,070 $36,260 $30,780

Excellent
$36,510
Very Good
$35,710
Good
$34,410
Fair
$30,610

Are you aware that the online black book site isn't black book value?

Wait, a semi affordable well built car that competes with cars that cost more? Yep. They definetely didnt set the bar at the cayman when they were building the 370z. /sarcasm.

Here Red_Zed, used your source. I used competing 2011 models as this is what we both have been referring to. I loaded all models with options to guarantee they are in a similar price range when new. Please explain why my results are different than yours using two different tools. And yes, those are straight from their site and printed to PDF, go ahead and check if I manipulated the numbers. You don't have to reply after reading unless you want to add to your posting numbers.

Oh and it was post 103 where I claimed the 370Z resale value was good and you refuted, then proceeded to paste unsourced information.

Include Msrp so I know what options you are including.

Broadly speaking, the numbers are different because you outfitted the cars differently than I did, and you failed to include the Msrp numbers to obscure that


Of course, your post does nothing but prove me right. The z is on par with competitors, not "possessing the highest residual value in the industry" as you claim.

Haha, yes, you included the glass roof. Options are an instant devalue.

Refuting this != saying resale sucks

Couldn't figure out how to include MSRP for that year as an inclusion to the data.. No amount of options would close that gap anyways. You run the numbers yourself. All I did was highlight everything except certified preowned. Even if I had chosen a base Z with no options, it would have still been the same as the Mustangs. Frankly, I would pay $35,000 for a fully loaded SP Touring Z if it were something I wanted. I didn't play with the numbers. There weren't very many options. And FYI, that glass roof added $1,000, it did not devalue it. I'm not posting this out of bias, but I'll be damned if you come out of left field to tell me I'm wrong when everything says I'm not. Now why is it that I can answer you in one post, but it took three for you? You can multi quote within one message.

No, it adds to Msrp but adds little if anything to resale. You have to compare equal options sets. Adding touring to the z dramatically decreases residual in the same way.


I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore. You clearly don't understand how to compare resale prices, and it doesn't bother me if you don't get it.

So we can agree to disagree :) I do understand what you are saying. A base model of the same vehicle will hold it's value better than a loaded one. I only used the numbers to get the measuring points for each vehicle within the same ballpark. If I used all bone stock of each vehicle, the numbers wouldn't compare well without knowing it's original purchase price.

Perhaps, but it is good enough to be used by banks on loans

Yes, but it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It uses the same type of naive value formula that KBB now uses.

It's deemed good enough to use by the bank, that matters. Regardless, most banks use blackbook and NADA, not KBB. I was simply saying KBB has lower their numbers in order to possibly scam consumers since most people use that as a reference.

I would imagine, as far as performance, the Evo would do better times at the track. I think the chassis is firmer and a little more performance oriented. I like the Z better, front engine RWD is my fav combo. also just looks better. The Exo X has skinny tires and the wheels are ok. The Z wheels are one of the coolers wheels out there.

It's a toss up. I have lapped them both. Stock to stock the EVO wins purely because the EVO has better tires. With some non R comps, I was already faster than the EVO X on RA1. YOu will notice the EVO has much better jump off the slow corners due to the gears and turbo and awd, but the top end on the Z was a good 4-5 mph faster. I don't think you lose either way, both are great cars with different needs

It seems to me a Mitsubishi Lancer is a much different type of car compared to a Nissan 370z . . . not cross-shopped often (?)

One car screams "boy Racer"
One car screams "douche"
And I guess the nismo screams both.

Both good cars FWIW, personally I've had bad experiences with mitsubishi products in the past so I'd go Nissan/Subaru. Just me though. Obviously I got a Z.

I currently own an Evo X and am in the market for a Nismo 370. This is my second Evo, but I must admit I'm over the cheap interior and feeling like I'm driving a car I'm too old for. I know many can argue all day about this, but in the end, it solely comes down to what you prefer.

Wait, wait, wait...

Am I understanding this correctly? Are you saying the engine was blown on your 370z?

No, i ment my Evo

What kind of bad experience(s) ? I've actually had better experience owning a Subaru vs. Nissan (last car) . . .

Just a question... (Without reading all the pages). Has the op gone to the Evo forums with the same question of which to buy? And if so, what was the consensus there?



Me thinks it was backwards to what it is here.:twocents:

I was saying Subaru and Nissan over Mitsubishi in terms of build quality and reliability. I've never known anyone to have problems with scoobies.

Mitsubishis on the other hand...

yes he posted on one of the evo forums and everyone was saying go with a evo. Even previous 350z and 370z owners said the same thing.

I love subbies too, my roommate has a wrx. But where are you getting your info from? Subbies have their share of problems as well. Ringland failures and trannies blowing up in the older wrx. Get your info straight.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2