The numbers are the numbers, Gordon. They are facts. It's our interpretation of the numbers that become opinions. So, I am only offering the facts and not my opinion here as I am not trying to support any narrative. The source data for the quarterly US GDP data graph I posted is the BEA:

https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

You'll see the same numbers posted by the BEA as what is in the graph.

Regarding world economic growth, I don't think that is tracked by either the BEA or BLS, so I posted data from the Worlld Bank as it is used by most as the data source for global stats. If that is a problem, you can look at the IMF data as the historical numbers for GDP are the same and both sources list very similar projections for the remainder of this year:

https://www.imf.org/external/datamap...ADVEC/WEOWORLD

Using the IMF data (or any other data source that reports the actual numbers), those countries listed by you as PIGS actually have positive GDP growth, not flat to declining. Portugal is growing at 2.4%, Italy at 1.5%, Greece at 2.0%, and Spain at 2.8%. I would agree those increases are certainly not stellar.

Finally, regarding the Brookings Institute and the average GDP growth of 2.6% under Trump, the data source for the numbers is the Federal Reserve:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

I think we would both agree that the FED is a reliable source.

Now let's return to FD values!

 

 

Glad to return to FD values, David, though, as Fritz says, the economy contributes greatly to their values. I am not sure you understood my comments on the rest of the world's economies. The PIGS group GDP has been declining for the past 5 years or more with no signs of coming back, according the the World Bank, which is a good source. I think Japan's growth is under 1%. Russia's is around 1.X%. Even China's growth, which is suspect, is down somewhat by guesstimates. My point was that we are doing quite well and likely about to have 2 consecutive quarters of 4%+ growth as the world's largest economy and the rest of the world is not doing anywhere near as well.

But, as you say, back to FD values.

 

 

Sorry but year, color, model, interior etc... will always matter. The lower the mileage the more it's going to matter.

In the P car world a green or orange RS can be worth 50k more if the mileage is low LOL

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-mazda-rx-7-36/
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1994-mazda-rx-7-17/

 

I think that both of you are correct.

Where the majority of people care what color the car is but at the same time they don't care what trim it is. Because from what I see on BAT, mileage and color is what makes the most difference. Noting so far that the highest sellers have been touring cars but I think that's just a coincidence. Either that or sunroofed cars are what people really want

 

I don't think people are much different whether they are long time owners or just learned about the FD last year. Anyone paying 30 to 50k for a nice FD understands cars and pretty much sees them the same way. Of course mileage is and will always be the most important factor when comparing apples to apples.

I agree that there are lots of buyers who will simply buy a low mileage/clean FD for one reason and that is to put one in their collection and flip when prices go higher and this is clear based upon the rapid rise in value. These buyers could care less about anything other than mileage. However while those buyers are bidding there are other buyers also looking at these cars which is why when we see a low mileage R2 listed if comparable to the 94 VR base w/9k miles (current leader at 51k) that just sold I think it will sell for at least 5k more.

So if apples to apples:

1st mileage (super low then of course the price will be super high despite anything else listed below)
2nd year (lots of changes from 93 to 94 and a few changes from 94 to 95)
3rd model (the only FD I'm going to pay A LOT for is a base or r model......period and I know others who feel the same way about touring/sunroof cars)
4th color (all great colors so not a huge deal with the FD other than CYM) That said I've had people pay 5k more simply because a car was white. White (keep in mind all white FDs are also 94 95 cars) is the new black
5th interior color (big with the FD because tan sucks and could easily over ride the exterior color for some people/like me hehe)

*2 through 5 are subjective could easily sway any buyer as much as 10k or it's all personal preference but make no mistake certain preferences are more popular than others which is where the value rises or falls*

*automatic cars will continue to retain much lower values but an auto FD with 3k miles could easily sell for 50k too you never know because as mentioned it's all about the mileage*

Of course everything but mileage can drift all over the place but in general those rules would apply and greatly effect the value of a low mileage FD.

 

Actually Fritz since the base model sold off line at $51k the touring model still holds the record at $51,450 (with the BAT fees included). Or does BAT still take a cut even though the cars don't sell at auction?

