|
WHAT A GOOD POST WELL DONE !
We all know of another big UK motoring site where it is full of Tesco shelf stackers dreaming about cars on finance .The whole site dont dont have £500 beween them at anyone time
I run old vehcles have my own workshop look after them myself and I dont care if we have a downturn
I have no finance been in business all my life and seen ressessions I am not the shrewdest businessman but I am one of the safest
These people if they want to do this on their peanut wages well thats upto them but they are in for a massive shock
We are leaving the EU coupled with low wage growth ,high household borrowings and genrel uncirtainty . If we were leaving the EU and houeholds had good money in the bank then things would be different but one slight global economic blip could put these dreamers on the streets and thats what happens when you try to be something your not !
|
<< Just shows what a load of 2 faced fekin idiots frequent this forum. >>
Does that include yourself, by any chance?
It does not. My advice is consistent. If people say stupid things I do not agree one day and change tack a few weeks later because I feel sorry for the poster.
Stupid things need highlighting otherwise then could become accepted practice.
|
|
Running older cars is a state of mind. As long as you accept the risk it is a relaxing way to motor as you're not paranoid the whole time.
I've had times in my life I have been well able to afford expensive cars and times when I have been potless. I did once buy myself a new Porsche when I was young and doing well which was a collosal waste of money but equally the best car I ever owned and although I'd probably be better off now if I hadn't bought it I do not regret it.
The trick is to buy a car which doesn't need much doing at the point of purchase. if you can avoid buying a heap then usually it will keep on going. My usual aim is to buy a car and ideally spend absolutely nothing on it at all before selling it (except minor bits like bulbs, MOT and maybe if I like it I will change the oil).
There is no right or wrong on this. I couldn't bring myself to spend £20k on some mid-range new or nearly new hatchback because I know full well it would be worth £2.50 within a few years and I'd have spent a fortune to run a fairly boring car. For many people though it is the right thing to do.
|
|
Somewhere along the academic research road-there is lashings of data to prove that running an older car is the cheapest form of motoring. If you are spending a moderate amount on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance with absolutely no depreciation to worrry about-then this is the answer.
But......?
|
Somewhere along the academic research road-there is lashings of data to prove that running an older car is the cheapest form of motoring. If you are spending a moderate amount on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance with absolutely no depreciation to worrry about-then this is the answer.
But......?
Of course, there's a whole world of difference between running an older car that originally cost (in today's money) £15k and one that cost £40k+, given the price of fuel, parts, servicing and insurance which of course don't go down, unlike the value of the car. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the main reasons why people sell premium make cars when they're (say) 7-10 years old is that they can no longer afford to run them, given the number of expensive repairs that are needed, whether they are because of worn-out parts or just reliability woes due to a large number of complex parts and gadgetry on-board.
If I was going to buy an older premium/luxury car, there's only one make I'd look at - Lexus. Of all the premium makes outside of those originally cost £100k or over, they've had by far the best record in terms of reliability over the very long term, not just because, in my view, more of the budget is spent on the engineering and post-sales customer service and less on styling/marketing than others, but because they are, in the main, bought by sensible people who are far more likely to want a long-term purchase and will as such spend what is needed to look after the car in line with the manufacturer's guidance (if not more so). I regularly see an early 90s LS400 in my area, which still looks, and, it appears, goes like if it were brand new.
|
"If I was going to buy an older premium/luxury car, there's only one make I'd look at - Lexus. Of all the premium makes outside of those originally cost £100k or over, they've had by far the best record in terms of reliability over the very long term."
Well, my current Lexus RX400h has started to rust, I haven't seen rust on a car I've owned for over 20 years. The rear wheelbearings are starting to rumble at 100k miles, my previous Range Rover and Jag XJ8 had no such issues 'til past 150k miles. Don't get me wrong - it is reliable - but I don't rate the quality otherwise.
|
"If I was going to buy an older premium/luxury car, there's only one make I'd look at - Lexus. ......
......Well, my current Lexus RX400h has started to rust...........
Perhaps consider an aluminium Audi A8? When new, my W12 cost £12,000 more than the top of the range V8....which is what I paid for it over 3yrs ago when it was 8yrs old, so depreciation no longer much of a problem, just the risk of expensive repairs. But I've retired, so it now does only 4,000m a year. The modest VED (pre Mar 06) and £1200 annual fuel bill is amply covered by what I get for the electricity I generate on my roof, a sort of reverse hybrid! (Total cost less than a new Prius).
I do wonder why people buy new cars at this stage of their life when their annual mileage will be so low that they will pay more pence per mile in depreciation than fuel costs. The most financially foolish car to buy would seem to be an EV or hybrid, the depreciation seems horrendous, even for low mileage cars.
Edited by John F on 04/08/2017 at 22:52
|
|
|
|
|
What seems to me to been passed over in this thread, is that this desire to have the 'in car', regardless of cost, starts at a much younger age with smart phones.
My youngest son (just turned 16) often tells me of instances where other kids have deliberately broken their phone, so they can get their parents to replace it with the latest model!.
From about 6 years ago, i decided to get both my sons sim only contracts, the cheapest ones available from tesco mobile at £7.50 per month. If they wanted a new phone, they used Christmas/birthday money to buy it. If they then broke their fancy phone, i would replace it, but with a budget phone. I have only recently upped my youngest son's contract (the eldest, 19, has had his own now for a couple of years), still a sim only contract, but due to the nature of his studies (wants to be a physicist!), i didnt want him to be caught out with no data when looking something up, outwith home or school. So i now pay £17.50 per month. This is a big jump, but still at least £10 per month less than the phone contracts his mates parents have in order to get the very latest, 'in' phone. Parents, who, if what my son says is to be believed, have lower incomes than myself.
So this mentality starts as a teenager, possibly slightly earlier, encouraged by the parents giving in to the constant whining about how 'everyone else has a (whatever the 'it' phone might be at the time), why cant i?. So they end up taking the financial hit on this, meaning the child in question does not learn about the true cost of things. Which in turn means they go into adulthood expecting to be able to get whatever they want, with the attitude,
"I will have what i want, i had the phone i want, i will have what car i want, and i will have the house i want" (regardless of whether or not they can actually afford it).
Going back to the phones, my eldest son, who moved into a shared house with a couple of friends about 5 months ago, has, at least twice, not been able to pay his monthly phone contract. To put this into perspective, his rent is not that much, as the house belongs to his friends Dad. He pays £180 per month all in, with only food on top of this. But he pays about £40 per month for his phone contract, because, thats right, he wanted the best phone with a huge data bundle!. He does not currently have a license, but he has mentioned it a few times. Not sure how he will manage that financially if he does get round to it. Me and his Mum suspect he will move back home (if we let him)!.
I think perhaps some tuition at school into living within your means might be in order, exactly what is meant by that, and the potential outcomes of not doing so.
|
"I think perhaps some tuition at school into living within your means might be in order, exactly what is meant by that, and the potential outcomes of not doing so."
Couldn't agree more. People seem incapable of saving these days, guess that's partly because with minimal interest rates there's little incentive to do so. First time home buyers are getting older and older which is partly down to this desperation to impress their peers with the latest toys rather than save for a deposit. I hate debt, unless it's the type I can write off against tax. Had part of my mortgage interest written off against tax for use of an office and storage in the family home.. worth remembering for anyone who's self employed.
Another thing that should be drummed into young people is the need to protect your credit profile. Too many friends and acquaintances of mine have bad debt, CCJ's and entered into voluntary agreements without thinking about the consequences. One recently tried for a mortgage and was refused, he's 40 and likely to be stuck wasting money renting for life. Another took out a car loan through a guaranteed finance firm at a crippling rate approaching 30% APR. By comparison I recently took an interest free credit card to put the cost of my wedding on rather than use my savings with 30mths interest free (not that my savings will earn much but better in my pocket than anyone else's) and can borrow through my bank for a car if I should chose at 2.9%APR.
Few, even those who make the effort to hunt down a good deal on a motor even think to negotiate or shop around for the finance and all too often throw away any savings on higher interest rates than they needed to pay. Car finance is rarely (unless manufacturer subsidised) the cheapest way to buy a car.
