Car died need a new one

The mazda 3 is based on the new focus i think it looks a lot nicer than the focus imo. The 2.0 sport model gives you a 147 bhp decent MPG from what i can see looking at the figures and only insurance group 8 which is suprising not that insurance would be much of a problem anyway considering the cars your looking at. The sport model gives you BOSE premium sound system amoungst loads of other electronic gadgets.

thedazman
 
The BMW's are nice but if i had one i'd want it to be much newer which i can't afford :). The more i think about it the more i think that the Mazda 3 2.0 Sport is the most sensible option. I can get a 06 plate for nearly 3k less than the Cupra and it is only insurance group 8 which is a big difference. I'm guessing running costs / servicing etc will be a lot less too. Now all i have to do is find one to test drive and see if i like it :).
 
I test drove a Mazda 3 Sport Saloon a couple of days ago and really like it, so much so i'm going to buy it. I like the look of it, the interior, the spec (especially the bose system) and the way it drives too, all in all a very nice car and only insurance group 8 too. The only problem is it was a brand new one lol so i'm haggling to try and get it down to a decent price. Starting price was 16.7k but i'm down to 15.1 including my car at the moment. Hoping to get it down to around 14.5.
 
CliffyG said:
The BMW's are nice but if i had one i'd want it to be much newer which i can't afford :)
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? I bet a 2002 BMW will be less worn than a 2004 Mazda.

The reason why the Mazda3 is less to buy and insure than the Cupra is becuase it's a boggo standard saloon, it isnt a performance car, the Cupra is.

If you want something regular, go for it, but no need to spend £15k.
 
[TW]Fox said:
What difference does it make? I bet a 2002 BMW will be less worn than a 2004 Mazda.

The reason why the Mazda3 is less to buy and insure than the Cupra is becuase it's a boggo standard saloon, it isnt a performance car, the Cupra is.

If you want something regular, go for it, but no need to spend £15k.
Click to expand...

Because i want a car to last me for a long time, i wont be replacing it in a couple of years. Buy a 4 year old BM with 60k plus miles on or a less than 1 year old Mazda with less than 10k. I know which looks more attractive to me, besides which i've decided on a brand new one anyway.

I understand that but as much as i like the cupra r the insurance and running costs will be too high. I didn't ask for a performance car just one that had a decent 0-60. 9 seconds just about qualifies for me.
 
CliffyG said:
Because i want a car to last me for a long time, i wont be replacing it in a couple of years. Buy a 4 year old BM with 60k plus miles on or a less than 1 year old Mazda with less than 10k. I know which looks more attractive to me, besides which i've decided on a brand new one anyway.
Click to expand...

I still don't really understand how this makes much difference but there we go. It makes me cry to think people are quite happy to throw away £15,000 on a run of the mill, regular car. Nothing wrong with that sort of car but if you just want 'a car' why spend £15,000? There are numerous excellent cars from all manufacturers, including Mazda, for under £10,000 if you ditch this ridiculous notion that if it has more than 10k miles on it, it will fall to bits.

It's also rather amusing you can on one hand have £15,000 to spend on a brand new car, ignoring the THOUSANDS it will lose the second you turn the key, yet on the other hand you are worried about insurance cost?

Come on, insurance cost? If you are old enough to be able to buy a £15k car the difference in insurance on any of these cars is what, 200 quid a year tops? So you can't afford that, but you can afford £15k on a car and you can afford the depreciation associated with buying new?

How does that work?

You can buy a Cupra for £11k. It sure as hell won't cost another £4k to run over the Mazda..
 
It's not a run of the mill car though, you can't get a car with that spec and sub 10 second 0-60 for that money. As i said the reason i want low mileage is because i plan on keeping it for a decent number of years, how is that ridiculous exactly? A new car gives me a mileage of 0 and a longer life.

Same thing for depreciation, i'm not planning on selling it any time soon so couldnt care less. The insurance on the cupra r would cost me an extra £60 a month let alone the extra costs of petrol and servicing / parts etc. All these things add up.

