Hacker News Reader

Comment by czzr | Hacker News Reader

I suppose part of this is fashion, but I’m sure that part of the explanation is resale value. Choosing an inoffensive colour makes it easier to sell, and I think (anecdotally) that that consideration became more prominent over time.

View on HN

I'd guess more in the direction of first sale latency. Remarkable colors might fly off the lot, or they might moulder until they're dumped next year at a loss. Grayscale palette doesn't invite a risk of emotional response introducing volatility to sales.

Oddly enough, the models most likely to be available in actual colors fit the market most likely to care about resale value. Catastrophic depreciation hasn't ever seemed to impact luxury car sales. For excellent value retention, the other end of the market is where it's at. If MSRP for any trim level dips under US$20,000 it's certain to be available in bold colors. The other exceptions are the brand identification models - Miata, Supra, Mustang, Camaro - Emotional response is a desired outcome, so they're available in colors someone might actually form an opinion about.

Cars like Mazda or Dodge come to mind. They tend to have bad depreciation, but are much more likely to offer orange/copper, deep reds and blues, etc. Like those found in the Neon/Dart and Mazda 3. They are "fun" cars so color is part of the package, and they appeal to individuality rather than fitting in.

I look around and I see white SUVs filling up entire parking lots. This is like the "ideal vision" people want to step into... the family person with the versatile car.

Did people previously not resell their cars?

Perhaps less as cars are becoming more reliable and with less new features year over year?

It’s the way financing these days works on brand new cars.

The buyer is paying off the difference between the price at the time of sale and the price at the end of finance term (plus interest on the difference)

The price at the end of the term is due to depreciation. If the buyer opts for a neutral/non-polarising color, then the depreciation is lesser than compared to choosing a different color. This is because it is assumed (mostly correctly) that it will be relatively easier to sell a grey/black car than a bright yellow/red car.

That also results in the non-neutral coloured car costing more to finance over the term.

Anecdotally, I’ve never heard of getting a deal on a used car simply because its red or yellow. Mileage and by proxy wear and tear is so much more meaningful on price.

You can't sell a leased car.

No, you'd return it or buy it out, but that begs the questions - if you had two identical models, but different colors, would the less desirable color have a lower residual at the end of the lease?

I'd assume so since the dealer needs to off-load it and if it's a wacky color, they won't get as much.

Or maybe the choice of colors for lease vehicles is limited to ones that aren't hard to off-load at the end of the lease?

People became too focused on money.

Focus on money almost makes everything less fun.

It used to be that people just bought a yellow car because they like it.

But when you do that today some people will say 'but what about the resell value?'. This will make you question your decision.

People are becoming less and less authentic. This sucks.

Just buy a car you like. Having a good time is more important than resell value.

I still kick myself for not buying a sunburst yellow Miata when I saw a low mile one come up for sale in the early 2000s.

Red was good, but they were common.

(Last time I checked, there was about a 3x premium on the yellow ones, because there were only 1500 of them made. The one that got away and all that.)

It makes sense for people to focus on money if they feel the probability of income loss and/or probability of a large expense is too high.

Considering the financial status for most of the people in my country (USA), I would say they can’t afford to care about their car’s color.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com