Edited by SLO76 on 04/08/2017 at 11:37
|
"I think perhaps some tuition at school into living within your means might be in order, exactly what is meant by that, and the potential outcomes of not doing so." Couldn't agree more. People seem incapable of saving these days, guess that's partly because with minimal interest rates there's little incentive to do so. First time home buyers are getting older and older which is partly down to this desperation to impress their peers with the latest toys rather than save for a deposit. I hate debt, unless it's the type I can write off against tax. Had part of my mortgage interest written off against tax for use of an office and storage in the family home.. worth remembering for anyone who's self employed. Another thing that should be drummed into young people is the need to protect your credit profile. Too many friends and acquaintances of mine have bad debt, CCJ's and entered into voluntary agreements without thinking about the consequences. One recently tried for a mortgage and was refused, he's 40 and likely to be stuck wasting money renting for life. Another took out a car loan through a guaranteed finance firm at a crippling rate approaching 30% APR. By comparison I recently took an interest free credit card to put the cost of my wedding on rather than use my savings with 30mths interest free (not that my savings will earn much but better in my pocket than anyone else's) and can borrow through my bank for a car if I should chose at 2.9%APR. Few, even those who make the effort to hunt down a good deal on a motor even think to negotiate or shop around for the finance and all too often throw away any savings on higher interest rates than they needed to pay. Car finance is rarely (unless manufacturer subsidised) the cheapest way to buy a car.
Quite right SLO76. A friend of mine had been going through some hard times (I've had my fair share, including periods of being out of work during the recession of 2008 - 2012 ish) and said he was glad he'd taken out insurance cover on his credit card in case he couldn't pay off the bills. I had to then point out a few home thruths, such as:
a) he couldn't keep spending on the card after activating the insurance policy (i.e. if you can't pay it off, the policy pays up to that point and no more - he thought he could keep on spending on it) and that as such it would be harder to get a credit card/other loans/this type of insurance next time round, and;
b) he had been spending far more than me generally (too much to mention), including on cars (one that was obviously a complete dog's breakfast) and his mortgage (he was still on a rate of 7%+ when fixed rates generally were at about half that and SVRs lower still - he was paying nearly twice as much per month as me despite the mortgage being about the same) despite him earning £10k less than I was. After looking at his finances, I saw that he could remortgage with only a small penalty (about 1 month's mortgage payment) and be in the black within a few months, and still far better off after the new fixed term ended and it went over to an SVR (I assumed a 1-2% rate rise).
So many people these days spend first and think about the consequences later, especially when they (as he did, and to an extent, still does) don't save for the proverbial rainy day or retirement, not because they don't have much income, but because they spend way more than they need, don't look for (genuine) bargains, have little common sense and, as you say, don't live within their means.
As others have said, its only ever worth taking a 'punt' (i.e. a risk) on an expensive item such as a luxury or sports car (new or old) if you can, like betting, afford to lose the money. A former work colleague had a 'money pit' project of doing up a DB5 (a weekend car only), but he was near to retirement and could afford it. Of course, now that its fully restored to its former glory, its worth several £000k...though I wonder how much he had spent on it to get in that order.
|
|
|
|
What seems to me to been passed over in this thread, is that this desire to have the 'in car', regardless of cost, starts at a much younger age with smart phones.
Before phones it was the correct brand and model of sports footwear, stupidly overpriced for poor quality far eastern tat...again letting them fund the things out of their own allowances (increased for such items) soon put a stop to that.
And i shall never forget delivering a mk2 or 3 Fiesta CVT auto to a Ford Direct garage, perfectly horrid car, somewhere in Norfolk if my memory serves, it was stupidly cold but the sales chap told me he wasn't because...cue the walking make model on a crass tv advert...'i'm wearing North Face'' or whatever it was, and he promtly showed me the label with a smug flourish...not sure if my underwhelmed response was quite what he had in mind, plainly the berk was still mentally aged 14.
I'd already formed a dsilike to him, the CVT box in those and Escorts of the time must rank as one of the most awful boxes ever fitted to any car at any time, i asked if they were taking this one on for any particular reason (few were sold and enjoyed), but he assured me he could palm it off on some unsuspecting 'little old lady', you know those moments when you have to control the urge to put someones lights violently out..
Edited by gordonbennet on 04/08/2017 at 11:39
|
|
Cars a re no different from shares on the stock exchange. Everybody likes a risky punt every now and again but there can be rewards too. Only spend what you can afford to lose!
|
Cars are no different from shares on the stock exchange. Everybody likes a risky punt every now and again but there can be rewards too. Only spend what you can afford to lose!
I don't buy that. It's certain that 10 years later, or soon after, a new car will have very little value, unless it is pretty unusual. At least most shares go up (sometimes) as well as down.
|
|
|
|
"I'd already formed a dsilike to him, the CVT box in those and Escorts of the time must rank as one of the most awful boxes ever fitted to any car at any time, i asked if they were taking this one on for any particular reason (few were sold and enjoyed), but he assured me he could palm it off on some unsuspecting 'little old lady', you know those moments when you have to control the urge to put someones lights violently out..
They were horrid things. I was always acutely aware of how dangerous they could be in the hands of an elderly driver as they featured no low speed creep to allow safe manovering and parking. You really did need to drive with your left foot on the brake to stay in control and even then progress was jerky. I tried to swing them into Mitsubishi Lancers and Colts instead or even an Astra but for some it just had to be a Ford...
Edited by SLO76 on 04/08/2017 at 13:36
|
|
|
|
My youngest son (just turned 16) often tells me of instances where other kids have deliberately broken their phone, so they can get their parents to replace it with the latest model!.
This sounds just like my sisters son, who 'lost' his phone charger as he wanted a new phone. I blame my sister as when he was young (about 5) she bought them £300 gameboys and when he lost it and I asked him about it, he replied "it doesn't matter as my mum will buy me a new one".
My daughter has a Chinese brand smart phone which I paid less than £50 for and if she breaks it, she is working at McDonalds to buy the next one.
|
|
Chinese brand smart phone
You dont have to break them, they break themselves and can be dangerous, so be carefull what you get...
|
Chinese brand smart phone
You dont have to break them, they break themselves and can be dangerous, so be carefull what you get...
They're also packed with spyware. Avoid Chinese phones.
|
Chinese brand smart phone
You dont have to break them, they break themselves and can be dangerous, so be carefull what you get...
They're also packed with spyware. Avoid Chinese phones.
The big brands are fine and just as well built as anything else...which is not a surprise as they tend to make a lot of the non-Chinese branded ones as well.
|
|
|
|
Chinese brand smart phone
You dont have to break them, they break themselves and can be dangerous, so be carefull what you get...
Just like iPhones that are also (or at least were) made in China. If I remember correctly iPhones were made by Foxconn in China.
I'd put money on the fact that whatever device you use to access this forum is at least part manufactured in China like most computer parts or components today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<< Stupid things need highlighting otherwise then could become accepted practice. >>
I think you may be overestimating the influence of this forum, or your pontifications on it ?
|
|
Cars are already very cheap to run. Just compare the cost with trains. What makes them expensive is the stupidity and/or vanity of owners.
Be clear what your real needs are - if you do 40k + a year you may like something reasonably large, unstressed and comfortable. If you do sub 8k mostly local urban miles you need nothing more than a 1.2L max city car.
You do not need new - paying for the pleasure is a short lasting pleasure. After 6 months it is unambiguosly S/H anyway.
Don't sign up to PCP or lease deals - mostly you are paying a premium price to cover lease company costs, overheads, interest, profit contribution etc
Two options - (1) bangernomics if you know how to sort out most probles yoursel, or (2) buy a one year old at 40-50% to list, 2 years+ warranty, keep it until it starts to cost real money (6-8 years)
Ignore this if you can afford it - otherwise join the queue of fools who wonder why they always financially challenged.
|
|
Since my first car in 1961 I've had about 30 cars: only the last two were new. (paid cash for.) Bangernomics was the way I managed for 40+ years, still have the socket sets, trolley jacks and ramps etc, still sometimes used on grown-up daughter's car, she has followed my example of sensible spending.
(Some might call us typical Yorkshire folk, like Scots but with the generous streak removed)
..
|
|
|
Cars are already very cheap to run. Just compare the cost with trains. What makes them expensive is the stupidity and/or vanity of owners.
Be clear what your real needs are - if you do 40k + a year you may like something reasonably large, unstressed and comfortable. If you do sub 8k mostly local urban miles you need nothing more than a 1.2L max city car.
You do not need new - paying for the pleasure is a short lasting pleasure. After 6 months it is unambiguosly S/H anyway.
Don't sign up to PCP or lease deals - mostly you are paying a premium price to cover lease company costs, overheads, interest, profit contribution etc
Two options - (1) bangernomics if you know how to sort out most probles yoursel, or (2) buy a one year old at 40-50% to list, 2 years+ warranty, keep it until it starts to cost real money (6-8 years)
Ignore this if you can afford it - otherwise join the queue of fools who wonder why they always financially challenged.
Most cannot get out of the rut and no matter what people say getting out of a deep debt situation is almost impossible for most, being told they are in the wrong can be harmfull to health one way or the other and suspect most will take whats said with a pinch of salt
also for some that have severe challenges like bad pay still have to pay their way even if they cannot afford it, so when people start telling others not to get into debt really need to know the situation some are in!
|
|
What is the point of being debt free if you lead a boring life with old unreliable cars.
