|
Given that you have quite a time between buying and selling, your challenge is to find a vehicle that will still be a current model when you come to sell it. While there may be exceptions, selling the last of the old model is normally much harder than selling the first of the new model.
|
|
My cousin sold his 2001 jan 51 X5 3.0 d sport privately for 24000 pounds (38000 new) - approx 60% retained value nuff said
|
When the 4x4 hybrids come on song (the lexus is here, the others are coming) the petrol and diesel values will crash - big time, possibly even due to legislation (possibly in the way of punitive city charges) against them.
|
When the 4x4 hybrids come on song (the lexus is here, the others are coming) the petrol and diesel values will crash - big time, possibly even due to legislation (possibly in the way of punitive city charges) against them.
I don't entirely agree with this, have you seen the price of the Lexus hybrid !!!
|
I shall be driving one within the next two weeks....
|
I shall be driving one within the next two weeks....
RF, we'll be expecting a full report!
|
|
|
|
My cousin sold his 2001 jan 51 X5 3.0 d sport privately for 24000 pounds (38000 new) - approx 60% retained value nuff said
Was that what he paid for it, or was that the base list price at the time? I only ask, 'cos X5's can have several grands worth of options, which somewhat distorts the RV %.
|
Maybe the time has come for manufacturers to look again at introducing budget 4x2 versions of some SUV's - ideal for the suburban school run, significantly lighter, cheaper and with less frictional transmission losses than even a selectable type 4x4 operating in 2-wheel drive. Unless you want off-road capability these vehicles would be perfectly adequate.
After all, BMW now do a 4-cylinder version of the Z4 and some MPV's are available as 5 seaters - similar dilutions of the original concepts.
Even Land Rover made 2-wheel drives - several hundred rear-wheel drive series 1 and 2 models were built for the RAF for use on airfields. These are now sought-after by collectors despite their limited off-road capability.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
Ajit
Er, if it was a January car on a 51 plate it's actually a 2002 car
JS
|
|
Could be 2001 model year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My view is that petrol 4x4's will become harder to shift but disesls will remain as popular as ever.
Piece on Men and Motors used car show this week made exactly that point. Petrol X5 showing much heavier depreciation at 2 years. Presenter's line was that graph would flatten out at this point and that depreciation in years 3 on would be much lower.
Was not convinced.
|
>> My view is that petrol 4x4's will become harder to shift >> but disesls will remain as popular as ever.
Yes it isn't very wise to buy a 4x4 with a petrol engine with fuel costing what it does today.
I suppose if you really must buy one of these monsters it should at least have a diesel engine.
In fact why doesn't someone start a discussion thread entitled "why do people want 4x4's" excluding farmers and specialist towing contractors.
|
In fact why doesn't someone start a discussion thread entitled "why do people want 4x4's" excluding farmers and specialist towing contractors.
I didn't really get it until I drove 2 SUV's in the US this year. You do get a feeling of invincibility, which I'm sure a lot of women, and men with small appendages, like. The other thing is that you've got many different cars in one - they're as close as is realistic to get to all-purpose vehicles.
|
I can answer the "why do people want 4x4's" question.
With a small child (buggy etc to carry), a job that requires visits to building sites that quite often are just fields, a house that is up a farm track and also a dog, there are few cars durable or big enough. Thats why I chose a Hyundai Terracan. It might only do 26mpg, but the fuel card looks after that, the insurance is 40% cheaper than the Golf I had, with other running costs similar.
|
|
|
"and men with small appendages, like"
Not many men would be modest enough to make that admission, Bill!!!!
Phil
|
"and men with small appendages, like" Not many men would be modest enough to make that admission, Bill!!!! Phil
It's why I'm perfectly happy in a little tiny car :-)
|
I liked the high driving position in my late, lamented Land Rover 90. However, despite all the Forth Rail Bridge type over-engineering**, I was conscious that even with seatbelts on, one's head was very close to the windscreen, drivers door window / frame etc. in the event of a collision.
