Show Us Your Motors!
- Thread starter Lopéz
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
That would depend on my situation and needs. It's rather ridiculous to consider a 210bhp 5 year old Saab when what you want is a new Volvo.
But it isn't ridiculous to consider a nearly new Honda Civic Type-R instead of a new diesel Civic when what you really want is.. a Civic Type-R.
Sorry to butt in without a picture of a car, but this genuinely interested me.[TW]Fox;16472750 said:
Why would total ownership matter more? I see the financial obligations involved in driving a car, much as I do those related to living in a house, in which case the mortgage is the key. A household's income is monthly, as are the usual outgoings, so I don't really see how this doesn't translate over to the purchase of a car. Perhaps you could elaborate?
We could probably do with a seperate thread dedicated to this stuff, but its my opinion that spending a 5 figure sum on a car to ensure the monthly running cost are as low as possible is misguided. If you wish to reduce the cost of owning a car surely a better way to do it is to spend less in the first place.
Lets just take one example, we'll use made up figures as an example. We'll pick the VW Golf.
You could buy an 09 VW Golf 1.4 for £13,000 because you want 'low running costs'. The 1.4 isn't a great engine, infact its terrible (Assume no twincharged version) and its woefully underpowered for the car, which itself is a low end base model. But its 'cheap to run'.
Or you could just spend less in the first place - perhaps £10,000 on an 08 plate 1.6 Golf. Not a performance powerhouse, but an engine more suited to the car. Marginally higher running costs, but nothing to write home about.
Then 3 years later, you'll probably find you've lost less money in depreciation on the 1.6 than you would have done had you preceeded with the 1.4 purchase.
I just personally find the concept of spending 5 figure sums on cars - by anyones standard this is a LOT of money - and trying to save every last penny on running costs - rather contradictory.
It's not as if 4 figure sums don't buy very, very good cars if saving money is your primary goal.
Lets just take one example, we'll use made up figures as an example. We'll pick the VW Golf.
You could buy an 09 VW Golf 1.4 for £13,000 because you want 'low running costs'. The 1.4 isn't a great engine, infact its terrible (Assume no twincharged version) and its woefully underpowered for the car, which itself is a low end base model. But its 'cheap to run'.
Or you could just spend less in the first place - perhaps £10,000 on an 08 plate 1.6 Golf. Not a performance powerhouse, but an engine more suited to the car. Marginally higher running costs, but nothing to write home about.
Then 3 years later, you'll probably find you've lost less money in depreciation on the 1.6 than you would have done had you preceeded with the 1.4 purchase.
I just personally find the concept of spending 5 figure sums on cars - by anyones standard this is a LOT of money - and trying to save every last penny on running costs - rather contradictory.
It's not as if 4 figure sums don't buy very, very good cars if saving money is your primary goal.
Last edited:
I was reffering to paying cash but.. same applies with finance. Reduce the expenditure on the car, which reduces the monthly payments, leaving spare monthly cashflow to pay for marginal running cost increases and at the end of the finance agreement you end up with a car worth more.
This sort of logic works best as an argument against buying a bottom of the range model. Obviously if you simply dont want an M3 or something then you dont want one, but even normal people can realise the benefits or something like a 118d or a 118i over a 116i
I think too many people place too much emphasis on factors involved in car purchase which in reality are simply not a big deal. Many of the people I speak to in Real life (And therefore wont do anything but nod and smile about) do things like buy a diesel to cover 5000 miles a year because 'its more economical'. Thats it - thats the extent of the research they did. It's more economical so it MUST be cheaper, therefore thats the choice they make.
People are amazed I drive a 3 litre car and even more amazed when I point out it costs a couple of quid a week in fuel more, tops, than something with an engine of half the size simply because I don't do the weekly commuting miles to add up to huge costs.
This sort of logic works best as an argument against buying a bottom of the range model. Obviously if you simply dont want an M3 or something then you dont want one, but even normal people can realise the benefits or something like a 118d or a 118i over a 116i
I think too many people place too much emphasis on factors involved in car purchase which in reality are simply not a big deal. Many of the people I speak to in Real life (And therefore wont do anything but nod and smile about) do things like buy a diesel to cover 5000 miles a year because 'its more economical'. Thats it - thats the extent of the research they did. It's more economical so it MUST be cheaper, therefore thats the choice they make.