I bought two 3 year cars back in the 70's, both one owner low mileage cars with full history and both were total rubbish. Bought new (or pre-reg) ever since. Getting on the new car ladder was expensive the first time but once I was on it there was no problem keeping on it. Never had any reliability issues since and changing to new every 4 or 5 years has cost no more than changing used more regularly.
Bought our last 3 cars on either PCP's with manufacturer contribution or 0% finance. Buying with cash would have cost more.
I intend to keep on buying new cars (on cheap finnace if available) for as long as I am alllowed to drive. My next purchase will be something expensive and stupid, possibly a BMW 140i.
You only come this way once and I do not intend fopr people to comment that I was careful with money after I am gone. Enjoy it while you can, if I have more than the cost of my funeral in the bank when i die I have cocked up badly.
|
I intend to keep on buying new cars (on cheap finnace if available) for as long as I am alllowed to drive.
That's fine, Skidpan, you are feeding the supply chain the bangernomics crew depend on. But (recalling the title of this thread) it seems you have rather more means to live within than those people the thread is really about. It also allows you not to think twice about changing your oil rather more often than John F.
|
|
|
What is the point of being debt free if you lead a boring life with old unreliable cars.
I bought two 3 year cars back in the 70's, both one owner low mileage cars with full history and both were total rubbish. Bought new (or pre-reg) ever since. Getting on the new car ladder was expensive the first time but once I was on it there was no problem keeping on it. Never had any reliability issues since and changing to new every 4 or 5 years has cost no more than changing used more regularly.
Bought our last 3 cars on either PCP's with manufacturer contribution or 0% finance. Buying with cash would have cost more.
I intend to keep on buying new cars (on cheap finnace if available) for as long as I am alllowed to drive. My next purchase will be something expensive and stupid, possibly a BMW 140i.
You only come this way once and I do not intend fopr people to comment that I was careful with money after I am gone. Enjoy it while you can, if I have more than the cost of my funeral in the bank when i die I have cocked up badly.
Everyone has different priorities and shouldn't be criticised for it unless blatantly reckless. If you're in a stable position, have a mortgage or paid it off and can afford it then why not buy a new motor? If you're renting or living with Ma then I'd say it's unwise but then that's just my view.
Instead of buying new cars I chose to buy old sub £2k cars and to overpay on my mortgage to allow me greater freedom now. It can be done very cheaply with a bit of know how and I've never found them unreliable but it's not for everyone and now I have a young family and no mortgage I've bought new myself last time for safety sake. Though I'm sure the poor salesmans eyeballs were bleeding by the time I extracted my deal from him.
|
|
Skidpan, old cars are not always unreliable, nor are they boring. Most older cars are far more interesting than the gizmo laden stuff ,manufacturers now inflict upon us. I'm not bothered what people say about me after my day, after all I won't be here to hear. Some people might say about you, 'no wonder he had only just enough to cover his funeral costs, he spent it all on new cars'.
A client, worth over a million ££, drives a 10 year old Ford, bought at 5 years old. Mileage is under 6,000 a year. His Ford has only done 65,000 miles. He won't buy new because he considers new cars a waste of money. He still enjoys life with lots of day and evenings out and of holidays abroad.
Mrs Fb's father always had secondhand Fords, content with them too but had always hankered after a Merc. He saved by buying used and about twenty years ago bought a mid 90's E-class diesel estate. Still going strong at 200,000 miles or so, no desire to change, enjoys life and not at all bored.
Glad people are addicted to new cars, more cheaper cars for those with more sense than money or just realise there's more to life than a new car every three or so years. Or have virtually no interest in cars apart from it gettying them from A to B.
|
A client, worth over a million ££, drives a 10 year old Ford, bought at 5 years old. Mileage is under 6,000 a year. His Ford has only done 65,000 miles. He won't buy new because he considers new cars a waste of money. He still enjoys life with lots of day and evenings out and of holidays abroad.
Warren Buffett's daughter said he never buys new cars and that he usually buys cheap secondhand cars, at the time of her doing the interview she said his car was a hail damaged car that had been repaired and she usually has to give him a hint when it's time for him to buy a new one.
|
Skidpan, old cars are not always unreliable, nor are they boring. Most older cars are far more interesting than the gizmo laden stuff ,manufacturers now inflict upon us
Never said old cars are boring but I could never agree an older car is more interesting because its lacks gadgets.
Some people might say about you, 'no wonder he had only just enough to cover his funeral costs, he spent it all on new cars'.
They can say what they like. If I am living my life as I want its fek all to do with them.
|
|
<< They can say what they like. If I am living my life as I want its fek all to do with them. >
Ah, another masterly one-liner. I expect most people think roughly along those lines, but usually express it in a less curmudgeonly manner. :-)
Edited by Andrew-T on 05/08/2017 at 16:18
|
|
|
|
Skidpan;
"What is the point of being debt free if you lead a boring life with old unreliable cars."
Yes agreed, unless of course you are saving up for a BMW 140i ;-)
"I intend to keep on buying new cars (on cheap finnace if available) for as long as I am alllowed to drive. My next purchase will be something expensive and stupid, possibly a BMW 140i."
Like it; - Watch those speed humps though! as I bet they will be around for a long time yet regardless of the gov. statements. Oh and what not a tesla then?
"You only come this way once and I do not intend fopr people to comment that I was careful with money after I am gone. Enjoy it while you can, if I have more than the cost of my funeral in the bank when i die I have cocked up badly."
What no kids to leave a few morsels to? I'm in a similar position but have a problem spending the damn stuff. I was brought up (as per previous posts by others) in the era when parents taught us not to have debt. This explains why I can't quite agree to PCP's.
Also I'm being put off airports/flying experience, didn't enjoy my first and last cruise (one only and never again) must be getting old and grumpy/cantankerous.
"Bought our last 3 cars on either PCP's with manufacturer contribution or 0% finance. Buying with cash would have cost more."
I can't quite do the maths on the above surely a good cash deal via an online broker would be better?
Edited by frankly on 05/08/2017 at 12:12
|
"Also I'm being put off airports/flying experience, didn't enjoy my first and last cruise (one only and never again) must be getting old and grumpy/cantankerous."
Pay extra to use the lounge. Food and drink is free so it usually pays for itself anyway and you get space to breath. A few quid extra for speedy check in too is worth it once a year too. I'll never que in an airport again with the great unwashed.
Amazed you didn't like the cruise. We did one in the Caribbean and loved it so if you're struggling to spend your ill-gotten gains send some my way and I'll help. ;-)
|
unless of course you are saving up for a BMW 140i ;-)
Not saving up. When circumstances change and we no longer need the Note a 140i or something similar will appear on the drive.
Like it; - Watch those speed humps though! as I bet they will be around for a long time yet regardless of the gov. statements.
Not many bumps round our way. Cannot remember teh last time I drove over one.
Oh and what not a tesla then?
Like the idea of one but until they cost the same as a similar conventional car and will do at least 500 miles on a charge I am not interested.
"Bought our last 3 cars on either PCP's with manufacturer contribution or 0% finance. Buying with cash would have cost more."
I can't quite do the maths on the above surely a good cash deal via an online broker would be better?
We have bought 2 of our last 3 cars from a broker (Carfile) and have still had the PCP with full contribution. Carfile saved us about £2500 when we bought the Leon on a PCP and about £3000 when we bought the Suoerb on 0%.
But when we bought the Note the local dealer was so keen to get our money we got the better trim spec with PCP and contribution for the same price as Carfile was offering a lower spec.
In both PCP's we have settled early and pocketed the contribution after paying minimal interest.
|
|
Life is never boring with an old unreliable car.
|
|
But SP, you are clearly living within your means and that is just fine, the point of this thread was that many people want similar but don't have the means to support a new car purchase or fix a prestige German model which frequently turn into momey pits. It's the ME ME ME NOW culture that's likely to see a load of folk underwater come the next downturn. As an example of unwise PCP sign ups, directly across the road is a student daughter who has somehow just signed into a deal on a brand new VW, she has no income and a whole load of student debt. The previous car is only 3 years old but is cast aside like last year's i phone. Next door to her is another PCP daughter, just signed into a £260 a month deal, about to give up part time minimal wage hours to be a full time student. Used like this the PCP is the most self destructive, financially reckless plan I have ever come across.
|
|
Is there a study somewhere that confirms people who have old unreliable cars lead boring lives?. Otherwise I can't see the connection?.
Also not sure how paying a car via 0% pcp deal could be cheaper than buying it cash. I'm no math whizz but surely the cost would be the same?.
Each to their own, but personally I find modern cars relentlessly dull with no character or individuality to them. They are so stifled with safety features it's like driving under anaesthetic.
Give me a volvo 122 estate (with an electric power steering kit) or a classic Saab 900GLE.
