We don't like euphemisms, bowdlerisms, or corpspeak either, and consider them loosely included under the word "misleading" in:

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

I've made the title say 'used' instead of 'pre-owned' now.

Not really sure what you're targeting with the language.

My guess is the "certified" part of pre-owned. It's basically just the labelling they give to lease vehicles that come back without excessive damage or wear. These vehicles generally have lowish miles, low wear on pretty much all components, and have been reasonably well kept by the leasee.

My wife and I have found certified pre-owned is sweet spot for price-to-value. We get a vehicle that's basically brand new - but with a massive cost reduction.

Except generally pre-owned is short for certified pre-owned like it is here, which means you get a much better warranty than buying on the used market.

That is completely standard wording. Has been since the 90s.

Pretend for a minute that this naming scheme was successful, that sales of cars called pre-owned were higher than cars called used. Neither term is deceptive, both accurately describe the situation. What this tells you is that the problem isn't the cars, it's the existing negative connotation attached to the word used. The car industry picked a blank slate term for themselves and how people feel about the term pre-owned will be in line with their feelings about the cars and nothing else. The fact that this term has been in use for a long time and still (by assumption) carries a positive connotation means that people are having positive experiences with used cars.

This to me is actually the opposite of deceptive. The used car industry took a risk by asking to be judged on their merits because pre-owned could have been synonymous with garbage in short order. There was little anchoring it to any particular connotation.