modeo ST TDCI - MPG?

[The_Dark_Side]

and you know this because you know the OPs postcode, age, record, etc... or are just assuming things... like you told us not too...

I don't need to, due to the simple fact that any given individual will be paying less to insure the diesel than the V6. Exactly how much depends on the factors you list above but the fact remains the petrol will be more expensive to insure, thereby reinforcing my point that insurance would widen the cost gap further.

so £70 a month as a considerable lump yet £4000 is just a drop in the ocean?

The OP's words, not mine...and he goes on to repeat them later in the thread.

If the OP knew what he wanted he wouldnt be asking for advice.

If the OP knew what he wanted he wouldnt be asking for car advice on the OcUK forums.

I know what i want.......and i wasn't asking for car advice on any forum.

Clear enough for you?

Personally, I would choose an ST220 over a TDCI ST, and would enjoy it much more aswell, but then Im not the OP. I just hope my information will help them in making their decision.

We're all different, with different priorities, but as you rightly point out you're not the OP and neither you nor Mr.Fox helped him make a decision as it had already been made before he composed this thread.

...nor did he state that it wouldnt.

At this point in the thread you're right. He had not. However it was blatantly obvious that this was his POV, something he confirmed later in the thread by stating:-

I will always buy the newest and best level car i can. The fact is that i can afford a newer model which has efficient running costs with lower tax and insurance levels.

It's as daft as people telling me I should have bought a low mileage 530 for better residuals - yea, ok, I should have spent £14k on one instead of £8k becuase it would be 'worth more' when I sold it. Lets totally ignore the fact it cost a bundle more in the first place.

No, it's not. The amount of money in this example is fixed, it's the specific model that makes the difference RE depreciation. Two 530's, one worth more than the other, will depreciate at a similar rate, whereas a petrol and a diesel version of the same car will not. This will become an even bigger factor as the unwashed masses become scared of increasing fuel and tax costs and will widen the gulf between petrol and diesel residuals even more. Elsewhere on this very forum someone mentioned the bottom falling out of RX8 values. It's no coincidence that they're known for being thirsty, and it is being reflected in their plummeting resale values.

People come asking for advice and when they do so they've already got some preconceptions about what they want and need. Sometimes this is accurate and we can advise within their parameters. Often it is misguided - offering alternatives is not 'trolling'.

In your DOC thread, you asked a specific question and nudged the thread back in the right direction when you received replies that were irrelevant to what you were trying to find out.
Look closely, and you might just find that this thread is an example of the very same thing.

regarding Diesels not always being cheaper

I couldn't agree more, and if the OP had Asked for advice in choosing between the two cars I'd be nodding away at your posts...but he didn't. He asked a very specific question as it was already a given that his next car WILL be a diesel.

 

[Reality Bites]

^^^^^^^^^^^

thanks for the effort.....hopefully it will put a few things to bed.

 

[Skeeter]

^^^^^^^^^^^

thanks for the effort.....hopefully it will put a few things to bed.

But surely you must understand our confusion...

You want a cheap to insure cheap to run cheap to tax car, yet have shot down all suggestions from people to purchase a cheaper car in the first place?

Why not go full hog and just buy a £1k Diesel Mondeo, that fills all the requirements. Get one older than a V reg and avoid all tax hikes too.

Im not in this thread on a boycott of all Diesels, because clearly sometimes they are the right way to go, Im just very confused about your views. You will take savings of £1000 a year in tax and fuel, but not a £4000 saving in the purchase price of the car?

I fully agree with you, in isolation the TDCI ST is a very nice looking car, with cheap tax and good fuel economy. But I cannot understand in the big picture why the ST220 is such a no no? Its a balanced scale. One the one hand you have a good looking saloon that does good MPG and is cheap to tax, but costs £10k+, and on the other you have the same good looking saloon, that is much faster and more reliable, and costs £4k less, yet uses more fuel and is more expensive to tax.

There are good points and bad points to both sides, and actually, looking at the information, its a fairly even argument, newer cheaper to run but expensive, vs older, cheaper to buy, more reliable but expensive to run. What I just cant grasp is why the ST220 is being completely disregarded because of the fuel economy and tax, which is only part of the argument, and only the negative at that.

