[TW]Fox;17678339 said:
Absolutely - but I'm not interested in plate. My next car will have exactly the same registration number as my current car after all.
It's not about having the latest thing - a guy at work today asked me if my car was newer than his 55 plate - the general public have no idea - it's about how it feels to ME. I like how newer cars feel to me. I like the newer interface on the dials, I like iDrive, blah blah etc etc
My point was that over here, number plate and age of car are inexplicably linked. I know that the number plate is irellevant to you, but the age thing obviously eats at you. I don't get why a bill is more annoying on a 2001 E39 than it would be on a last of the line 2003 E39?
So you DO see where I'm coming from, then?
I completely see the logic in upgrading to something better if your current steed is throwing so many bills at you that the TCO figure is in the same ball park as the better car, as the better car would cost less in repairs/maintenance to balance the greater depreciation.
For the same or less than an E92 I could by any number of cars I dream about more often than a 335i - an E55 AMG, an SL500. Perhaps a mint E39 M5, etc etc. But these cars, whilst they would suit me perfectly in my current circumstances, are not future proof. They are high maintenance, big running cost cars.
The 335i is a normal 3 Series. It's an everyday, normal, non exotic non supercar. It's just a 3 Series.
Which you'd be spending SL500 money on, simply because the SL was 3 years older? Seriously, as lovely as the right E92 is, its no SL...
I don't doubt that the SL will cost more to run than the E92, but theres a bigger gap between an M5/AMG Merc, and the non AMG SL. The E92 poses more of a depreciation risk than the SL surely? Does that not balance out the TCO? IF it does, who cares that the SL is 3 years older? Its the SL, and its all kinds of uber and epic and stuff...
And once I've got it, it'll be very little hassle to keep for the next 4-5 years. And thats worth a lot to me. The longer you keep a car the lower impact that cars cost actually has on you. .
Completely agree, cost to change has a big impact on TCO, which is why it's so important to buy the right car in the right spec.
If you wanted the E92 over the SL because the former is a sharper drivers tool with its manual box and lower weight etc, I'd get it. Or if you suddenly 'got' practicality and thought that folding flat rear seats would be really rather useful for lugging radiators home from B&Q or wardrobes from Ikea. But why is the SL a less suitable 4-5 year car simply because its 3 years older? You don't strike me as a dog person, so just wear a condom and the SL suddenly becomes future proof
Remember - it's the price of a new Focus, a car most people wouldnt call extravagent or OTT
Completely agree, a 3 year older E92 is a better buy than a focus for ~£20k, I just think that logic stretches further, in that a 3 year older SL is a better buy than the E92.
All 3 are good cars, but the Focus makes more sense at £6k, and the E92 makes more sense at £12k. The SL is already at its vfm peak because its done the majority of its depreciation,
because its older, and thats a good thing imo...
Biggest problem you've then got is what do you upgrade to once you've owned the SL...
Plus you'd be less likely to have kerbed wheels on the SL due to the greater visibility when SWMBO is driving it. Plus, women in an SL are, as a rule, hot.
