Interest rate doesn't change the argument imo. Instead of making money in stocks you're bleeding 8% of it a year

If both are being financed, one costs significantly more, you're stacking the difference at 8% per year.

12k price difference is also very generous assuming pure msrp which is still hard to come by today. A more realistic number at 15-20k difference is huge.

A 15k difference, 8% of that a year = 1.2k on interest. Do that for a few years and it adds up quick. Again, not to mention the opportunity cost where your money could have been in an appreciating asset.

Reliability isn't a good point considering these cars come with a 10 year 100k warranty. The N's have proven to be quite reliable. It doesn't need to even be as reliable as the Honda when repairs and even your rental car are covered for the next 10 years.

Parts in my experience have been much cheaper on the N. You can get new OEM pads from genracer for dirt cheap for example. There's much less of a type r royalty tax.

I'm just saying pointing out depreciation isn't a sensible argument for two cars that cost significantly different. Now if they cost similarly yes it's a strong argument. But with a 15k price difference, the argument heavily swings in the favour of the much cheaper car

It just bothers me when people who struggle with math use depreciation as some crutch to justify the financial aspect in the long run. If we want to do a realistic comparison it doesn't come close. A cheaper car + investing the price difference will always come out ahead. Your hoping one asset doesn't depreciate quickly meanwhile the other choice will compound over time.

I do agree most people finance the fuck out of their car. But "depreciation" or resale value imo is a poor argument in this case. Just because people in practice don't act financial smart doesn't mean that they shouldn't or that theyre not giving up the opportunity. S&p500 has been on a tear the last decade. Every dollar in a locked slowly depreciating asset is bleeding money.