What a silly man 'keying £100k Aston Martin'
- Thread starter garsands
- Start date
This also makes little difference. It's an Aston, surely if it cost £100k when new, and is 10 years old now, it will still cost the same amount to maintain as it did when it was new assuming he gets it serviced and worked on at a main dealer. Parts and labour don't exactly depreciate the same way
This also makes little difference. It's an Aston, surely if it cost £100k when new, and is 10 years old now, it will still cost the same amount to maintain as it did when it was new assuming he gets it serviced and worked on at a main dealer. Parts and labour don't exactly depreciate the same way
Whilst I understand what you are saying. The headline is wrong though.
Also someone that has bought a brand new Aston and maintains it is likely to be wealthier than someone who has a 10 year old one and maintains it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
har har
I agree with you on the headline remark, but I think the last part is a bit of a foolish thing to say. Not just because it's an Aston, but any car in general.
Do you actually own a car you cherish and put a lot of time into maintaining beyond just "It will pass MOT" condition?
Doesn't seem like the type of guy who has many assets.
Say what you want, but most of the time someone driving a brand new V8 Vantage will be wealthier than someone driving a 10 year old one.
The same goes for an M5 or any other car you'd care to mention (that isn't actually old enough to become a classic car).
So what you're saying is that anyone who has an older model of an expensive marque like an Aston must not be wealthy simply because they prefer to have an older Aston as opposed to the latest and greatest model? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
So what you're saying is that anyone who has an older model of an expensive marque like an Aston must not be wealthy simply because they prefer to have an older Aston as opposed to the latest and greatest model? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
That's not what I said.
A multi millionaire could be driving a 10 year old Renault Clio. It ain't likely though.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So what you're saying is that anyone who has an older model of an expensive marque like an Aston must not be wealthy simply because they prefer to have an older Aston as opposed to the latest and greatest model? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
It doesn't sound that ridiculous, generally it's probably true. There will be the exception to every rule, but in general its probably fair to say that those buying brand new Aston Martin's are more likely to be more wealthy than those buying 10 year old ones.
It's common sense?
Having a brand new V8 Vantage probably significantly increases your running costs if you include depreciation or the finance costs required to buy one.
So it must be the case that on average that person is wealthier than someone who just has to pay maintenance costs.
So it must be the case that on average that person is wealthier than someone who just has to pay maintenance costs.
Hmm perhaps I misunderstood the context, it sounded like you were saying that you have to have the latest model to be rich.
No, he was saying that people with the latest brand new model are more likely to be rich than people with 10 year old ones.
Pretty simple logic there, seeing as you don't need to be rich to buy a £30k car but you do to buy a £100k one