Failing that a >£1000 Kia magentis or hyundai sonata V6 for smoking about in reliable (if slightly thirsty), cheap as chips, luxury!.
|
|
If you can afford you should feel free to buy whatever motor you want.
If you can't afford it and buy a new or expensive car you are simply behaving like an idiot - obsessed with bling, image, unneccessary levels of performance etc, forever complaining how unfair your lot in life is. You need to get real.
And there is a middle path with which many of us can probably identify with - do you want fancy cars, nicer holidays, more nights out at good restaurants, desigher clothes etc. Most have to decide what their own priorities are to live within their means.
|
Each to their own, but personally I find modern cars relentlessly dull with no character or individuality to them. They are so stifled with safety features it's like driving under anaesthetic.
Give me a volvo 122 estate (with an electric power steering kit) or a classic Saab 900GLE.
Failing that a >£1000 Kia magentis or hyundai sonata V6 for smoking about in reliable (if slightly thirsty), cheap as chips, luxury!.
Amen to that. Getting out of my car and into a modern design astounds me with the lack of visibility and blackness inside - it's like driving your own coffin.
|
|
<< Getting out of my car and into a modern design astounds me with the lack of visibility and blackness inside - it's like driving your own coffin. >>
I know what you mean. The most recent car I have driven is a 2010 MINI, but getting back into my 205 was a revelation, it's always nice (and a good idea) to be able to see out.
Designers have been raising the waistlines of cars for a long time now, I presume to increase the volume in the boot. It may be trendy, but I don't think it is sensible. But if one looks back far enough (pre-war) many cars had pillar-box rear 'windows'.
|
|
Andrew-T, I believe the raising waislines is due to NCAP pedestrian safety ratings. Bonnets are raised to allow for more room between top of engine and bonnet to allow bonnet to deform and absorb some impact, just my thoughts. Thicker pillars are another negative of making cars stronger because designers can't be bothered to engineeer vehicles better. Hence the rise in cameras/sensors because drivers can't see out. Also allows designers to create ghastly coupe style SUVs.
Very few cars have any interior coulour options. It's either black..................or black with dots/stripes/motifs/odd patterns etc.
|
Andrew-T, I believe the raising waislines is due to NCAP pedestrian safety ratings. Bonnets are raised to allow for more room between top of engine and bonnet to allow bonnet to deform and absorb some impact, just my thoughts. Thicker pillars are another negative of making cars stronger because designers can't be bothered to engineeer vehicles better. Hence the rise in cameras/sensors because drivers can't see out. Also allows designers to create ghastly coupe style SUVs.
Very few cars have any interior coulour options. It's either black..................or black with dots/stripes/motifs/odd patterns etc.
That may be part of the issue, but it isn't all of it. Our new Honda jazz is an incredibly safe car (though I admit I don't know the specific results regarding pedestrian impact), but it has a lot of glass. Certainly not as much as a citroen C3 Picasso, but pretty good. Compare that to a range rover evoque, an SUV with ridiculously small windows, which, imo, reduces the safety of the car due to how limited your view out is. It has a much higher waist line than the jazz and there is no reason other than styling for the windows to be as shallow as they are. I pity the children who have to travel in the back of cars like this, not being able to see out.
But hey, if having an evoque (or any other cars with a deep waist and shallow windows) improves the perceived social status of the parents, that is more important than their kids seeing out, like they would in the aforementioned C3 Picasso, right?!.
|
|
The Evoque is a coupe SUV, hence the small windows.
|
|
The Evoque is a rather ugly lump of extreme bling, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
Old cars will be reliable if they are regularly maintained, like any piece of machinery. A lot of commerical airliners are ancient but still provide excellent service. Some company in the USA is still using a Dakota DC3 for research.
There was an excellent article of an OLD MB GWagen going round the world twice. It turned out the owner got the car effectively re built every ten years or so and it never failed him. You pays your money and live by the result.
I drive an old French diesel auto, and spend my spare cash on my boat.
|
Old cars will be reliable if they are regularly maintained, like any piece of machinery. A lot of commerical airliners are ancient but still provide excellent service. Some company in the USA is still using a Dakota DC3 for research.
There was an excellent article of an OLD MB GWagen going round the world twice. It turned out the owner got the car effectively re built every ten years or so and it never failed him. You pays your money and live by the result.
I'm sure there's a joke about brooms lasting years, having four new heads and two new handles there...
Seriously (as per my reply earlier about my former colleague's DB5) though, if anyone's got the money, ANY car can 'seem' to last a long time/mileage. Older cars (like older plane) may last a long time with a lot of TLC, but they are mostly made of aluminium, far more polluting and noisy if they keep their original enines (I suppose planes are different as they have engine 'pods' which can be more easily upgraded to modern ones should the owner want or need/have to) and significantly less fuel efficient than newer ones.
Its only been the useless 'artificial' laws to pretend cars should be less poluuting whilst letting manufacturers get away with real-world polluting (I'm not talking specifically about Dieselgate, but the poor emissions testing by the EU for cars which allow many dodgy practices, such as removing seats and taping up door gaps etc) that's lead to so many cars that have had overly complex engines/parts just to satisfy the idiot politicians and bureaucrats about polution, whilst in reality doing very little to improve air quality (in fact, in the UK, making it worse when many users switched to diesel when they shouldn't have done after government encouragement), increase the cost of motoring through lower reliability and now money being spent on lawsuits after Dieselgate etc, most of which will end up in fat cat lawyers pockets and not do much for the average person in the street.
I would say that 'living within our means' (or not) as regards owning cars is a direct analogy to the same in the rest of life and government. People care too much about appearances (or style) and not enough about achieving something worthwhile (substance). Sadly its normally those that door 'live within their means' that have (and it seems, will again soon) to pick up the pieces and pay for those idiots who don't. I'm beginning to resent why we should, especially if we get no benefit in the long term because the lesson we teach (however nicely andin basic terms it is put across) isn't heard...once again.
|
|
<< .... making it worse when many users switched to diesel when they shouldn't have done after government encouragement >>
At the time I think the reasoning was that we should use less fuel, which we presumably did, but as usual there were unintended consequences.
<< I'm beginning to resent why we should ... >>
Does that mean if you can't beat 'em you are going to join 'em? Surely not ... :-)
|
<< .... making it worse when many users switched to diesel when they shouldn't have done after government encouragement >>
At the time I think the reasoning was that we should use less fuel, which we presumably did, but as usual there were unintended consequences.
<< I'm beginning to resent why we should ... >>
Does that mean if you can't beat 'em you are going to join 'em? Surely not ... :-)
To answer your first comment - the encouragement to change from petrol to diesel (whatever the annual mileage/usage pattern) was SOLELY for reducing CO2, based again, solely on the EU test data, and nothing to do with real-life testing and, frankly, a whole wealth of data that already existed that proved that diesels emitted high concentrations of NO and particulates, both of which are very harmful to respiratory health, especially in cities and in hot, still weather. IMO, the then government knew about this research, but kept quiet to be 'good little Europeans'.
To answer your second question, no, I'm not, just that I (and it seems others) get fed up of trying to educate and warn, and so would let some at least fail and take the consequences personally. Whilst the 'not living within your means' goes on all around the world, we (perhaps not as bad the our American cousins) seem to be one of the worst (on a personal level rather than nationally, though we certainly don't have anything to crow about on that front), but I am seriously considering moving abroad to countries that DO bother to take this (and other) issues far more seriously than we apparently do.
|
I'm sure there's a joke about brooms lasting years, having four new heads and two new handles there...
Seriously (as per my reply earlier about my former colleague's DB5) though, if anyone's got the money, ANY car can 'seem' to last a long time/mileage.
Very true but, I think cars could and should last alot longer with proper care and servicing. As has been said already in this thread, cars are now classed as almost disposable devices.
Many people just do not look after a car, never check oil, coolant, etc. at resonable intervals and then cry "my car let me down!" when they are on the hardshoulder with a seized engine wholly caused by their lack of general care of what for most people is the second largest purchase after buying a home.
Then you have those who refuse to have their cars serviced based on the fact the cost of a service can be almost the same as the value of their car. So they work on the basis of I'll drive it until it dies then go and spend thousands on a new or newer secondhand car.
As much as I like cars, I also realise they depreciate like a lead balloon which makes me look after the ones I have rather than buying new every x amount of years. Doing all my own servicing they cost very little to maintain properly. Probably averaging £50 a year for service items most years. Our Astra has now done 125,000miles with just normal servicing and other consumable items like exhausts, a battery, a few brake pipes replaced for kunifer and tyres. All the time I can keep it running for minimal costs it will stay, if it needs a new engine then it will be time to part with it.
Edit: just to add, my cars are almost all old enough that they have got to the stage where they have almost stopped depreciating year on year. I can measure it in pounds or tens of pounds rather than hundreds or thousands.