Surely you must see our point? What the 220 lacks in one area it makes up for in others.

The bottem line is this:

You have come into this thread asking about fuel efficient low tax cars so that you can buy one to save money, yet will happily pay £10k+ for one rather than £6k. Some users just dont understand this logic.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's becuase 2003 cars are ancient and 60k miles is 'moon mileage'.

 

[Skeeter]

It's becuase 2003 cars are ancient and 60k miles is 'moon mileage'.

Which as we all know, is a view that carries as much merrit as "Diesels are cheap"

 

[Reality Bites]

Which as we all know, is a view that carries as much merrit as "Diesels are cheap"

you keep going on about a 4k saving in the car but it's not that big at all. the comparisons so far have been between 220's which are 2 years older and double the mileage.

i would save around £900 a year in fuel alone, then a further £400 in tax and insurance costs.

£100+ a month saving. If i then changed the car in 2-3 years, there would still be the margin between the diesel and the petrol sale price which would mean that the intial saving on the purchase price wouldn't really be relevant.

These figures are based on my current mileage which would much better than a 3l V6 where i'd struggle to get 27-28mpg.

 

[Fr0dders]

you keep going on about a 4k saving.

furthermore, the 4k saving gets you a nasty prefacelift model. Nothing like the 06 plate last gen model STDCI's he's been looking at

Fruther more, the 6k ones are the 5 speed with nasty radios. I wouldnt have one if you paid me to. Especially considering the problems the 5 speeder ST220s have had.

I'd only consider an 05 plate facelift onwards, which are 9k not 6k, even in ST220 guise.

 

[Skeeter]

you keep going on about a 4k saving in the car but it's not that big at all. the comparisons so far have been between 220's which are 2 years older and double the mileage.

But this is my very point! Why is a car thats a few years old but so much better a bad thing? And its been shown in this thread, ST220 for £6-£7k and TDCI well above £10k, so clearly an easy £4k gap! I seriously dont understand why you are completely rejecting an ST220 based entirely on the fact is 4 years old and has more miles than a 2 year old car?!?!

i would save around £900 a year in fuel alone, then a further £400 in tax and insurance costs.

Uh, try £774 in fuel and £170 or £230 in tax, as per my detailed costs comparison post.

£100+ a month saving. If i then changed the car in 2-3 years, there would still be the margin between the diesel and the petrol sale price which would mean that the intial saving on the purchase price wouldn't really be relevant.

£74 a month saving for the first year and then £85 a month for the rest. And if you save £4k on the car you have up to 4 years before the ST220's increased running make it more expensive, so if you plan to sell in 2 you have a £2k gap between the TDCI and ST220 depreciation too. If you sold the car in 2 years the ST220 would have to depreciate by £2000 more than the TDCI for it the TDCI to be the cheaper overall.

These figures are based on my current mileage which would much better than a 3l V6 where i'd struggle to get 27-28mpg.

No, these figures are based on speculation from your head. My figures, which were a lot of work to try to help inform you, were based on your milage and current prices and exact tax prices, etc.

Im not saying the only choice is the ST220. Im using this as an example to show that your argument is flawed. You cannot view a high mpg Diesel as a cheaper car when the petrol alternatives can be bought much cheaper which negates there higher running costs. Especially if you are going to sell it on in a couple of years!

Your basically want to buy an expensive car thats cheap to run. I suggested why not look at cheap cars that are expensive to run? The TDCI vs ST220 are just an example, not the only cars im considering. Ive tried to open your eyes a bit to the reality around the "Diesel = Cheap" myth, and have somehow come off as some form of Diesel Nazi. Last time I offer advice on here...

Oh no wait, its the internet, i dont give a ****

 

[Reality Bites]

But this is my very point! Why is a car thats a few years old but so much better a bad thing? And its been shown in this thread, ST220 for £6-£7k and TDCI well above £10k, so clearly an easy £4k gap! I seriously dont understand why you are completely rejecting an ST220 based entirely on the fact is 4 years old and has more miles than a 2 year old car?!?!



Uh, try £774 in fuel and £170 or £230 in tax, as per my detailed costs comparison post.



