nawednoori

Hello fellow s2000 owners, i was wondering why the price on kbb for a s2000 2001 with 98k miles was more than a 2003 s2000 with 98k miles.
Both the cars have the same exact stuff on them all stock. Just wondering why the older 2001 ap1 is more expensive then the newer 2003 ap1?

please reply asap any help would be helpful here is the price list for 2001 s2000 98k miles

14,091 fair condtion

15,458 good Condition

16,873 exellant condtion


HERES THE PRICES FOR 2003

12820 Fair Condtion

13870 Good Condition

14720 exellant condtion

S2KIrishman

because kbb is not reliable

nawednoori

I thought so. But I see that in Nada Aswell i dont know. im debating against 2 cars

ones a 2003 ap1 98k miles formula red has 1 patch in soft top new tires new brakes and the new act stage 2 clutch (which i guess causes the clutch buss correct me if im wrong)

the other ones a 2001 s2000 ap1 silver, has the glass rear window instead of plastic 98k miles and all stock except k/n intake

which would you go for and why

Manga_Spawn

Please stop making all your thread titles all caps. It's annoying.

mD5

A newer car with the same amount of miles will typically yield a lower value.

s2000maniac

+1

RedCelica

I just checked NADA, not the same. 2003 is priced at $12,350 and the 2001 is priced at $10,875. Something is funky with kbb

gerry100

IMHO, the posted values of KBB and other sites are skewed when relatively small numbers of transactions are fed to their algorithms.

I'll bet the prices on a Civic or Ford Explorer are much closer to reality due to the vast number of sales.

ZDan

It's because 2001 is by far the best year S2000. HUGELY improved over the 2000 model year (clock!), and without the MASSIVE bloat (chrome taillight trim, glass window) and retuned-for-understeer suspension of the '02/'03 AP1, which totally killed the performance and feel of the car. Yep, '01 is worth a LOT more than a lousy '03...

AngryTurtle

agreed.