Edited by Wackyracer on 06/08/2017 at 13:01
|
Old cars will be reliable if they are regularly maintained, like any piece of machinery. A lot of commerical airliners are ancient but still provide excellent service. Some company in the USA is still using a Dakota DC3 for research.
There was an excellent article of an OLD MB GWagen going round the world twice. It turned out the owner got the car effectively re built every ten years or so and it never failed him. You pays your money and live by the result.
I'm sure there's a joke about brooms lasting years, having four new heads and two new handles there...
Seriously (as per my reply earlier about my former colleague's DB5) though, if anyone's got the money, ANY car can 'seem' to last a long time/mileage. Older cars (like older plane) may last a long time with a lot of TLC, but they are mostly made of aluminium, far more polluting and noisy if they keep their original enines (I suppose planes are different as they have engine 'pods' which can be more easily upgraded to modern ones should the owner want or need/have to) and significantly less fuel efficient than newer ones.
Its only been the useless 'artificial' laws to pretend cars should be less poluuting whilst letting manufacturers get away with real-world polluting (I'm not talking specifically about Dieselgate, but the poor emissions testing by the EU for cars which allow many dodgy practices, such as removing seats and taping up door gaps etc) that's lead to so many cars that have had overly complex engines/parts just to satisfy the idiot politicians and bureaucrats about polution, whilst in reality doing very little to improve air quality (in fact, in the UK, making it worse when many users switched to diesel when they shouldn't have done after government encouragement), increase the cost of motoring through lower reliability and now money being spent on lawsuits after Dieselgate etc, most of which will end up in fat cat lawyers pockets and not do much for the average person in the street.
I would say that 'living within our means' (or not) as regards owning cars is a direct analogy to the same in the rest of life and government. People care too much about appearances (or style) and not enough about achieving something worthwhile (substance). Sadly its normally those that door 'live within their means' that have (and it seems, will again soon) to pick up the pieces and pay for those idiots who don't. I'm beginning to resent why we should, especially if we get no benefit in the long term because the lesson we teach (however nicely andin basic terms it is put across) isn't heard...once again.
Given that the quoted MPG of new cars is utter fantasy, and emissions are directly linked to MPG, does it not therefore stand to reason that modern cars are much less clean than we think they are?.So does it then not follow that new cars are not as much cleaner than cars from, say the late 90's or early 00's than what it may seem?
Take for example an Audi A2 1.4 petrol VS a new A1 1.0TSI.
We can assume that the A1 is not going to get very close at all to its quoted average of 67MPG, probably in real life managing high 40's, maybe 50 at a push. The A2 however, i seem to recall, will actually achieve its quoted average of 46MPG. Which is not a great improvement at all. The A2's engine is not very powerful at 75bhp, but it is low stressed, and doesn't have much weight to pull (i think around 900kg). Also, the A2 is vey aerodynamic, much more so than the A1, so it doesnt require a lot of power to maintain the speed limit.
Progress?
|
As an example of unwise PCP sign ups, directly across the road is a student daughter who has somehow just signed into a deal on a brand new VW, she has no income and a whole load of student debt. The previous car is only 3 years old but is cast aside like last year's i phone. Next door to her is another PCP daughter, just signed into a £260 a month deal, about to give up part time minimal wage hours to be a full time student. Used like this the PCP is the most self destructive, financially reckless plan I have ever come across.
Hmmm. If PCP fixes your costs for problem free motoring with a three year warranty to fall back on then it has some attractions. Perhaps the bank of Mum and Dad is helping. Not much point in having a car at Uni though unless one is either commuting from home or on vocational course with placements to be travelled to.
I don't think outstanding student loan is an issue. It's not like other debt where payments have to be made whatever or risk foreclosure and whole sum becoming due and payable. She will start paying it when she earns enough. It's a graduate tax in all but name.
|
|
|
|
buy a one year old at 40-50% to list, 2 years+ warranty, keep it until it starts to cost real money (6-8 years)
Ignore this if you can afford it - otherwise join the queue of fools who wonder why they always financially challenged.
Unfortunately it is hard to get 1 year old cars at 50% off these days. I used to buy them at auction ex government fleet (I am in Australia). That is out now. Mannhiem have the auction contract and they have big charges for private buyers. Also the government is buying more popular cars now and they get better prices at auction. Maybe it is better in the UK. Out here a 2 lt auto hatch costs about $23,000 new on the road. A two year old second hand one is about $17,000 at auction (more at the dealers). With the new one you can always haggle the price down if you shop around at the right time of the year. The one the wife bought we got $3000 off a new Hyundai i30 so it wasn't worth buying secondhand.
As for cars lasting 6 to 8 years and costing serious money that hasn't been my experience. I would expect a well maintained, carefully driven car to last at least 15 years. Finally we always buy cars for cash. If we can't save up the cash to buy them then we couldn't afford the payments either.
|
Given that the quoted MPG of new cars is utter fantasy, and emissions are directly linked to MPG, does it not therefore stand to reason that modern cars are much less clean than we think they are?.So does it then not follow that new cars are not as much cleaner than cars from, say the late 90's or early 00's than what it may seem?
Here are some more examples.
The last large petrol car we had before going diesel in the mid 90's was a 1.8 Bluebird. It possibly had 85 PS on a really good day and was a slug. On our twice a year trip to Scotland it would just about manage 35 mpg.
Move on 10 years and we had a 2,0 TDCi Mondeo 130 PS. It had a real turn of speed and on the Scottish trip would average about 50 mpg.
Move on 15 years from buying the Mondeo and we have the Superb 1.4 TSi 150 PS. Again it had a real turn of speed and will do just over 50 mpg on the Scottish trip.
None have got anywhere near to official figures but in my opinion real progress has been made.
|
|
<< None have got anywhere near to official figures but in my opinion real progress has been made. >>
Progress has certainly been made in improving output from engines and reducing fuel consumption. Unfortunately much of the gains have been negated by making cars heavier and fatter. Diesel will always provide 20-30% more mpg than petrol, other things being equal, but as fuels are measured by volume rather than weight, which is a better indicator of energy content, that's not surprising.
|
<< None have got anywhere near to official figures but in my opinion real progress has been made. >>
Progress has certainly been made in improving output from engines and reducing fuel consumption. Unfortunately much of the gains have been negated by making cars heavier and fatter. Diesel will always provide 20-30% more mpg than petrol, other things being equal, but as fuels are measured by volume rather than weight, which is a better indicator of energy content, that's not surprising.
Fuel energy density isn't the only reason diesels consume less fuel - the "compression-ignition" process gives a more complete fuel burn and wastes less energy to heat.
|
Diesel will always provide 20-30% more mpg than petrol,
Not in the real worl in my experience.
The 96 Golf TDi 90 PS would manage about 56 mpg on a Scottish run.
The 02 Mondeo TDCi 130 PS would manage about 50 mpg on a Scottish run.
The 05 Focus TDCi 110 PS would manage about 56 mpg on a Scottish run.
The 10 Ceed CRDi 115 PS would manage about 56 mpg on a Scottich run.
The 13 Leon 1.4 TSi 140 PS would manage about 50 mpg on a Scottish run.
Only done one Scottish run in the Superb 1.4 TSi 150 PS so far and its still very new but it managed just over 50 mpg for the week.
So comparing the best to worst there is only a 12% difference but the Superb is much bigger than the Golf, Focus and Ceed and probably heavier as well. Its also way quicker without having to extract every last bit of performance to overtake on A roads.
The similarly sized Mondeo and the Superb did more or less the same mpg and performance of both was/is more than adequate for overtaking. But the Mondeo would belch clouds of black smoke out when you asked it to give its best wheras the Superb does no such thing.
Theory is one thing, facts prove current engines are way better.
Considering comments made by owners of 150 PS diesel Superbs there is no way one of those would be 30% better and HJ's real mpg sugggests its only 19% better than I am currently averaging. Using those figures it would take me 80,000 miles to break even and during that time create way more polution.
|
|
I struggle to believe the mpg claims of these small turbo petrols in large cars, or in small ones for that matter.
The 1.2TSI 105 in our Roomster DSG has averaged a true 37.9mpg from new, over about 13,000 miles. It does a fair number of short hops, a typical journey would be 9 miles each way to the shops, but it struggles to do 42 on a decent run. It is not driven hard, and as a DSG it is choosing its own gears and rarley breaks 3000rpm.
Even allowing that it is shaped like garden shed with a coal bunker on the front, it hardly seems worth having such a complicated engine - it is the older design known for the chocolate timing chain/tensioner, although as 2014 MY it should be the improved version, and it should not signify anyway - but like its successor this is a very complex engine, aluminium block, open deck for lightness and thermal efficiency, iron liners, separate cooling circuits and thermostats for block and head, turbo with intercooler(s), active coolant pump, direct injection. There is almost nothing about it that is not complicated - even the brake force, augnebted by a conventional servo, is augmented in normal use by the ABS hydraulics.
Then there's the DSG gearbox.
Had I been able to buy the older 1.6 NA engine and tiptronic gearbox version in 2014 I would have preferred it. It only does 4,000 miles a year. It's predecessor 1.6 auto Honda Civic did over 30mpg and never ailed anything in 12 years.
The boss likes it so it will probably be kept until it breaks; we might as well take the hit if that happens and save the cost of changing it sooner - I wouldn't buy a three year old one, but already owning it there's little financial sense changing it early.
What I will say is that it drives very well - and because it produces useful power from 1500rpm it feels very lively.
There will however be no going back, having regard to the efficiency. emissions, environment, even though the current approach rather misses the point. Most everyday cars are far more powerful than anybody needs and so intrinsically wasteful and excessively polluting in the hands of people who don't drive rationally, such as 50% of the drivers in Milton Keynes who get up to 60-70mph between roundabouts less than a mile apart just before they slam the brakes on.
Edited by Manatee on 07/08/2017 at 11:46
|
|
"I struggle to believe the mpg claims of these small turbo petrols in large cars, or in small ones for that matter."
Skidpan and I can only go on what we find, as indeed can you. SWMBO's Audi A1 1.4 TFSI (125 bhp) averages 45 mpg on a tankful ( a creditable 400 miles) of mixed short and long runs. That's checked brim-to-brim, although the trip computer seems to be unusually accurate. It'll do 52 mpg on frequent return trips from Dorset to Berkshire: if we went to Scotland in it, I'd be confident of getting 55 mpg.
So it may be a matter of aerodynamics, or different gearing between the 1.2s and 1.4s. Ours is a manual but DSG is not supposed to penalise consumption as a TC auto normally does.
|
"I struggle to believe the mpg claims of these small turbo petrols in large cars, or in small ones for that matter."
Skidpan and I can only go on what we find, as indeed can you. SWMBO's Audi A1 1.4 TFSI (125 bhp) averages 45 mpg on a tankful ( a creditable 400 miles) of mixed short and long runs. That's checked brim-to-brim, although the trip computer seems to be unusually accurate. It'll do 52 mpg on frequent return trips from Dorset to Berkshire: if we went to Scotland in it, I'd be confident of getting 55 mpg.
So it may be a matter of aerodynamics, or different gearing between the 1.2s and 1.4s. Ours is a manual but DSG is not supposed to penalise consumption as a TC auto normally does.
Quite right - I think that the 'Real mpg' figures HJ (and now some other motoring sites) publishes is really the best way of getting a reasonable average, then at least we can apply our own factors that may increase or decrease those figures (its good that a range of mpg figures is shown as well), such as type/location of roads driven on, loads carried, driving style, weather conditions, etc. Besides that I'm a reasonably light-footed driver (not always), I've been generally lucky that most of my driving has been on faster-flowing roads.
An ex-colleague of mine (a few years ago now) wondered why he was getting only low 30s from his similar powered (he had a 1.6 petrol Focus ro my Mazda3 1.6 petrol) to my (average over the year) 41mpg for similar journey patterns. He said he didn't carry any heavy stuff in the car (including the boot) and didn't drive with a heavy right foot (similar to me). I then pointed out he had been driving his car with the (empty) roof cargo carrier box still in place months after his summer holiday, which, whilst it looks streamlined, compared it not being there, it isn't. He removed it that weekend and in the next few months his car's average mpg (over the year) rose by 3-4.
I also sometimes wonder when people quote mpg figures whether they are using the 'brim-to-brim' method or just reading off the trip computer, which often isn't accurate (often pure luck if it is), technically even using the odometer can read out by good few percentage points, especially when the tyres are worn and thus the diameter is a bit less.
I agree that technology has advanced quite a lot, but we can't really compare most same-named cars from 20-25 years ago with those of today as (as others have said) they've grown in size and weight to account for all those safety features, gadgets etc. My old K11 (mid 90s) 1.0 Micra weighed around 775kg and I could get an amazing 52mpg (far more than the combined 47mpg) average, whilst the latest one weighs just over a tonne, is 15bhp+ (in base form [not the 0.9T] as mine sort-of was) more powerful but could probably achieve a higher mpg figure than my old car did (official combined figure is 61.4mpg) if driven in the same manner. More complex stuff to go wrong on it though...
I think, going sort-of back to the main thrust of the thread as it links to the above, I think quite a lot of people buy the wrong car for the job required, such as buying what looks like a 'fuel efficient' small-engined diesel or petrol car, but which is underpowered for the use its put to. This could be because its worked in a very hilly area, or carries reasonable loads/passengers often, or that the owner's driving style is wrong for that car - say labouring the engine by changing up too soon or having to really boot it to get any sort of ok performance out of it, both of which significantly reduce mpg and increase engine wear. Similarly buying a really powerful car when you're doing only urban driving and rarely get about 30/40mph.
I agree with many of the comments about people, and especially those under 40, treating cars as 'throw-away' objects such as mobile phones (how they get rid of something after two years that costs £500 when new is beyond me) and scrimping on servicing/maintenance (especially oil and tyres) and thinking that 'rolling over' debts from one PCP contract to the next (being in debt [other than the mortgage - far more important than buying a flashy car] for years and years paying off interest) when they can barely afford to run the car, buy or rent a decent home or put any money aside for a rainy day or emergency (roof leak/boiler replacement) fund.
Another example of this was another former work colleague who owned a very nice (on the surface) German diesel-powered car, but he was on less money than me and scrimped on the servicing. I mentioned one day that I'd seen some oil dripping from under his car and it would be worth getting it checked pronto, but he said 'oh its okay, I know about that' and forgot about it, only to find a few days later that a) the entire contents of the oil in the engine had leaked onto his driveway (costing a fortune to clean up itself), and b) before noticing the major oil leak, he'd tried to start his engine in the morning to go to work and had in the process (no oil left) destroyed the engine. A very expensive lesson to learn.
|
|
Many years ago, I was part of a management level which offered fully-expensed company cars, with one exception we all chose '85 Vauxhall Cavalier SRi 1.8s - since we had identical cars, the finance department processing our fuel receipts could ensure no-one was fiddling - problem was that variable use and different driving styles gave stangely similar answers.
The warehouse manager, with a very short commute got 27mpg - the accountant's very long commute gave him 27mpg - my boy-racer driving, lugging a caravan on holiday and topping my wife's car up each week still gave 27mpg.
The only time I've been able to reliably use figures from elsewhere was when the UK had "steady 75mph" figure which is what I used to get at 70.
|
|
<< technically even using the odometer can read out by good few percentage points, especially when the tyres are worn and thus the diameter is a bit less >>
I've sometimes wondered about this. Tyres begin life with perhaps 8mm of tread, and we are meant to change them when this drops to 1.6 or so - a drop of 6mm in the radius of a wheel, which is 300mm or much more on modern bling cars. So a maximum of 2% change in rolling radius, allowing also for compression where the wheel sits on the road. So we must also assume tyre pressures are correct. I doubt that most people's calculations of mpg are accurate or reproducible to within 2% - or ± 1mpg.
Presumably as a wheel 'shrinks' it will do more revolutions to the mile, so apparent mpg will fall ? On the other hand, the engine will find it marginally easier to propel the car.
Is there any seriously scientific proof of this efect?
|
Presumably as a wheel 'shrinks' it will do more revolutions to the mile, so apparent mpg will fall ? On the other hand, the engine will find it marginally easier to propel the car.
Is there any seriously scientific proof of this efect?
My lorry is calibrated limited to a genuine 55mph, when the drive axle tyres are recut and due for renewal that can be down to 53mph on GPS (call it 1.5 mph cos its probably 55.3 and 53.7 or summat), don't ask me what the difference is in rolling radius 295/80 x 22.5 the size, they start with i believe 14mm of tread which can be recut maybe another 5mm, renewed at 3mm so 17mm of usable tread, i used to know the exact recut and tread depths when i was in the tyre game but that was back in the days of cross plies, and i used to recut a damn good copy of a Pirelli Carriload pattern i'll have you know..:-) and cut the original side sipes back in on other makes for water clearance which no one seems to bother with any more.
Haven't noticed too much fuel difference but it makes sense that the distance travelled must be less, that is something i have never taken note of despite being on regular journeys.
|
resumably as a wheel 'shrinks' it will do more revolutions to the mile, so apparent mpg will fall ? On the other hand, the engine will find it marginally easier to propel the car.
Is there any seriously scientific proof of this efect?
One thing at a time. Taking your 2% as correct - I'd guess 12mm out of c. 600mm diameter so it sounds the right range
The gearing will be a but lower, but that is unlikely to have a material effect on real mpg (at the same speed).
The reported speed will be increased by 2% (as it is proportional to wheel rpm) so the driver will probably drive c. 2% slower if he uses the speedometer. That would tend to improve (increase) mpg slightly.
The reported distance travelled, for an identical journey, will be increased by 2%, as it is also proportional to the total number of wheel revolutions.
So I think the calculated mpg will improve (increase) by roughly the same proportion as the wheel diameter decreases, maybe plus a little bit for the lower average speed.
If the driver measures his speed using GPS, you might get a very slightly different answer. The measured miles will still be 2% higher, the speed will be the same (losing a bit of benefit compared with using the speedo) bandthe gearing is shorter at cruise so the answer might be a smidge lower.
|
|
“Progress has certainly been made in improving output from engines and reducing fuel consumption. Unfortunately much of the gains have been negated by making cars heavier and fatter. Diesel will always provide 20-30% more mpg than petrol, other things being equal, but as fuels are measured by volume rather than weight, which is a better indicator of energy content, that's not surprising. “
Not that I am selling Mazda 6 but after a quick google;
“ The framework incorporates ultra-high tensile-strength steel in critical areas to help make it lighter, “
"High-tensile steel comprises 58 percent of the Mazda6's body ... That's a few pounds lighter than the Honda Accord....3,183 pounds "
In the Mazda 6 sport petrol I currently get 44 mpg just mainly normal usage, no commute, with more short shopping trips it can dip to 42 mpg, with longer trips on motorways it easily improves on this to 46 . The best achieved on long A roads was 48 mpg. I run with full size spare and trolley jack, some tools etc with two peeps. Pretty good IMHO for a 2 ltr petrol.
My old Passat 1999 tdi estate (still running with new owner sold with 191,000 mls) was better but at best would indicate 72 mpg but really was at most 60 mpg.
So yes I would agree some progress has been made, but it's a shame nowadays you can't get a modern VW passat diesel as good as the old one!
|
|
|
As expat has said very well if you cannot afford to save up and buy a car outright I also agree that you are not in a position to buy with payment either it is out of your reasonable price range.
Also a well engineered car should last a minimum of 15 years and 200k miles in my opinion. Any less is poor engineering or poor maintenance or simply being unlucky such as it being written off etc.
What a strange world we live in, one day the finance culture will have to stop but sadly it will be too late for many that will have already spent their financial future and have to work until they are 70 and still perhaps even then will be short of real assets and simply have a history of debt and chasing the latest 'premium' German engineered 'executive' vehicle.
|
|
I remember a gentleman saying he felt the life of his BMW 520i he bought at retirement in 1994 should be 250,000 miles. It was very nearly that, expiring 22 years later and over 230,000 miles later. He had an interesting motoring life with 4 pre-war cars to amuse him until the end of his life, including a Bentley 3-litre and a Rolls-Royce.
|
|
Looking at my work colleagues I'd estimate half of them are "me me me must have now" idiots, they are a pay packet from poverty - these are supposedly intelligent professional people! I've had this conversation from one of the beemer pcp lemmings when he was choosing "his" next car, I said "what if you lost your job? Instead of a sellable asset you're tied into repayments you cannot possibly make, instead of flogging the motor cheap to pay your mortgage, you'd end up bankrupt." He just strugged his shoulders, said I'm jealous and carried on picking his next debt burdon. You can't help some people!
|
You can't help some people!
No they can't be helped and they can't be told, they'll just have to learn the hard way like so many others did in times gone by when they lost their houses, i just hope their relationships can stand the ''for worse/for poorer'' side of things when the coming downturn kicks in.
Brexit will handily be to blame no doubt, nothing to do with p'ing money you haven't got up the wall, oh no, and this forum needs a face palm smiley.
|
Looking at my work colleagues I'd estimate half of them are "me me me must have now" idiots, they are a pay packet from poverty - these are supposedly intelligent professional people! I've had this conversation from one of the beemer pcp lemmings when he was choosing "his" next car, I said "what if you lost your job? Instead of a sellable asset you're tied into repayments you cannot possibly make, instead of flogging the motor cheap to pay your mortgage, you'd end up bankrupt." He just strugged his shoulders, said I'm jealous and carried on picking his next debt burdon. You can't help some people!
We really shouldn't be trying... we do need someone to buy them new for us to get the bargains later on.
|
Looking at my work colleagues I'd estimate half of them are "me me me must have now" idiots, they are a pay packet from poverty - these are supposedly intelligent professional people! I've had this conversation from one of the beemer pcp lemmings when he was choosing "his" next car, I said "what if you lost your job? Instead of a sellable asset you're tied into repayments you cannot possibly make, instead of flogging the motor cheap to pay your mortgage, you'd end up bankrupt." He just strugged his shoulders, said I'm jealous and carried on picking his next debt burdon. You can't help some people!
We really shouldn't be trying... we do need someone to buy them new for us to get the bargains later on.
Perhaps, but often the rest of us end up paying for such people via taxes or lower savings rates to subsidise IVAs which lots of people use as a backstop for their unhealthy spending habits, giving them little incentive to behave better the next time. I think softening UK bankruptcy laws whilst encouraging irresponsible borrowing and lending was one of the worst things the then government could've done.
|
Looking at my work colleagues I'd estimate half of them are "me me me must have now" idiots, they are a pay packet from poverty - these are supposedly intelligent professional people! I've had this conversation from one of the beemer pcp lemmings when he was choosing "his" next car, I said "what if you lost your job? Instead of a sellable asset you're tied into repayments you cannot possibly make, instead of flogging the motor cheap to pay your mortgage, you'd end up bankrupt." He just strugged his shoulders, said I'm jealous and carried on picking his next debt burdon. You can't help some people!
We really shouldn't be trying... we do need someone to buy them new for us to get the bargains later on.
Perhaps, but often the rest of us end up paying for such people via taxes or lower savings rates to subsidise IVAs which lots of people use as a backstop for their unhealthy spending habits, giving them little incentive to behave better the next time. I think softening UK bankruptcy laws whilst encouraging irresponsible borrowing and lending was one of the worst things the then government could've done.
Perhaps they have an unemployment insurance policy? Or just consider it won't happen to them! (I know from bitter life experiences one day someone else becomes "me") I bet they feel good when drawing up in the car park in front of family & friends in a shiny new BMW etc ... very possible they all have similar finacial arrangements!
|
|
Not sure how I feel about the general sentiment of this thread.
If people stuck rigidly to the idea of 'live within means' then hardly anybody would have a car at all, as most cars are 'purchased' through a variety of loan/finance/contract hire schemes and only the super rich can realistically afford to buy brand new cars outright.
I accept that many people can be unwise in how they spend money but above that I'd say life is too short to be a righteous dullard in a grey suit saving every 13p and never having anything fun in their lives, preaching about how people should be forced to save for 152 years before they buy anything.
The OP mentioned performance cars going cheap. Personally I think the chronic depreciation on cars is fantastic as the flip side of the argument is this; it's staggering what you can get for relatively little money once a car is a few years old. Yes you need to have a bit of savvy to keep these things going but if you know what you're looking for you can do well.
|
|
I know of a woman, nearly 50, recently divorced & lives quite well despite only working part-time. She receives her salary for 18 hours work, some alimony (limited to another 5 years) - rented home, PCP car, latest phone etc etc - you could say she lives within her means.
Unfortunately the alimony finshes in 5 years & she has no lump sum of cash/share assets, no pension, next to no savings.............just announced she is going on a £2000 holiday for her 50th "birthday treat".
In my opinion she is living up to the limit of TODAY with no thought for tomorrow, if she were to fall ill, her retirement in some 16 years & possibly how to live for another 20+ years.
|
In my opinion she is living up to the limit of TODAY with no thought for tomorrow,
I take the point but it does sound a bit sycophantic if I may say. At 33 I take the view that I might get killed by something tomorrow so I don't think too far ahead. You only live once and the moment you start serially pennypinching because retirement is 20 years away, you're pretty much dead already.
Edited by jamie745 on 14/08/2017 at 23:25
|
"I take the point but it does sound a bit sycophantic if I may say. At 33 I take the view that I might get killed by something tomorrow so I don't think too far ahead. You only live once and the moment you start serially pennypinching because retirement is 20 years away, you're pretty much dead already."
I get the argument for living for the moment (I do it now) but I'm glad I made the sacrifices when I was in my 20's and 30's to be able to live in comfort in my 40's now while working part time doing a job I enjoy. There's always a happy medium and while I believe I'm in that middle ground my older brother is at the opposite end of the spectrum to yourself. He works 7 days a week, takes one 3-4 day holiday a year and begrudges every penny he spends with an eye on some future which he can relax with his pot of gold yet every retirement target he sets he's pushed back further and further. He'll wait until it's too late to enjoy life.
You'd've disapproved of my life as I lived well within my means, only borrowed for property and overpaid my mortgage rather than buy expensive cars or holidays. It's not that I didn't appreciate them, I take at least two foreign holidays a year now but I hated the thought of borrowing to do it and while you have debt of any kind then all non-essential spending is on borrowed money which is costing you in interest.
As far as cars are concerned, I've ran older cars for decades and found the freedom that comes from not having the associated debt is hugely liberating. Buy wisely and they can be utterly reliable and as enjoyable if not more so (think smug factor from beating the system) to own.
Only now with no debt that I've bought newer cars although this was largely to do with hierarchy dictate than any desire to impress the neighbours.
We all think differently and thank goodness we do otherwise how boring a world this would be but that doesn't mean those who do it differently are wrong. Today it's impossible to tell someone's financial position from the car they drive. When I was running a 14yr old Honda Civic I was making more than any of my Porsche or BMW driving friends, I was just choosing a different path and I was very much alive and happy all the way through.
|
In my opinion she is living up to the limit of TODAY with no thought for tomorrow,
I take the point but it does sound a bit sycophantic if I may say. At 33 I take the view that I might get killed by something tomorrow so I don't think too far ahead. You only live once and the moment you start serially pennypinching because retirement is 20 years away, you're pretty much dead already.
Your retirement's going to be very dismal then - have you actually thought about the statistical chance of dying before retirement - it's not high and reducing due to advances in medical care.
At 33 now, you're likely to retire at 75 and die over 100 - but could be earlier or later.
|
|
Realistically I know the only way the Government will ever balance its books is to make sure people of my age range never get to retire at all. They'll need to miss a generation out as they can't afford the pensions so I don't expect to ever retire. I'll be working until I'm dead.
At 33 though I just can't imagine being old enough to retire and the thought of planning for it today is awfully depressing - mind you it wasn't that long ago I couldn't have imagined being 30.
|
Realistically I know the only way the Government will ever balance its books is to make sure people of my age range never get to retire at all.
The books cannot be balanced, the debt is not repayable, it has gone too far and the work ethic (being self sufficient, living within your means) isn't there in western europeans in sufficient numbers, that 39 hour week working lark interferes too much with living the dream.
The welfare state will be picking up ever higher bills for at least the next two generations, and before the usual mainstream media propaganda of it's all the fault of the oldies gets aired, No it isn't.
As for financing retiring, the inevitable results of western europe's policies of self destruction will put affording to retire into perspective, i wonder if the electorates will ever realise they willingly voted turkey/Christmas like for what is coming.
|
"The books cannot be balanced, the debt is not repayable, it has gone too far and the work ethic (being self sufficient, living within your means) isn't there in western europeans in sufficient numbers, that 39 hour week working lark interferes too much with living the dream.
The welfare state will be picking up ever higher bills for at least the next two generations, and before the usual mainstream media propaganda of it's all the fault of the oldies gets aired, No it isn't.
As for financing retiring, the inevitable results of western europe's policies of self destruction will put affording to retire into perspective, i wonder if the electorates will ever realise they willingly voted turkey/Christmas like for what is coming."
The problem with democracy is the irrationality of the electorate. They vote based on who gives the most in magic money tree giveaways rather than seeking sound longterm fiscal planning. Woe betide any politician who stands up to tell us the nation should live within its means. The outcry and wailing about evil Tory austerity is deafening when the reality of so called austerity is simply a push to balance the books by restricting the runaway growth in public sector spending to allow growing tax receipts to overtake it.
This is working, the economy is growing, unemployment has collapsed, ordinary working people are paying far less in income tax and public services are still running fine but as we seen with the last election the electorate are fools and easily swayed by an old communist whos policies would plunge Britain into a Venezuelan style economic disaster.
This lesson has sadly got to be learned over and over and over again... socialism and giveaway politics never work. If you dislike a politician or a party because you believe they're promoting austerity style policies then ask yourself why they don't (as with left wing politicians) promote the free stuff for everybody campaigning that is so popular among the uninformed and irrational, It's an easy road to power. It's more often than not the one who's standing there telling you that you can't have everything you want and that you must take responsibility for yourself that's telling the truth or as close to it as a politician can get.
Edited by SLO76 on 16/08/2017 at 08:20
|
|
<< The problem with democracy is the irrationality of the electorate. They vote based on who gives the most in magic money tree giveaways rather than seeking sound longterm fiscal planning. >>
The 'problem with democracy' is simpler than that. The big problems most of us grumble about call for long-term solutions. Politicians may believe in those, but for them the priority is winning another term in office. That is at most five years ahead, usually a lot less. And when you factor in the differences in opinion within each party, it's no wonder that it all becomes short-term expediency.
|
Realistically I know the only way the Government will ever balance its books is to make sure people of my age range never get to retire at all. They'll need to miss a generation out as they can't afford the pensions so I don't expect to ever retire. I'll be working until I'm dead.
At 33 though I just can't imagine being old enough to retire and the thought of planning for it today is awfully depressing - mind you it wasn't that long ago I couldn't have imagined being 30.
One of the problems that has plagued every generation of the past is the under-funding of pensions - although not noticeable to those on generous index-linked final-salary schemes, it's very noticeable to their employer and to all those on less generous pensions.
Being a numerate anorak, I was pension planning before I started work full time, setting at target of early retirement at 50 on a fully-funded pension out of my earnings.
I soon realised that setting a target % of earnings as pension contribution doesn't work when you're young as apprentice wages leave little extra for anything - and conversely it still under-funds at the peak of a career.
My solution was an ever encreasing % of earnings as pension contribution, starting at 5%, gradually ramping up to 25% (the maximum then allowed under HMRC rules, it may be different now) by the time my career peaked in my late '30s.
The other problem with pension funds is the way they're managed - the "managers" take relatively high charges out of the fund despite investing in ultra-safe low-return investments - in what is now a Self Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) you can do that yourself for virtually zero charges - what's needed is a system where pension managers are paid on performance, with penalties if it's negative.
Having always "lived within our means" I was able to retire at 52 still within our means despite 4 redundancies and mortgage at 16% interest.
Modern generations though have a totally different idea of "living within their means"
|
|
Welcome back Jamie - nice to hear from you again. There is a middle way, and in general I agree with both you and SLO's original post.
If I remember right, you bought a Jaguar which was a few years old, but it seemed well looked after and you allowed for possible repair costs. I hope it continued to do well for you. But there are many who use up all of their budget buying a prestige make, or even worse a diesel prestige make, and like Falkirl Bairn's acquaintance leave nothing for the future.
These are the ones whom SLO (who is in the motor trade and knows his stuff) counsels into something Japanese or Korean and petrol-powered, but he is a latter-day Cassandra: absolutely the right advice but it isn't what Arthur Punter wants to hear.
|
As far as cars are concerned, I've ran older cars for decades and found the freedom that comes from not having the associated debt is hugely liberating. Buy wisely and they can be utterly reliable and as enjoyable if not more so (think smug factor from beating the system) to own.
This I can agree with. I personally have never bought a car on finance as I just find the whole idea shockingly poor value for money - however I do understand why 'non car people' do it. They can't be doing with hunting for a decent used car, they don't know what they're looking for and wouldn't back their own decision. They'll pay whatever it costs to have trouble free motoring with the dealer sorting everything out and if you know absolutely nothing - or have little interest - in cars then I understand that point of view.
Personally I am not afraid to pick up something cheap which needs some work and getting it done up. I can walk around what most people would term a box of s*** and tot up in my head '£300 to fix that, £500 to do that...' etc and factor that in to what I'm paying for something. I have a few cast iron but simple rules I'd stick to - don't buy anything which shows any signs of electrical problems and check for cambelts etc if applicable.
Welcome back Jamie - nice to hear from you again.
Thanks Avant, nice to see you again too.
That Jaguar S-Type of which you speak is now 11 years old with over 110k on the clock and it's still in mint condition and still works fine. It doesn't look it's age hiding behind my numberplate.
It needed an alternator and rear silencers (the petrol V6 has a twin exhaust) last year, but that was replacing the original parts which had lasted 10 years which isn't bad in my view.
The electric locking for the boot acts up occasionally and the parking sensors can be a bit temperamental but nothing major. The plenum chambers needed resealing earlier this year - too much air was getting in the system and the car was compensating by adding extra petrol, bringing the consumption down to 17mpg until it was fixed, but that was a very simple fix.
I've had it for around six years now if you can believe that and I am looking at getting something else - perhaps p/x it against an XK. I had looked at the new XE and although some of the PCH deals aren't completely unreasonable, I just couldn't bring myself to go for something like that.
I believe in maintaining cars properly, I have a very good local independent who sorts out anything I can't do. I've never been to a main dealer in my life but it's serviced when needed and I always put decent tyres on any car I own. If I buy a car with noname tyres and lots of tread, I'll ditch them immediately and put Pirelli/Vredestein on it.
Edited by jamie745 on 15/08/2017 at 00:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