I have to say I don't regret swapping 19 mpg for 50 mpg. Must have saved over £2000 since I discovered VW TDI motoring!
**didn't stop the chassis rusting, though!
Cheers, SS
|
Well Roly, lets ask what you drive. Hmmmm?
I need to tow from time to time, I ski several times a year in out of the way places, I also do 15,000 min each year commuting. I also spend a lot of time in the wilder parts of Dorset with a sheep or two for company in the back.
So do I get two cars? Or one that can do both.
|
|
Assuming that the government is sensible enough to base road charging on the size or wieght of the vehicle then the bubble should burst.
|
Er, so Ford Galaxies and the like will get priced off the road at the same time.
Goooooooood move.
This weight thing is a bit of a non-starter too. Most 4x4s have a relatively low pressure footprint (weight per square inch contact) as otherwise they'd sink into the mire and keep on sinking. Look at the footprint of a tyre on a large 4x4 and compare it with a typical 1.9 diesel hatchback, then look at the weight.
Weight alone doesn't cause the damage to roads, but weight concentrated on a small footprint will cause greater damage than if it is spread over a wider area. It was this argument that allowed larger trucks on our roads as the weight is spread across more axles/tyre area/footprint.
|
Well Roly, lets ask what you drive. Hmmmm? I need to tow from time to time, I ski several times a year in out of the way places, I also do 15,000 min each year commuting. I also spend a lot of time in the wilder parts of Dorset with a sheep or two for company in the back. So do I get two cars? Or one that can do both.
I drive an A4 Avant Tdi 130.
It will tow most reasonable stuff like speedboats, caravans etc, does a consistent 50Mpg at 'normal' motorway speeds.
As I said previously, I do acknowlege that some people have reasonable need for 4x4's as it seems you do.
However replies from people who do not need them at all (except for the school run) seem absent !
|
>>Assuming that the government is sensible enough to base road >>charging on the size or wieght of the vehicle then the bubble >>should burst.
I am against road pricing. Fuel duty is, in effect, a pay as you go vehicle-use tax which is also related to a vehicle's economy or otherwise. If we didn't already have fuel duty someone would invent it and it would be hailed as the fairest and simplest form of road-use taxation.
If one wants to do more to encourage use of economical cars because of the finite supplies of oil, then extra new-car tax should be levied on new vehicles that do not achieve, say, 50 mpg in controlled simulated everyday conditions (proper 7 seaters could be exempt if they do more than 40 mpg).
There could be an even higher tax band for cars that do less than 25 mpg.
In return, purchase of vehicles that do 60 mpg plus could actually be subsidised.
Cheers, SS
|
Ideally, the above tax idea would be EU-wide so the figures aould be metric!!
Cheers, SS
|
"proper 7 seaters could be exempt if they do more than 40 mpg"
Even when occupied by only one person?
Phil
|
|
With the proposed (if im corect) extra tax for large engines the luxuty 4x4 market will probably dip slightly however the amount of trafic carming will still persuade the urban motorist to opt SUV.
|
Here we go again...
Lets ban any car that has more driven-wheels, seats, horsepower, emissions, weight or toys than mine has UNLESS the owner can PROVE he needs them.
Do people on the forum really believe we need MORE governmental control of motoring?
|
>>Do people on the forum really believe we need MORE governmental control of motoring?
Where it's necessary - yes!
Otherwise - no!
Cheers, SS
|
>>"proper 7 seaters could be exempt if they do more than 40 mpg"
Even when occupied by only one person?
I was suggesting this as a tax on the purchase of new cars. So it wouldn't depend on the number of passengers in a 7 seater.
I'm guessing that a good proportion of 7 seaters are bought by people who need the seating capacity at least some of the time. In these circumstances it's unlikely that anyone would be tempted to buy a 7 seater solely to take advantage of a one-off tax concession.
I was not suggesting this tax SHOULD be imposed, but rather that IF additional taxation of motoring is inevitable, this would be a sensible form. Clearly the thresholds I suggested would tend to favour diesel vehicles.
Cheers, SS
|
|
|
|
|
|
