>Can you cite a self perpetuating instance of the price premium ownership?

The marginal difference between buyers of various vehicles and their intended use affects how those vehicles age and how they are perceived and valued by consumers over time. I'm gonna make a whole bunch of generalizations that are true at the margins (but obviously exceptions abound), please don't take them personally and hold your outrage until the end.

I think it's easier to explain in the opposite direction (i.e negative loop where customers reduce the premium-ness of the product) so I'll do that one first. For that case I present Jeep SUVs (other than the Wrangler). These vehicles are cheap up front and Chrysler financing will write a loan to anyone with a pulse. That means that proportionately a lot more of these vehicles get sold to people who are in an economic position where loading the back seat full of bags of concrete makes more sense than renting a truck if you catch my drift. These people tend to decline maintenance that isn't absolutely necessary, they will let a wheel bearing grind and let things wobble until payday, tow a trailer a little too big, etc, etc. The vehicles they own just get treated a lot harder all around than the vehicles of people with more wiggle room in their budget. And as you'd expect that means there's a lot more examples of these vehicles on the used market in rough shape with lots of little issues. That drives down the value, makes them more accessible to the same kind of people on the used market and the cycle feeds itself and Jeep SUVs are perceived as cheap and low class.

An example in the positive direction (premium customers giving a vehicle a good reputation) would be Toyota pickups and SUVs. When new they're moderately more expensive than the competition so the people for who are already stretching things to afford that class of vehicle (e.g. midsize SUV) never get their hands on them. As a result they get more often bought by people who are in a position to justify treating them well and keeping them nice so at any given age they'll have less hard use on them and be relatively nicer and better maintained than the competition. Because the examples around are in nice shape (and priced accordingly) people think they're inherently nice cars. That makes them hold their value even further. That means even when they're old the price premium helps keep them out of the hands of the people who have no better option but to use them hard and run them into the ground. It's a positive feedback loop that's keeping them "premium"

An even more scientific (less variables) example (albeit dated) of the same thing on the domestic side of the isle with the Mercury Grand Marquis. Old people bought them and mostly treated them nicely and they held their value very well compared to comparable sedans of other makes and the identical Crown Vics that were the staple of fleets. If you take an equivalently optioned 'Vic and Grand Marquis in equivalent condition/mileage the Grand Marquis will be worth more for no reason other than the badge on the grill implies nicer condition on the used market. Same engine, same trans, same cloth seats but the difference in buyer demographics had an effect on how well the vehicles aged and the Grand Marquis will be worth more because of it.

Basically Japanese vehicles traditionally target and get sold to a slightly more premium customer and they carry that premium their whole way down the economic ladder as they age.

Source: Extensive personal experience in the bottom price bracket of the used car industry.