Are cars that depreciate the most the best deals?

The worst new cars to buy would be the ones that depreciate the most since you lose the most money. Does that make them the best used cars to buy since you get the biggest discount. I'm assuming that these cars aren't necessarily maintenance hogs or otherwise useless as used cars.

There are cars that have really low depreciation, like a Honda civic. However, doesn't that mean that someone drove it a bunch and is passing it on to the next buyer at a premium?

All new cars depreciate a lot. Just because a Honda might depreciate a little less than some other brands doesn't mean it not a lot.

Best bet is to buy an older car and drive it forever. Or until its no longer worth repairing.

I've been driving a 94 model for 10 years now. It doesn't really depreciate much anymore. I just pay the repairs & maintenance.

If the motor or transmission were to go out, the car would be nearly worthless because the cost to repair or place would be as much or more than the value of the car.

You take the biggest depreciation hit when you buy.

New is worse than used and the older & cheaper, the smaller the hit.

Excellent question. At the core is the economics of supply and demand. Car A and B are both 6 cylinder, 4 door mid-price sedans, with similar options, and the prices are basically the same.
If car B costs 20% less in year 8 (with similar miles and conditions) the demand must be lower.
Why would demand be lower? It has to do with a combination of consumer perception and some factual expectation regarding reliability and future repair costs.
For example, in 2000-2002 Audi had a very good lease program and it was popular, that moved a lot of cars, but the used car demand was not there in 2004-2006 as consumers looked at these cars as needing expensive repairs, which was true, the cars were complex and needed skilled maintenance.
So demand was below supply, prices declined. Were they good deals, for some yes, for a person who can't work on the car and is an expensive repair area like NJ, NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, etc, does not like repairs, then no, they are a bad deal.
Same thing happened to Jags, as they had reliability problems, the used ones seemed like good deals.
If you had an independent mechanic, could fix minor things yourself and budgeted for repairs you would be OK.
Also I have a news flash, Hondas and Toyotas with with 100,000 miles break down, and fixing them is NOT cheap.

This same thing happened with Jaguars around 2000.
On the flip side, I think used Hondas are way over priced. But people feel they are getting a low risk car, so they pay top dollar.

No, they are not. Normally, there's a good reason that one car model depreciates more than other car models. Primarily, that reason is that that particular model of car sucks. The models that depreciate the least are those brands and models with proven track records that have relatively low maintenance costs per mile driven. Unlike the new car market, the used car market prices are driven almost entirely by the laws of supply and demand. What drives the price of a particular car model down disproportionately quickly is nobody willing to pay a high price for it, nobody valuing it enough to allow it to retain its value, usually because of poor quality and reliability experienced by consumers in regard to the model and/or brand.

Buy reliable.

It depends on the reason they depreciate quickly. Some are just unpopular, have poor performance or no body wants them. Others are unreliable or very expensive to repair. Most luxury models depreciate quickly after the warranty runs out.