Your Car's Color Might Be Killing Its Resale Value
If you're someone concerned about resale value, then the color you pick might be more important than you think. A new study reveals that not all cars depreciate the same, and if you want to get the most money for your vehicle down the line, you're better off going bright and flashy.
According to the latest
iSeeCars
study, yellow and orange vehicles depreciated by 24.0 and 24.4 percent, respectively, over a three-year period. Green cars also held their value, depreciating 26.3 percent. That's better than the three-year average depreciation of 31.0 percent.
Overall Rank
Color
3-Year % Depreciation
$ Difference from MSRP
1
Yellow
24.0%
$13,667
2
Orange
24.4%
$9,951
3
Green
26.3%
$13,152
4
Beige
29.5%
$18,455
5
Red
29.8%
$13,013
6
Silver
29.8%
$12,636
7
Brown
30.4%
$14,197
8
Gray
30.5%
$13,648
9
Blue
30.9%
$14,994
10
Black
31.9%
$15,381
11
White
32.1%
$15,557
12
Gold
34.4%
$16,679
Gold-colored vehicles fared the worst, losing 34.4 percent of their value. White and black, two of the
most popular colors
, were also at the bottom, depreciating 32.1 and 31.9 percent.
This is likely because 'those colors provide zero distinction in the used market, reducing their value and making it easy for buyers to shop around for the lowest-priced model in these shades,' according to
iSeeCars
Executive Analyst Karl Brauer.
However, the type of vehicle the color is on also matters.
Orange trucks lost 16.0 of their value in the study, followed by green and gray. Shockingly, red trucks lost the most, but just barely, at 28.8 percent. Black, white, and beige were below red but all above 28.0 percent depreciation.
Orange and green SUVs lost the least amount of value compared to black, brown, and white models, while orange and green sedans held theirs better than the other colors. And if you're looking for a minivan, get a green one. They lost just 15.3 percent of their value in three years, followed by brown vans, which lost 21.3 percent.
iSeeCars compared 1.2 million three-year-old used cars to determine the impacts of color on resale value. Check out
the full study
for all the details.
Check Out More Interesting Studies:
Mazda Miata Owners Barely Drive Their Cars: Study
Kia Is 'Seriously Studying' a Pickup Truck for America
Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily.
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
Source:
iSeeCars
Share this Story
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Reddit
WhatsApp
E-Mail
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Car and Driver
24 minutes ago
- Car and Driver
View Photos of the 1990 Toyota 4Runner
read the full review While you might miss the removable roof panel, you won't miss it once you realize how much better the new 4Runner is without it.
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