If i did buy a cupra i wouldnt want a 3 year old one. The year old ones were around 15k.
 
If you are going to keep it for ever you are obviously not concerned with resale value so how does the mileage being 0 matter? You are not one of these people who thinks a car explodes when it reaches 100,000 miles, are you?

It is a run of the mill car, it is a Mazda3. The fact it does 0-60 in 9 seconds doesnt change this - my car does 0-60 in 9 seconds, and thats also a run of the mill car. 0-60 in 9 seconds is hardly rocketship terrority, merely acceptable performance.

But its obviously living on borrowed time as far as you are concerned, OMG it isnt brand new ;)

What exactly makes you want a 1 year old Cupra R over a 3 year old one? Other than that little bit of perspex on the front saying 53 not 55, what possible difference does it make? Cars these days are built to last, it isnt going to explode once it hits 7.
 
[TW]Fox said:
What difference does it make? I bet a 2002 BMW will be less worn than a 2004 Mazda.
Click to expand...

WHAT??!?!?! :confused:

What on earth do you base that on? Are BMW's built with some special alien technology that fell to earth. I think your love of the BMW badge is going a little too far now :D .


Fog
 
Foghorn Leghorn said:
What on earth do you base that on? Are BMW's built with some special alien technology that fell to earth.
Click to expand...

No, just better quality materials, thats all. It's hardly rocket science to work that out, is it? It's also no criticism of Mazda, either - their cars are excellent and well built, but a car retailing at £15k is unlikely to be the same quality as one which originally retailed at £35k, is it?

If you think I said that purely becuase I like BMW's then change the word BMW for Audi or something - same point applies. They are better built cars - they command a premium price becuase of this, but by compromising on age you can get one for the price of a newer Mazda, and by all accounts is likely to be no more worn, if not less so, than a 2 year newer Mazda.
 
Its probably more sensible to buy 6 month to a year old so someone else takes the big initial depreciation hit.
After a few months of owning a new car it will feel like a year old car anyway, so its not really worth the premium.
Japanese cars are the most reliable cars you can choose, so its not like your going to get less life out of a year old version. It will still be covered under the mazda warranty anyway.
 
50/50 said:
Its probably more sensible to buy 6 month to a year old so someone else takes the big initial depreciation hit.
After a few months of owning a new car it will feel like a year old car anyway, so its not really worth the premium.
Japanese cars are the most reliable cars you can choose, so its not like your going to get less life out of a year old version. It will still be covered under the mazda warranty anyway.
Click to expand...

Listen to this guy. He speaks total sense. If you want a Mazda3 - great. They are good cars. Just dont pay £15k becuase there isnt any need.

I mean, look at this:

2004 04 Reg Mazda Mazda3 2.0i MZ-R Sport
4 Doors, Manual, Saloon, Petrol, 16,000 miles, Titanium Grey, Driver and passenger airbags, Anti-lock braking system (ABS), DSC-Dynamic Stability Control, Isofix child seat anchor points, Thatcham Cat.1 alarm, Immobiliser, Automatic climate control, 60/40 split folding rear seat, 17" alloy wheels, Front fog lamps, Headlamp cleaning system, Body coloured bumpers, 6 disc CD autochanger, AM/FM radio, Auto activation of headlamps via light sensor, Automatic headlight levelling, Automatic rain sensing wipers, Body colour door handles, Body colour side mouldings, Body coloured door mirrors, Electronic brake force distribution, Emergency brake assist, Leather gear knob, Leather steering wheel, MAIDA system, Pollen filter, Sports appearance package. £10,250.

2 years old, only 16k miles but... A THIRD OFF THE PRICE!

Want something a bit newer? How about this... less than a year old but still £3000 less!

