To me it seems madness that cars like an Accord cost £20k but you have to remember that not many of the sales are to private people.
|
I can see where you're coming from criticising the Accord for being expensive, but the build specification (quality is not quite the right word) is a whole lot higher than cheaper cars. My Saxo was a wreck when I got rid of it at 94k (owned from 14k so it was looked after), likewise my Xsara VTR, while a nice car, was falling apart when I sold it at 84k (owned from 37k).
In contrast, my Accord Tourer still feels like new at 85k, and I'm hoping to run it to high mileages. The interior is pretty much as new, the suspension is still taught, and it still runs as silently and pulls as hard as it ever did. The only signs of ageing at all are that 3rd is sometimes a little less silky to engage than it was, especially when cold, and there is a tiny amount of movement due to wearing engine mounts that you can feel through the wheel if you dump 2nd gear onto a roundabout.
Saying that, I had a whole lot of problems with it when it was younger, but they seem to be sorted now, and it now seems to be ageing very gracefully. I'm not at all convinced this is just a Honda (or a Jap brand) thing either, Mondeos and the like seem equally well screwed together, and specified and built to last - doing that costs money.
|
I can see where you're coming from criticising the Accord for being expensive but the build specification (quality is not quite the right word) is a whole lot higher than cheaper cars.
That's very true - our Jazz is approaching 6yrs old and (touching huge piece of wood) it just feels like it will go on for ever.
We also have a 4.5yr old SEAT Ibiza that feels like it's on its last legs. And it's not just my imagination - it failed it's MOT at 4yrs / 34K miles on multiple points.
|
|
|
I can see where you're coming from criticising the Accord for being expensive but the build specification (quality is not quite the right word) is a whole lot higher than cheaper cars.
On the other hand
At 4 years and 124k my Accord had a soft front seat (understandable) and there was blue staining coming though all the seat seams and colouring the beige leather (poor quality). Other than that it felt as new.
The Octravia that replaced it has more toys (althought the sound quality of the stereo is not quite as good- it is still fine) and has done 28k in its first year and apart from a issue which arose from a collision with a Fiat (not the cars fault) has been faultless and again feels as new. It is a company car but the list price differennce was over £7k - i.e. to replace the Honda like for like would have been 40% more.
The Honda was a little quieter at speed and had better road presence and accelleration but I fully expect the Octavia to last as well - that is why taxi drivers run them.
|
|
|
|
|
OK that is one at least, one but it's not a 2 litre or above a 1.8.
All these deals are however aimed at the consumer as company usually lease.
|
It's odd that company car buyers are blamed for keeping prices high as tax is based on the list price, so you'd think there would be an incentive to pitch prices as low as possible.
I think they're too expensive at list prices - the price most nearly-new cars sell for is the price they should be when new.
It's the "cost to change" that's the killer in the UK as our used car prices are so low.
|
|
Kia Magentis 2.0GS, £12133 from drivethedeal. Decent family saloon, that.
|
|
Also, motorpoint have got Peugeot 407 2.0 saloons, brand new and unregistered for £9499. That's a deal. And 2.0 SE tip auto estates for 11,999. I was tempted with these whe I bought my Mazda 6 in February.
|
|
I drove past my Vauxhall dealer today and saw an Insignia @ £13,999 - seemed quite a lot of car for the money
|
£13999 might seem reasonable compared to the list price of £17,125.
|
|
In Europe they're even more expensive - according to this weeks Autocar a Panda 1.2 in Germany is ?10770. Here thats under £6k from a car broker. I've got a smart cdi on order thats just over £9k here, ?15k in Germany - so i'd say given the £/? rates, we're not doing too badly really.
|
|
|
Kia Ceeds are below £12k on HJs new car price search... and for 2.0L cars...
Not sure why you're worried about having to have 1.8 or 2.0, most 1.6's are just as powerful as older 1.8s and are quite easy to keep up with traffic as well as giving decent economy...
|
Yep, even the weakest VAG 1.4 TSI with 120bhp will out-gun or match all but the recent crop of 1.8s.
Who cares how big it is, it's what it can do that counts...
|
I suppose one has to ask - "too expensive for what?"
If for the OPs pocket, then maybe his arms are too short/pockets too deep :-)
Maybe the real question is, how do new car prices compare to those (say) 10, 20 or 30 years ago, as a multiple of average income (or how long does it take to earn enough to buy one)? Probably unanswerable, as cars cannot be compared like-for-like with those in the past - but might be an interesting discussion if anyone has any ideas.
|
|
I think you've hit the proverbial nail Smokie. It was once said that a Ford Escort and nowadays perhaps the Focus, in say, 1.6 litre form, are 'everyman' cars, and their price should be viewed relative to average earnings. On that basis, with the current crop of discounts, they look like good value. I think many of us aspire to larger or more desirable cars, many of which are substantially more expensive. Comparing a current 1.6 Focus to cars of 20 years ago is chalk and cheese. I'd say the Focus is a decent car and incomparable with Ford/BL/Japanes products of yore.
|
researching historical car prices I found this fascinating site.
www.britishmm.co.uk/facts004.asp
In 1956 an Austin A30 2 door cost £541 7/- which I think is somewhat over 100% of the average wage at the time and would have been unaffordable to most working men.
