The true cost of buying

Jon123456

Jon123456

Jon123456

Associate
Joined
5 May 2011
Posts
133
I am looking at spending around £6K on a second hand car. The two candidate are a Merc SLK or a Mazda MX5.

As I see it, the true cost of buying a car is:

1. The cost of the car
2. The depreciation rate
3. The servicing costs
4. The MPG

With this in mind, I want to calculate whether the Merc or the Mazda is less expensive. Initial thoughts are that while the Merc servicing costs are higher, the depreciation on the Merc will be less (since the Mazda is cheaper when new, its likely to be on a faster depreciation rate at that stage).

Which do you think is cheaper?

Thanks,

Jon
 
Last edited:
Surely those are factors in the cost of ownership, and not the cost of buying?

I'd say that over a period of time, the Merc would come out better off because, as you say, the depreciation will be less.

However, It's all relative. Depends on how long you own the car, what time of year you sell it, and the condition it's in when you come to sell it.
 
Well for one they are one of the most reliable cars on the road.
Then again you need to state the use of the car as depending on which engine you have can be costly to run.
 
The original SLK really isn't one of the most reliable cars on the road - not by a long way. In saying that the models from the first few years are by far and away the worst.

Personally I wouldn't worry too much, either car will give you a reasonable return if you get a good example and provided it doesn't break too often not cost a fortune to run. Go with what you prefer, if what you want is a bit of power in a straight line and a bit more refinement than a traditional soft top then the SLK (with one of the decent engines) will suit. If you'd prefer a car that likes to be chucked around and driven in the top 1/3 of the rev range the MX5 is a good shout.
 
I currently have a Fiat Coupe turbo. The suspension is hard and every bump feels like a pothole. Is the Merc likely to have a more comfortable ride?

I saw a SLK in a car park that I liked. Its reg is S381 TWE. Anyone know what year that would be?
 
latercomer2 said:
S = 98/99 IIRC (or was that the first 6 month change plate?)
Click to expand...

Complete listing of numberplate years so you can compare. It's possibly worth pointing out that the car may be on a private plate - S381 TWE doesn't instantly strike me as being an especially desirable plate but it's a possibility.

I don't know enough to comment fully on reliability but I don't believe the 90s to have been one of Mercedes' finer decades in that regard, it's certainly something that would bear further investigation.

//edit and wouldn't you want to consider insurance costs since it appears to be a combined running costs and purchasing?
 
MX5. Much more reliable, cheaper servicing, don't need to spend £6k to get a good example but if you choose to do so depreciation on these cars is low.
 
You are looking at £6k cars. Depreciation is becoming a non-issue at this end of the market - it isn't worth much to start with so it can hardly lose a pile of cash. Even a G reg MX5 in tidy condition can fetch £1500-£2000 so a £6k MX5 isnt going to be worth 500 quid in 3 years time.

The big point here is that the MX5 is, badge and styling aside, simply a better car than the SLK. Especially at £6k which gets quite a tidy MX5 or quite an old SLK.

chad116 said:
Well for one they are one of the most reliable cars on the road.
Click to expand...

lol, seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom