[cellison]

your analysis is basically correct, but i do know people who are the enthusiasts that get the latest and greatest and hang on to them for 1-4 years then get the latest and greatest. they aren't rappers or posers but are true enthusiasts who like the newest technology, performance, and prefer not to tinker. some finance some pay cash. either way they can afford it and it is just a matter of cash flow and what they like. I'm more old school. i like to buy stuff at the bottom or near toe bottom of the depreciation curve, i can work on them as part of the hobby, keep them for a longtime, and yes it keeps the cost of ownership down.

i know an older (early 60s) gentleman who wants to get back into a Porsche 911. he said it will be his last new car he will buy and he wants a new one and will keep it until he dies. it won't be a 3rd car for him but he will only drive it 3-5k / yr so it makes sense for him to go this route.

back to the analysis question, for most cars more times than not buying an older car (with some appreciation potential) and keeping it for 20 years is cheaper than buying new car and holding over the same timeframe. a lot of it has to do with the new car and the actual depreciation of the new car as some depreciate like crazy and stay low, while some depreciate a little and hold their value well and may tend to increase in value a lot quicker.

looking at your example of the 93 911: if you bought a standard 911 it would be correct. however if you bought a 93 911 RS, the car costs less new than the standard version and today sell for above what the sticker was new.

to me it is more what you like, and determine if you can afford it over the long haul..