£74 a month saving for the first year and then £85 a month for the rest. And if you save £4k on the car you have up to 4 years before the ST220's increased running make it more expensive, so if you plan to sell in 2 you have a £2k gap between the TDCI and ST220 depreciation too. If you sold the car in 2 years the ST220 would have to depreciate by £2000 more than the TDCI for it the TDCI to be the cheaper overall.



No, these figures are based on speculation from your head. My figures, which were a lot of work to try to help inform you, were based on your milage and current prices and exact tax prices, etc.

Im not saying the only choice is the ST220. Im using this as an example to show that your argument is flawed. You cannot view a high mpg Diesel as a cheaper car when the petrol alternatives can be bought much cheaper which negates there higher running costs. Especially if you are going to sell it on in a couple of years!

Your basically want to buy an expensive car thats cheap to run. I suggested why not look at cheap cars that are expensive to run? The TDCI vs ST220 are just an example, not the only cars im considering. Ive tried to open your eyes a bit to the reality around the "Diesel = Cheap" myth, and have somehow come off as some form of Diesel Nazi. Last time I offer advice on here...

Oh no wait, its the internet, i dont give a ****

My figures were calculated on 15k a year and going from 30mpg i'm getting at the moment to 50mpg which would be my target. the st220 would never return 30mpg unless you didn't ever go above 3000rpm and 60mph! You also didn't add in the factor of reducing my insurance by around £200 a year....or am i dreaming about needing that too?

You also seem to forget that i never mentioned about wanting an st220, i enquired about the MPG figures for the 2,2 diesel.

If i can afford a newer car, why would i want to buy one with 60k+ more mileage and an older model? I don't get you people who would suggest buying a 5year old car with higher mileage as i would save 4k in the purchase price. Are you basically suggesting never buying a car newer than 4-5 years old because you can always buy an older version for less?

What about all the issues which can arrise from a car which is getting to the 60-70k plus mark? don't say they don't happen cos they do.....!

i do agree with some of the thread regarding the close running costs between diesel and petrol. The thing is, whether you like it or not, tax in one form or another will always rise quicker with a petrol powered car than a diesel. whether it be road tax, fuel tax or insurance prices.

EDIT: you obviously didn't read the post above yours either regarding the prices of the facelift models?

 

[Demon]

I think some people are just blinded by the black and white maths..

There is no car financial breakdown that isn't substantially reduced by buying an older example of the car.. which it sounds like people are just going on and on and on about..

The fact is, the OP wants a newish car, that is the 'base' requirement that he's pointed out.. his second requirement is lowish running costs..

People want newer cars for many many reasons
1. Reliability - there is no evidence I can find that shows older cars are more reliabile then newer cars..
2. New specification - Clearly newer models get better and better, in this case there is a facelift involved.
3. Prestige - not always the case, but you'd be daft to think it isn't a factor..

The fact he wants a newer car and lower running costs is not some mutually exclusive ill reasoned logic, it's perfectly 'normal'..

 

[Skeeter]

Fine, whatever I give up. Spending a large ammount of money on a new car that you want to be cheap to run just baffles me, especially when talking about this type of car that looks like it should be fast. The OP obviously cannot see my point in the same way I cannot understand his, so I leave this one up to him.

 

[Reality Bites]

Fine, whatever I give up. Spending a large ammount of money on a new car that you want to be cheap to run just baffles me, especially when talking about this type of car that looks like it should be fast. The OP obviously cannot see my point in the same way I cannot understand his, so I leave this one up to him.

So it's wrong to spend money on ecconomical cars which look like they should be fast? and instead we should all buy large older petrol cars which cost loads to run, tax and insure so we can save money on the purchase price. I do hope you're not a financial advisor!

i only wish you'd have given up several posts ago.

 

[osc89er]

I come late to this, but...

So it's wrong to spend money on ecconomical cars which look like they should be fast? and instead we should all buy large older petrol cars which cost loads to run, tax and insure so we can save money on the purchase price. I do hope you're not a financial advisor!

i only wish you'd have given up several posts ago.

This right here is the point where you appear as if you have not understood his posts.

His argument was never about saving on the purchase price. His argument was quite clearly about the overall cost of owning the car, and that you could quite easily have a better car that would cost you the same or less over the years that you owned it.

