Yeah, I'd have to say I'd be checking my math if I made such a public claim, but heck - EVERYBODY here if given the chance and road would/could/should try to average that - and besides, it's not like these cars aren't capable - au contraire...
I once admitted (the truth) of a trip from Santiago (de Chile) to Pichidangui (a small beach town) about 320 km, in just over(minutes) 2 hours, in my B7 3.0 TDI - and at 6.9 l/100 km (about 34mp(us)g) - ooh, and that torque - had a nice chip from the fatherland that let me have 296 hp at 590 Nm)

 

correction 550 miles - including channel tunnel with car. Also don't forget on mainland europe 130km is speed limit.

never understood why america has such low limits when it is such a big country!!!

 

never understood why america has such low limits when it is such a big country!!!

I agree!

 

Yes, we need people texting and cell phoning at 110 mph.

 

No, we don't need them texting, phoning, reading, putting on makeup, or anything other than driving - at even 30 mph !!!! And if more of us took the time (and school - NOT Driver's Ed) paid the money it costs to learn and get a driver's license like it does in Germany for example (8-10 months, $2500-$3500), - then driving at 110 mph can be both responsible and safe. But since most folks in the US barely need to know more than "the left one stops, and the right one goes" to get a driver's license and keep it - we'll NEVER get anything more than we deserve - and 60-70 mph is already way more ... too bad indeed.

 

I have long wished we had German-style driver training requirements here in the U.S. Even if they a a real driver's exam instead of the joke of a road test they have now we'd have better drivers.

 

indeed, and interesting but what about the original question?

 

Okay - back on point. All residual values for used cars follow an inverse power curve to nearly an asymptote (or ultimate flat point). The roots of the power curve that make significant bends downward depend on location, use and competing market opportunity (like other cars of a similar design/performance/price or depreciation themselves). You need to first find these 'roots' - and it seems that at least one is 50K miles. The other may be 4 or 5 model years too. Once you're past these points, your depreciation curve will begin to flatten - loose less per year. Usually, these curves have steeper slopes of depreciation earlier in the overall curve - meaning that however close your current car is to a root or step-change, if you trade it for a younger model (all the way to new), you will find yourself trading into a steeper depreciation curve than you have now. While it may be true that you'd be at a step-change, it will STILL be less steep than the younger car's curve - that is ALMOST ALWAYS true.

But it all depends on how much of a "market" position you are in too - sometimes, a generation (2 or more model years) brings a different perspective, including your own perceived 'value' of your money vs the car's depreciation at any moment. This is the subjective component of your rationalization query to begin with. All we can do is be objective (check the math above) OR - join in your subjective rationalization - "Go for the newer one" and YOU still need to decide. There you go ...
:moped:

 

that makes it clear thanks:thumbsup: