to some people yes
but to the readers of motors cars are a lot more than that. I love driving, working on and lookings at cars of all ages and prices. not to mention for some people (including me) they are the biggest status symbol you own
A reminder of why I dislike Vauxhalls
- Thread starter HamZilla
- Start date
to some people yes
but to the readers of motors cars are a lot more than that. I love driving, working on and lookings at cars of all ages and prices. not to mention for some people (including me) they are the biggest status symbol you own
A hell of a lot of people do not agree with you there! If they did there would be no cars built above and beyond the very basics, no motorsport, no styling to anything, people would buy the cheapest vehicle to do the job.
Last edited:
Yeh vauxhall arent great but most people who I know that own them are young since theyre easy insured and cheap!
No need for this tbh, id much rather have a vaux than a renault/pug/citroen or the likes of a 318bmw e36/e46
Say what you want badge snobs but for the money im happy!
Maybe when im older and can afford and more importantly insure a "better" marque then fair enough but I wont come on here and off cheap motors for being what they are!
No need for this tbh, id much rather have a vaux than a renault/pug/citroen or the likes of a 318bmw e36/e46
Say what you want badge snobs but for the money im happy!
Maybe when im older and can afford and more importantly insure a "better" marque then fair enough but I wont come on here and off cheap motors for being what they are!
But they aren't, and they pale against there competition in the price brackets in many respects.
I see what you did there -.-
500 quid for an Astra with 53k on the clock, MOT done the previous month and taxed for 6 more months. I don't know about you, but I reckon that's fairly good value.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
500 quid for an Astra with 53k on the clock, MOT done the previous month and taxed for 6 more months. I don't know about you, but I reckon that's fairly good value.
Not really, no, the fact its got 53k on the clock is completely irrelevent - it is 16 years old.
Completely irrelevant? I didn't think you were that silly, Fox. Value is a function of mileage as well as age.
A 3 year old car that has done 150k has been thrashed to within an inch of falling to bits. A 16 year old car that has done 50k hasn't.
A 3 year old car that has done 150k has been thrashed to within an inch of falling to bits. A 16 year old car that has done 50k hasn't.
Wait, you actually beleive that? Seriously? How can you possibly ignore the considerable effect time has on the condition of a vehicle?
I guess your Astra is in far better condition than my 5 Series, then, given my car has three times the mileage of yours?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,253
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
150k in 3 years = motorway
50k in 16 years = town
i know which one i'd rather have.
50k in 16 years = town
i know which one i'd rather have.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Bangor, Northern Ireland
[TW]Fox;14170681 said:
Lol! Nice metaphor
Fox, you are one infuriating guy to argue with. 
That's not what I said. I said that mileage AND age have an affect on condition. And of course your 5 series will be in better condition than an Astra - it was made from more expensive parts in the first place.
That's not what I said. I said that mileage AND age have an affect on condition. And of course your 5 series will be in better condition than an Astra - it was made from more expensive parts in the first place.
You also said a 150k mile 3 year old car would be within an inch of falling to bits whereas a 16 year old 53k mile car would not.
So, does that mean a 1993 BMW 530i SE with 53k on the clock would be in great condition compared to mine, which is falling to bits?
I could not disagree with your opinion more, I think age, especially when we start talking in excess of 10 years, is far harsher to a car than mileage. Obviously both play their part, but a car getting old causes as many if not more problems as a car thats used on a regular basis for long trips.
The previous owner of my last car, a Ford Mondeo, put many thousands of miles on it over its short 4 year life. Infact, he put 115,000 miles on it. It was immaculate. I then ran it for 2.5 years and put 30k miles on it and it picked up the odd battle scar but was still in good condition.
Now, having gained just 10k miles in the past 2.5 years since I stopped using it and passed it onto someone else, it looks, drives and feels like a tired old car. It's got dents, scrapes, scratches, it rattles, it makes clonking noises from the suspension.... it feels like an old car.
Why, because of the 10k miles its had put on it over the last 2.5 years? No. Because it's an older car that isn't taken exceptional care of.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;14171091 said:
There is a vague possibility that I might, on some level, have exaggerated.
[TW]Fox;14171091 said:
Fine. I always thought mileage affected condition more than age, but I'll defer to your wisdom since I have not been driving very long.
I still think 500 quid was a good deal though.
Most people do, I shouldnt knock it as if nobody thought like you I wouldnt be able to buy 4 year old decent BMW's for under 10k
500 quid for an Astra with 53k on the clock, MOT done the previous month and taxed for 6 more months. I don't know about you, but I reckon that's fairly good value.
If its true that its a 16 year old car, than no, its not good value, I just bought my friend a 15 year old fiesta with 6 months MOT and 5 months Tax for £60.
