Posted by David T. Ashley on March 5, 2008, 2:03 pm
> David T. Ashley wrote:
>>
>>>Even knowing the value in your market is helpful though.
>> Generally, the less expensive an item is to start with, the more rapidly
>> it depreciates. A 3-year-old airliner probably keeps more of its value
>> than a 3-year-old motorcycle.
>>
>> A typical motorcycle probably hits the half-price mark in 3-4 years.
> So what- I have never bought an abstract 'typical' motorcycle, I've
> always bought a particular individual bike that is not the same as
> some statistical mean, mode, median, what have you.
> Unless you are only interested in statistics re: a population of bikes,
> and not a specific make, model, and year of motorcycle, this is a
> fairly useless piece of information when trying to figure out the value
> of an individual bike.
OK, then let's take your approach. I want to buy a used 2006 Katana 750.
How would I objectively determine at what price they've typically been
selling?
Is reliable data even available?
--
David T. Ashley (dta@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)
Posted by Mark Olson on March 5, 2008, 2:22 pm
David T. Ashley wrote:
> OK, then let's take your approach. I want to buy a used 2006 Katana 750.
> How would I objectively determine at what price they've typically been
> selling?
>
> Is reliable data even available?
Motorcycle Consumer News periodically publishes a chart showing used bike
prices using data compiled by NADA. How MCN/NADA get their data, I don't
know, but MCN does caution the reader that the data is only a guide, and
buyers and sellers should be aware bike values differ significantly from
place to place, among other things. You can see how their estimates of
value differs from year to year and use that for calculating the rate of
depreciation for one model vs. another if you want to.
The winter 2007 guide says a 2006 GSX750F (Katana) was worth $5960.
'05 5675
'04 5020
'03 4630
'02 3655
'01 3400
and so on all the way back to a '93 model which was worth $1590. I may
have made a typo or two, here.
I don't have the Spring 2008 guide handy but you can probably extrapolate
from the previous year data how another 6 months of depreciation will
affect the price.
Note that these prices are for bikes in good condition with average mileage,
etc.
--
'01 SV650SK1 '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13
OMF #7
Posted by Bob Mann on March 5, 2008, 9:05 am
wrote:
>sleazy wrote:
>>> Suzuki's website says $5200 for a new one. $3200 for an '04 is in my
>>> opinion about $500 high, but it is more-or-less a fair price, i.e.
>>> your friend isn't getting gouged.
>>> Overall impression: get the seller to come down $500 and looks good
>>> to me.
>>
>> Take into account it's Canada, their dollar is now stronger and the
>> price falls right into line, Dave.
>Today, $1 CAD = $1.01 USD
>But you cannot assume that since the currencies are now at
>par, that retail prices of goods will be similar in both
>markets. Other factors tend to make Canadian prices higher.
>In my opinion the price is a little high but it might well
>be in line with the local market.
Social costs do keep our consumables higher priced.
I also think that might be a little optimistic for that bike though it
does seem to be the going price up here.
--
Bob Mann
It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.
XML Sitemap
>>
>>>Even knowing the value in your market is helpful though.
>> Generally, the less expensive an item is to start with, the more rapidly
>> it depreciates. A 3-year-old airliner probably keeps more of its value
>> than a 3-year-old motorcycle.
>>
>> A typical motorcycle probably hits the half-price mark in 3-4 years.
> So what- I have never bought an abstract 'typical' motorcycle, I've
> always bought a particular individual bike that is not the same as
> some statistical mean, mode, median, what have you.
> Unless you are only interested in statistics re: a population of bikes,
> and not a specific make, model, and year of motorcycle, this is a
> fairly useless piece of information when trying to figure out the value
> of an individual bike.