Clio 200 Cup via finance
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
[TW]Fox;17857659 said:
I feel the same, I have already had 2 as well over the years. A Clio Trophy would have been more special and the gap between used/new is even finer in that example.
I'm happy with my decision, especially knowing that I got such a great deal
Your deal was 6331-5876=£455 better than Tom's, so the extra £18.96 a month softens my point somewhat, but as said, my post was aimed more at him than yourself.
It also reinforces my view that he has been 'sold' something, rather than gone out and bought what he wanted (I know what I mean!
)So, in this example I put down around £1600. To get something half decent I'd need to take a loan (perhaps £7-8k?) and then have the extra funds to cover running costs (which will vary from month to month and if I am unlucky it could be astronomical).
For me, having just bought a house, this makes more sense to me. I know my fixed costs per month and have a warranty to back me up for any niggles. I also can drive a brand new car (a first for me) which has been spec'ed exactly how I want it (perhaps minus recaros for cost purposes). This is why it represents a good deal for me
In apples and apples terms financially, any private loan would be for the purchase price of the car + any projected running expenses, so extra funds shouldn't be an issue.
I stand by my point, but if you've decided that a brand new Clio 200 is more your bag than a seven year old rag top, then there are certainly much worse cars, and in your case much worse deals to say "As long as your happy..." to...
Enjoy your new toy!
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;17857659 said:
That's fine as long as you have the extra £100 a month. Obviously.
The implication that I'd drawn was that £100 a month isn't 'a bit' to someone with £3k to spend.
If you don't have the requisite £100 extra a month to spend, you don't even bother firing up the RS website...
That's fine as long as you have the extra £100 a month. Obviously.
The implication that I'd drawn was that £100 a month isn't 'a bit' to someone with £3k to spend.
If you don't have the requisite £100 extra a month to spend, you don't even bother firing up the RS website...
If you don't have a spare 100 quid you don't buy an ageing performance car either.
[TW]Fox;17857846 said:
Have to agree with this. You have to remember that extra £### a month for unexpected repairs when a car is no longer under warranty that so many people forget to consider when doing the sums of what they can afford to run.
But in the context of owning and running this sort of car that is not a considerable saving. Infact it might even not be a saving at all - they are not particularly cheap cars to run as Skeeter on here has found out - we compared notes the other day and over the last 9 months his 172 has cost him more keeping it on the road than my 530i has over the same period!
If money is so tight that £100 is make or break then neither this deal NOR a second hand 172 are the right choice.
Because this deal is appealing to Clio enthusiasts who were in the market for a used one until they realised they could now get a great deal on a new one?
If everyone with an extra £100 a month to spend on a 'performance' car buys a brand new one, and everyone without the extra £100 a month doesn't buy a 'performance' car because of the apparent financial irresponsibility of doing so, who are we going to sell our 'performance' cars to?
I bought my out-of-warranty Octavia vRS expecting to lose £150 a month in depreciation, then bought a warranty for it. The loan I took out to buy it covered the purchase cost, the warranty, and the estimated running costs.
I paid nothing in repairs (because of the third party warranty), and saved £100 a month I didn't have in the process.
This is a unique and rare deal - thats why the thread is so interesting. This sort of deal almost NEVER happens, to this just isn't a concern.
Warranty on an 8 year old Clio, LOLOLOLOL
[TW]Fox;17858176 said:
Fair shout, is that a typical experience? I know the cambelt / belts are a weakness, and they rattle like hell, but I wasn't aware that they were typically as expensive to run as a 6 pot similar aged 5 Series?
Why make or break? Surely a demographic exists where people choose to spend 'a bit' extra on something sporty, but still want to put that extra £100 in savings? No banks are being broken, but the compromise means that the extra £100 a month is prioritised in savings rather than a brand new car.
[TW]Fox;17858233 said:
Again, Tom's deal, or Adam's?
Petulance aside, you recognise that in the absence of being able of worthwhile warranty (Warranty Direct will allow a policy to be bought at up to 12 years old), a notional warranty cost could simply be set aside as a hedge against future repairs? My experiences mirror your own in only really breaking even on warranty costs / payouts.
No they won't, can renew up to 12 years old but not take a new policy.
The coverage reduces with age and mileage to the extent that its fundamentally worthless on that sort of car. There is also an increasing parts contribution as well.
I'm talking mostly about Adams deal btw but Tom's doesnt seem that bad either.
The coverage reduces with age and mileage to the extent that its fundamentally worthless on that sort of car. There is also an increasing parts contribution as well.
I'm talking mostly about Adams deal btw but Tom's doesnt seem that bad either.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;17858385 said:
http://www.warrantydirect.co.uk/summary_m.html#
Maximum Age to Start cover - 12 years
Maximum Mileage to Start cover - 120,000 miles
From memory my policy has a contribution to parts that goes up with mileage but not age, and 100% labour is covered.