People are amazed I drive a 3 litre car and even more amazed when I point out it costs a couple of quid a week in fuel more, tops, than something with an engine of half the size simply because I don't do the weekly commuting miles to add up to huge costs.
I'm afraid I'm a little lost. I don't really see how that relates to monthly cost being more important than total ownership. I certainly agree, if people research more than they're likely to make a more informed purchase, but that's tautological! Similarly with buying a cheaper car and paying smaller monthly payments.
As a normal (!) person, currently I fail to see how total ownership matters more than the monthly outgoing!
As a normal (!) person, currently I fail to see how total ownership matters more than the monthly outgoing!
Because 3 years after you bought it, its cost you (say) £15,000 to own the car instead of £10,000? Thats it - that money is gone. It's cost you more because you paid more for the car or you lost more in depreciation on it because it was an undesireable model. It's hard to make an exact point without some real world figures but hopefully I've illustrated my point a bit.
Thats real cash you wont see again, and cheap tax isn't enough to offset that?
We need a thread on this sort of thing because Show us Your Motors probably isnt the right place for it, yet its an interesting debate to have
Thats real cash you wont see again, and cheap tax isn't enough to offset that?
We need a thread on this sort of thing because Show us Your Motors probably isnt the right place for it, yet its an interesting debate to have
[TW]Fox;16486031 said:We need a thread on this sort of thing because Show us Your Motors probably isnt the right place for it, yet its an interesting debate to have
Why not pull your finger out and do this, then this thread won't get clogged up
But it has to have official stars and whatnot...
Again, I'm a little lost! I would certainly agree that if you don't want to lose too much money then you should buy a car that doesn't depreciate too badly, but that's obvious! And of course money has a time value, so if you enter into a finance deal then you'll pay a lot more than you would if you bought the car outright! I'm not sure what the £10,000 and £15,000 figures refer to.[TW]Fox;16486031 said:
My experience with car finance deals is that you arrange to pay X amount per month for some agreed period of time, after which you can choose to either give the car back, pay off the balance, or renew the deal on another car. Perhaps if you could make the analogy using this example? Apologies for meandering from the thread topic!
Thats a bit different - that sounds like some sort of leasing plan where you don't own the car, you simply 'hire' it long term. I'm talking about cars you buy with cash, or with a bank loan or something.
Alternatively, you could be referring to a finance package with a 'baloon' at the end (Ie you buy a £15k car with a £5k baloon and therefore only pay to borrow £10k, but have to pay £5k at the end to keep it or hand the car back).
The car you pick still has an impact - the more its worth the more equity you have in the deal and the cheaper your next car will be if you trade it against it, or the more cash you are left over with if you chose to sell the car to pay the balloon..
Soldato
Sorry, but this has bothered me for the last few months..
Fox:
prefer - preferred
refer - referred
and fwiw, catalogue
?
Soldato
I'll try and get this back on track.
Here are some poor mobile photos of my Clio 182 which I have owned for about 3-4 weeks now. I drove a 1997 Corsa for 7 1/2 years (since passing my test) prior to owning this; so it's quite a big step up for me. I still can't quite get over how well it sticks to the road. I've had some great (sensible within limits of course) fun on the way to and from work as I go through lots of country lanes
These were taken just after giving it a proper wash and polish.
I plan on getting a new exhaust at some point (not a de-cat mind, they are too loud for my liking), just something which sounds a bit meatier and doesn't have peashooter tailpipes.
Here are some poor mobile photos of my Clio 182 which I have owned for about 3-4 weeks now. I drove a 1997 Corsa for 7 1/2 years (since passing my test) prior to owning this; so it's quite a big step up for me. I still can't quite get over how well it sticks to the road. I've had some great (sensible within limits of course) fun on the way to and from work as I go through lots of country lanes
These were taken just after giving it a proper wash and polish.
I plan on getting a new exhaust at some point (not a de-cat mind, they are too loud for my liking), just something which sounds a bit meatier and doesn't have peashooter tailpipes.
Underboss
nice 182 mate
we have 2 things in common both got Clio Sports, and we both do Photography and we met in London
we have 2 things in common
both got Clio Sports, and we both do Photography and we met in London