<prompt> Human: So conventional car buying wisdom is that new cars are not a good deal due to the huge hit on depreciation the second you drive off the lot. Id be much better to let someone else pay for that depreciation for the first couple of years. Saving 20-30 on a mostly-new car sounds great, right? Lets look at some numbers:A 2015 New Car costs 26,000. A 2011 Used Car of the same costs 18,000. Assume paid in cash so I dont have to figure financing in this.The used car looks like a better deal. Its still pretty new-ish and I save 8,000. So say I keep either car until it is 10 years old. With 2015 New Car, Ive owned it for all of those 10 years and paid 2,600 per year. With 2011 Used Car, Ive owned it for 6 years it was already 4 years old when I bought it and thus paid 3,000 per year.In both scenarios I now own a 10 year old car worth X,000. However, by buying the new car I saved 400 per year over the used car 2,600yr new vs. 3,000yr used. When the car reaches 15 years old, Ive only paid about 100yr more for the new car 1,723yr new vs. 1,636yr used.What am I missing? It seems like I save money or break even in the long run by buying new. Plus with the New Car Ill be a single owner, have a warranty for a few years, and probably get a better deal on financing.  <response>: So say I keep either car until it is 10 years old.your fallacy right here. you need to look at years of use, not age of car. lets say after 10 years your new car is worth 5k, so you spent 21k over 10 years or 2100year. for the old car. assuming the value is 0 after keeping it for 10 years, it comes out to 1800 a year. 300 less a year. 