One thing I am very skeptical is the forum's preferences in where I dont believe it coincudes with the masses. And so far BAT auctions agree but I'll keep an open mind about that as only time will tell if regular folks (not forum due hards) care if a car has a bose system or not.

Edit- As you said trim is very subjective and my personal preferences do not align with the forum's (except for tan and 93 interiors). Because I absolutely have to have a sunroof, like the pleather over cloth, use the cruise control, and love the Bose System. No I'm not a touring model owner (I used to be) but I have owned my 94 pep for 20 years.

 

The '94 CW car with 12k miles finally sold.

https://www.ryanfriedmanmotorcars.co...urbo-c-376.htm

Anyone know what it went for? I know the asking price varied from $44k-$50k.

 

^^ to blurr the lines between trims even more: A touring model with an R1 spoiler. Lol

Nice car tho

 

Yep I stand corrected after the BAT fee the buyer paid more for the 93 VR touring. Yes looking at those two sales one would conclude that the 93 touring is worth more than the 94 base. However I clearly don't base my conclusions on 2 cars selling at an auction during the last 6 months. I base it upon 20 years of buying and selling these cars.

I find more buyers currently are like you or like sunroofs and this includes forum members or anyone buying a new car today. FACT is though there are fewer hard top FD available and those that want one will pay more (supply and demand). In another 20 years I believe the hard tops will hold more value.

 

We will likely soon see it all cleaned up and listed on bring a trailer next year LOL

 

 

 

 

If you lined up two equal cars a 95 white and 93 vr the 95 would sell for at least 10k more. No need to argue the obvious. OR we will agree to disagree Year, model, color, interior color, etc.... make a difference and the lower the mileage is on any given car the larger the price difference will be for any preference whether it be year, color or model. Of course the cars listed on BAT could bring any number of results because they are sold at different times, it's an auction (so the sale doesn't last long), presentation is HUGE, etc....

Today sunroofs are more desirable. We agree on the that. However 20 percent of the cars produced were hard tops (just a guess). I'd say 25 percent of the population wants a hard top and 75 a sunroof. In 10 years I think 50 percent will want a hard top blah blah blah. I'm guessing and I don't know anything for certain.

The easiest car for me to sell at this time is a white sunroof car. Hardest would be a 93 VR or MB touring with tan interior.

 

I got 49k in a private sale for one of my many FD's almost 14 months ago. My record finally just matched.

FD will pass Supra in 3-5 years.

 

I currently have a nice VR R2 with 26k miles.

I always try to have at least one really nice FD to drive around. I don't park them.

 

I bet it wasn't a VR touring with tan interior unless it had 3k miles

I think it will take about 10 years to pass the supra but it will pass it. Just too many available at this time.

 

It was red/tan with 13k.

 

You sir are without question the best FD salesman I know

I also truly mean that above statement. I recall the 93 VR with approx 52k miles that you sold. If I ever desire to get top dollar I'll message you and you can keep 20 percent LOL

Congrats on a great sale especially a year ago

 

I got low-mid $30's for many 50-60k mile FDs so far!

 

Again you are VERY GOOD!!!!!

Is your dealership "Top Gear Imports"?

If so I like what you currently have on ebay

 

The political banter needs to stop . . .

 

This is another thing you and I disagree on along with David who feels the Supra will always be worth a lot more than the FD. The spread is big for two reason. 1st; I believe the Supra is appreciated by HP guys/muscle car guys along with sports car guys or has a bigger audience. The FD is mostly appreciated by sports car guys alone. 2nd; Supply and demand. As the FD supply dries up we will see prices move a lot higher.

David may say the supra is worth 100k more because one just sold for 150 and the highest selling FD is 50 and looking at those two cars he'd be right. I however don't believe the gap is that far apart.

I'm not sure how much reliability adds to the collector market. Having a unique engine, history etc...I believe does though.

I also believe the FD will eventually outpace the Supra because it's the better looking car inside and out, far more interesting car, better performing car and more fun to drive. Most importantly of all though is the size.........or sizewise it's perfection. The supra is BIG and a little awkward looking to my eye and it seems to be getting worse as time goes by where as the FD just gets better and better!

It's all personal preference though so who knows. I'm biased as they come in regard to the FD and have no qualms admitting that so my perception could be WAY OFF or I could be dead wrong about all of this