8 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPrice vs Mileage
Leading reported evidence
Use autobaron as one of my search sites
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
I've been using AutoBaron as one of my search sites.
Leading evidence: 'Use autobaron as one of my search sites' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use autobaron as one of my search sites' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
8 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T212127Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I've been using AutoBaron as one of my search sites. It has a feature to display a graph of Price vs Mileage, shown here with 1999 to 2002 C2 models selected.
My question is: Why do the 2001's seem to depreciate faster than the 1999, 2000, or 2002? Or is this some sort of anomaly in the AutoBaron data gathering?
tom
I think that 01 is the last model year for the MKI maybe that has something to do with it. That would leave 02 for the MK II facelift. I hope this helps....
That data is pretty noisy. You could draw any number of straight lines though it, so I'd suggest that's the main reason... for any given mileage, the spread in purchase prices is as high as $20-30K. That's astounding and too hard to believe.
I can't say why their data is noisy, could it be number of cars sold since the inception of the MY? Who knows? Anyway, I'm not sure I'd pay much attention to their data for the '01 and '02 MY
i would agree with reidn in that as the last MY before the facelift and hp boost, it tends to attract the least amount of interest. those looking at an 01 at a given budget should be able to stretch a tad to get an 02. that would be my guess.
I think it's based on asking price. I went back and looked closer at the listings and a lot of them are listed by AutoBaron as $0. Who knows how that may skew the lines.
I don't know how their average-price lines are calculated and they probably wouldn't tell us.
Thanks for the ideas...
tom
I think there's just a lot more variation in the price data. As someone else mentioned it appears the best fit line has a pretty poor correlation in comparison to the other years.
