> The last part of OP's statement is the key. In a field that's rapidly advancing technologically, used prices are depressed because the new product is that much better than the used product.

And 2 years old EV is not twice as bad as current one

> For example there's another post later in this thread that points out that the Nissan Leaf has been the same price forever - except the current-gen Leaf has literally double the range of the last one. Effects like this depress used prices.

The previous gen is 8 years old. It took 8 years to "double" the quality, not 2

▲

Terr_ a day ago | parent | next [-]

> And 2 years old EV is not twice as bad as current one

The new-vs-used price difference in equipment comes from multiple factors, of which "better features" is one part.

Consider what would happen if you gave someone this choice:

1. Keep your 10-year-old car. (No major upgrades from stock.)

2. Pay $X to trade it for its identical factory-sibling which was made the same day but was stored in a timeless stasis-bubble until today, so that it still has its original new-car smell.

I can't imagine anyone saying: "Well, there are zero new features, so I'll swap them for $0."

P.S.: The issues are even more obvious if the person is choosing between buying someone else's 10-year-old car versus paying an extra premium for the time-warp one, because there's uncertainty about the first vehicle's history and maintenance.

	▲	apelapan a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, because a car has tens of thousands of parts that age with both time and usage. The core drivetrain is just a tiny bit of that. Everything is falling apart and that makes and old, used car... Used and old. Now queue the people who show up to say they haven't changed a tire or wind screen wiper blade on their 2012 Model S/Camry and can't perceive a single difference to when they were new from factory.

▲

potatolicious 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Listen, I'm literally just describing basic market dynamics here - my post is not intended as an endorsement of plainly observable phenomena.

The depreciation/utility curve has always been aggressive no matter what product you're buying. Is a 2 year-old ICE car twice as bad as a new one? Is a 2 year-old TV? Clearly not, yet they are all worth that in the open market.

For EVs the depreciation curve is especially aggressive because of perceived advancements. Are the advancements worth buying new? I dunno! You tell me - but this is clearly being reflected in the market.

From a strict utilitarian standpoint, optimizing your depreciation/utility function should mean you're buying almost every single thing used. But yet lots of people don't do that. Humans are empirically not very good utilitarians!

	▲	hcknwscommenter a day ago \| parent [-]
		>For EVs the depreciation curve is especially aggressive because of perceived advancements. And many comments disagree with this statement. There are few perceived advancements. Used EVs are not trusted, particularly because the used battery fear.

▲

jansper39 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Range though is only one aspect to take into account when quantifying the "quality".