2005 Mazda 3 2.0i MZ-R Sport
4 Doors, Manual, Saloon, Petrol, 4,000 miles, Titanium Grey, 17" alloy wheels,6 CD autochanger,Anti-lock Braking System (ABS),Automatic climate control,Automatic wipers with rain sensor,BOSE™ premium audio system,Climate control,Dynamic Stability Control (DSC),Electronic Brake Distribution (EBD),Immobiliser,MAIDA system,Sports Appearance Package,Thatcham category 1 alarm,Traction Control System (TCS),AM/FM Radio,Body coloured bumpers,Body coloured door handles,Body coloured door mirrors,Body coloured side mouldings,Driver & passenger airbags,Electric front windows,Electric rear windows,Front fog lamps,Light sensor (auto lights on),Supplementary Restraint System,6-disc CD autochanger,60:40 split folding rear seat,Automatic headlight levelling. £11,995.

Vospers MazdaPrice: £11,995


Both of these cars are Approved Used cars from Mazda main dealers.
 
Lol whats so hard to understand? A car with 0 mileage has a hell of a better chance of not going wrong in the period i own it then a car with 20k that may have been ragged silly during its lifetime. Plus it's so much nicer having a brand new car (the wife feels quite strongly about this bit).

That's purely down to opinion, i see the other mazda3's as run of the mill but class the sport a little higher. And yes i realise it's not rocket ship territory, most other cars i looked at that weren't performance didn't get anywhere near 10 secs though.

Back to my first point again on that one ;).
 
I hate to agree with the BM band wagon, but a 60k mile Beemer will go on and on and on, other cars start to get decidedly worn at big mileage. you not an 100k miles = death of all cars person are you?
 
[TW]Fox said:
No, just better quality materials, thats all. It's hardly rocket science to work that out, is it? It's also no criticism of Mazda, either - their cars are excellent and well built, but a car retailing at £15k is unlikely to be the same quality as one which originally retailed at £35k, is it?

If you think I said that purely becuase I like BMW's then change the word BMW for Audi or something - same point applies. They are better built cars - they command a premium price becuase of this, but by compromising on age you can get one for the price of a newer Mazda, and by all accounts is likely to be no more worn, if not less so, than a 2 year newer Mazda.
Click to expand...

I doubt that the levels of quality of materials between the BMW ranges and other makes such as Mazda (Rover excused of course ;) ) differs greatly, certainly not to the tune of 20k+. The only reason marques like BMW get away with charging vastly more for their products is because people will pay the money for the extra perceived value. And of course for that shiny emblem on the bonnet :).

Last line was tongue in cheek, what with you getting all excited with looking for your new car. :D

Fog
 
CliffyG said:
Lol whats so hard to understand? A car with 0 mileage has a hell of a better chance of not going wrong in the period i own it then a car with 20k that may have been ragged silly during its lifetime.
Click to expand...

Actually no, it doesn't. Most of the faults a car will encounter within the first 5 years of its life will happen within the first 12 months of ownership, as manufacturing errors come to light. Ok, its repaired by warranty, but it's still 'going wrong'. After these initial problems are sorted, most cars go on to give good service.

And ragged around? Come on mate, its not an Impreza Turbo, is it? Why would somebody buy a brand new car, rag it around for a year, then sell it? Even so, they dont fall to bits if you use the performance.

Plus it's so much nicer having a brand new car.
Click to expand...

It's only brand new for a month or so then its just like every other used car out there after it picks up its first parking dink, etc etc. Then it even LOOKS old a few months later when the new plate comes out. I've driven new cars, they don't feel noticeably nicer than 12 month old examples. Certainly not worth paying the premium for.

In what way is a brand new new one worth £3000 more than that 9 month old one I posted?
 
Personally i don't understand your reasoning for buying a new car. I just seems to me that you want to buy something new, 'because it's new'. That's fair enough i guess, as it's always good to have somethings that's just yours and is brand new.

However, you've got £15k to spend, you can do a lot better really. The mileage situation is an odd one. 20k is not a lot of miles on most modern cars at all. How many miles do you plan to do? and how long do you intend to keep it?

You've decided though haven't you? ;) So this thread is a little pointless now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom