With an invitation like that, Patently, I cannot resist say something about residual values. Sadly the relevant thread has been locked, so I beg your indulgences for the opportunity to respond...
My last car had a residual value of nil. Nothing. So depreciation was 100%. (Actually, that's not quite true, as I got some second hand fuses & lightbulbs out of it, half a tank of petrol & a couple of litres of ready-diluted screenwash out of the bottle. Oh yes, and one or two useful screws, bolts & jubilee clips, and a nearly new licence-disc holder. And then I loaded it with rubbish that the council took away as well. So depreciation was about 99.5%.) And that over 12 months as well.
Patently however, spends £35,000 on a swanky new motorcar so that his Cambridge-educated Mrs P. (which college? I might know her...) can drive about with excellent residuals. Let's be generous and suggest that after 12 months his residual value is 80%, and so his depreciation is 20%.
At which point, I shall take my hat off to you, Patently ;). (It must be a Panama at this time of year, I think.) You've managed 79.9% less depreciation than I have.
But then I'm probably ahead by £6,801, so who is laughing now? You need to think about more than your residual value! (Admittedly, fortunately I don't have an expensive wife (!) who likes aircon.)
|
These are the original arguments (I'd been avoiding that thread...):
i. Ken might not be aware of this, but Mrs P has a degree from Cambridge and is, IMHO, slightly more intelligent that he is.
Me too. Of no relevance however.
ii. We need a large family car if we are to take everyone out, say on holiday. Which is more idiotic; taking that car on the shortish journey to the school and sending me to work (100 mile round trip) in a smaller car, or vice versa?
Agreed. It wasn't always the case - my father's long commute in the 80s would have been unbearable in the small cars my mother had at the time.
iii. Mrs P is 5'1" tall. She needs a high driving position if she is to see out. In today's market, this means an A-class, Scenic, or a 4WD.
So why not an A-class or a Scénic? Actually scrub that, we know the A-class is rubbish.
iv. I insist on a car with decent residuals (go away mapmaker!). She insists on utter reliability.
I'm with MapMaker on the idea that pound notes, not percentages, matter. Assuming Patently has 'overpaid' by £30k, then 3% after tax interest has to be added (£900). However I think an X5 loses an exceptionally small amount of cash, say 12%, which makes it a total of £5100. That means that the one year cost is about £4,900 more.
v. I have seen the crash test photos for the superminis she "should" be driving.
And the Scénic? Or if reliability matters, the Corolla Verso?
Add ii. to v. together and produce a shortlist. Only one name on the list, sadly.
I agree that the X5 can be better value for many people. It's my favourite 4×4 (except possibly the Touareg) and depreciates very little, so if you have the cash it's hard to make an argument against it as an overall package. However there's no point in trying to take the X5 to the 'low cost, environmentally friendly motoring' fight, because frankly, a Daewoo Matiz has it beaten, even if the X5 does better than you might expect. It knocks spots off say, a £20k Mitsubishi Shogun 'Sport' (yeah right) on those grounds, for instance.
|
v. I have seen the crash test photos for the superminis she "should" be driving. And the Scénic? Or if reliability matters, the Corolla Verso?
There are two sides to the safety equation: the safety of the vehicle's occupants, and the safety of those outside it.
The X5 is probably marginally ahead on the safety on occupants, but cars of that sort are way behind the likes of the Scenic on safety of others. It's not just NCAP pedestrian safety (Scenic 2-star, X5 1-star), but the statistically-proven tendency of large 4X4s to mulch other vehicles on impact: see, for example, the NHTSA's testimony to congress at commerce.senate.gov/pdf/runge022603.pdf
I suppose, on a narrow view of residual values, the X5 wins: residual value of the people involved in a crash with an SUV is four times likely to be zero.
|
Please don't, no, wheel be moderated out of existence...
I don't give 2 hoots about the original thread! (And the mulching belongs with the compost heap & garotta thread...)
|
|
|
|
iii. Mrs P is 5'1" tall. She needs a high driving position if she is to see out. In today's market, this means an A-class, Scenic, or a 4WD
Or any car with a height adjustable seat. I'm sure this increases the choice from the three to hundreds!!
|
Hello mapmaker.
I did appreciate that the cash loss on an X5 would be magnified by the high initial value. Hence my invitiation to mapmaker... Nevertheless, the percentages involved are (today) still small. The X5 is in a bit of a strange position and I see no reason not to take advantage of that.
As for the height issue, she had an A class before the X5 and we thought it to be excellent for the type of driving she was then doing - i.e. shortish runs around a town centre. But we moved, the nature of her driving changed radically, and the A-class was sounding distinctly asthmatic. She was also a little alarmed by the sight of me trying to get a 5 off a drive with a short incline of about 1 in 1 or 2, in the snow.
There are also issues with driver confidence ... the flip side of everyone else's comments about 4x4 drivers. Put the average driver in a 4x4 and they get a bit above their station. Put a timid driver in and s/he thinks s/he might be able to cope now.
Last point, I think, is the relative safety of occupants vs passers-by. I'm sorry to say that my concern is for the occupants. After all, I'm human.
I think this is probably the last that I'm going to say on this subject!
|
What does it take to get the message across? WILL YOU LEAVE THE 4x4 THING ALONE FOR NOW PLEASE!!!!
Good grief..... I'm off to find some Nurofen.
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Relax, ND. Try driving in a nice comfy armchair that effortlessly wafts serenely along, above the traffic, all bumps absorbed in the generous suspension travel, ...
[I'm sure you can work out where this is going...;-) ]
|
|
W123? Speedbumps at 30, no problem. And best of all, a nice wide gap between the wheels, so no problem with those horrid saucer-shaped speed bumps that are designed to irritate Polo & Cinquecento (-plus-quite-a-few-cc-more-than-500) drivers.
|
|
|
|
I did appreciate that the cash loss...
And there I was thinking you were stupid! Couldn't resist it...
|
Don't worry mapmaker, many have made that mistake before....
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