You have different priorities, fair enough, you have made this abundantly clear by now. But don't belittle him just because you don't understand what he is saying.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

You have different priorities, fair enough, you have made this abundantly clear by now. But don't belittle him just because you don't understand what he is saying.

The point to take from this, is if someone asks a question then try to actually answer it rather than answer something the OP neither asked nor wanted to know anyway.

 

[Abyss]

Assume the following (this does NOT mean they are precisely correct, feel free to adjust if you dissagree):

OP does 15,000 miles a year
Petrol is priced at £1.15 a litre
Diesel is priced at £1.35 a litre
(fuel prices round where I live)

Now re-calculate it using un-biased figures that fairly represent fuel prices in the uk. Your figures are way off the mark.

Avg. Min. Max.
Unleaded: 113.7p 107.9p 124.0p
Diesel: 126.0p 118.9p 137.0p

 

[osc89er]

The point to take from this, is if someone asks a question then try to actually answer it rather than answer something the OP neither asked nor wanted to know anyway.

I could be cynical and rude about this, but I shouldn't (not to or about you Dark_Side)





















Naw, I'll just get on with it.

The point to take from this, is if someone asks a question then try to actually answer it rather than answer something the OP neither asked nor wanted to know anyway. And if you choose to do so anyway then be prepared for the possibility that they will not care or will not understand what you are saying to them.

 

[Furbs]

Well hands up if what I am about to post is surplus to requiremets now but after the dicussion about petrol vs diesel heated up I skipped to the end of the thread.

To the OP:

I currently own a 06 ST TDCI and my daily communte is around town traffic about 30-40 miles per day. When not trying to drive like an idiot, MPG on the work run is around 42-46. I also do a lot of long distance runs to see friends and family and again if you drive sensible and at the speed limit you will get 55-58 on a long run, where as at my normal motorway speed ~85 I average about 48-50.

Hope this helps in some way.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Naw, I'll just get on with it.

The point to take from this, is if someone asks a question then try to actually answer it rather than answer something the OP neither asked nor wanted to know anyway. And if you choose to do so anyway then be prepared for the possibility that they will not care or will not understand what you are saying to them.

You're not wrong, my friend.
I'm sure someone that's aged in the teen or v.early 20's might appreciate other members taking the thread off in different directions, but someone who may be a little older and who had a specific question to ask, is probably going to be unreceptive and possibly cheesed off at replies that had little to do with his initial enquiry.

 

[Abyss]

Amended numbers:

OP does 15,000 miles a year
Petrol is priced at £1.14 a litre
Diesel is priced at £1.26 a litre
(fuel prices round where I live)
Gallon = 4.54 Litres
ST220 does 30 MPG
TDCI does 50 MPG
(both granny driving)
We ignore inflation and take just the monetry value at present


Gallon of Petrol = £5.18
Gallon of Diesel = £5.72

Petrol: 15,000/30 = 500 Gallons a year = £2590
Diesel: 15,000/50 = 300 Gallons a year = £1716

Price of fuel difference: £874

An 02 ST220 will cost £300 a year to tax in 2009 and £430 in 2010
An 05 TDCI ST will cost £175 a year to tax in 2009 and £180 in 2010

So:

A TDCI will cost £999 less in 2009 and £1124 less in 2010 onwards.

Ignoring other running costs, over a 2 year period the TDCI will cost a total £2123 less than the petrol.

In honesty though they aren't really comparable as they are completely different performance cars.

 

[Reality Bites]

Well hands up if what I am about to post is surplus to requiremets now but after the dicussion about petrol vs diesel heated up I skipped to the end of the thread.

To the OP:

I currently own a 06 ST TDCI and my daily communte is around town traffic about 30-40 miles per day. When not trying to drive like an idiot, MPG on the work run is around 42-46. I also do a lot of long distance runs to see friends and family and again if you drive sensible and at the speed limit you will get 55-58 on a long run, where as at my normal motorway speed ~85 I average about 48-50.

Hope this helps in some way.

thanks for the post......those figures aren't too bad to be honest. My circumstances are pretty much the same. My daily commute is a 45 mile round trip but my folks are a 450mile round trip. My father has a 220 and said last year it cost around £80 to visit, before the price hikes.