An infinitely superior vehicle of similar size could be now purchased for 30% of the average wage.
Fascinating page on details of 1902 motoring accidents by the way
|
over 100% of the average wage at the time
That's true, but many consumer items have dropped dramatically in cost over time. How much was a washing machine or a TV in 1956?
|
I agree with OP. Cars are still too expensive!
Don't forget that a lot of people have lost jobs or taken up new employment which pays less than previous wage. So, cars are still quite expensive. Their price should come down at least by 30%.
|
We are all to blame.
We all demand much better cars all the time because we need an excuse to buy a new one, as a result the manufacturers company spend billions on research which inflates the price of cars.
I am sure if it were allowed we could purchase a Mondeo MK1 for around £7k new but without all the standard ABS and everything it would not even be legal anymoe.
|
Don't forget that a lot of people have lost jobs or taken up new employment which pays less than previous wage
They shouldn't make cars at a loss. But an easy way of reducing cost is going back to simpler models specs. So steel wheels, no air-con, manual windows, etc. But this won't save a lot.
|
I don't follow the logic that as people have lost their jobs car prices should come down. Car makers have to make a profit (and most don't seem able to do so at the moment).
Personally, I find the *low* price of cars absolutely stunning given the sheer complexity and precision of the majority of the components. Compared to almost anything else you might buy, the car is far more complex, and contains far more precision parts.
Being able to buy a small, fully working car for £5k brand new, one that will start every time, and that will carry four or five passengers relatively safely at speeds of up to 100 miles an hour or even faster is nothing short of a miracle.
The problem is that a shift of opinion has left the car as a commodity rather than an aspiration. That means people's expectations of price have also shifted, while the complexity has if anything gone up.
|
Thinking about old car prices, heres a few if someone wants to find todays comparable model. These are from Feb 1989.
Vauxhall Cavalier 2.0 CD £12394
Peugeot 205 GTi 1.9 £10495
Honda Accord 2.0 EXi 16 £14950
Fiat 126 Bis £2789
BMW 535i SE £24995
Ford Escort 1.4GL 5dr £8410
Range Rover Vogue SE £28855
Mercedes 190D 2.5 £17250
Peugeot 405 GTDT £13195
|
|
Which proves in real terms cars are cheaper.
|
researching historical car prices I found this fascinating site. www.britishmm.co.uk/facts004.asp
Now that was interesting... shame they don't do more recent ones...
My Maxi, btw, was £3854.75 new in 1979, including a £65 radio! Its the base 1750, which would probably put it on par with a 1.6 Focus these days which seem to be just over £16k nowadays...
|
Now that was interesting... shame they don't do more recent ones...
Glad that someone is finding the old price info helpful. I have many more sources of prices (mainly copies of The Autocar and Motor, as well as several Autocar Pocket Price Guides) but it is time consuming to convert them to a suitable format.
I will add more prices eventually but will not go past the 1960 cut-off date for the site.
|
The real question is, how do new car prices compare to those (say) 10, 20 or 30 years ago?
If you go back 70 years a new car cost not much less than a new house. Anyone fancy that? You can always want to buy things for less - it's just that in this age of short-life disposables, where products are developed, marketed and obsolescent within 8 years, the value falls off very fast.
Edited by Andrew-T on 15/04/2009 at 21:29
|
Simpler spec models should definitely reduce cost. Manufactures make huge profit on high end models by charging arm & leg for metallic paint, built in sat nav, ipod connection, automatic light/wiper etc.
How on earth they can charge anything from £500 to £1000 for built in sat nav when a £50-£100 standard sat nav does the same thing?
Most people simply don't have money to buy new cars now. Majority of people used to buy car [and nearly everything else] on credit. With credit crunch, they can no longer afford buying not only cars but also things like new kitchen, sofa, LCD TV etc.
PS: Please don't compare car price with that of 30 years back. At that time a PC would have cost more than a small company's yearly revenue.
Edited by movilogo on 15/04/2009 at 21:36
|
How on earth they can charge anything from £500 to £1000 for built in sat nav when a £50-£100 standard sat nav does the same thing?
They're not quite the same though are they. Most have bigger/better screens and a gyroscope to cope with lost GPS signals. But I agree inbuilt sat nav should probably be closer to £500 premium. When I last considered a DVD based touchscreen sat nav in 2003 it was over £1700! I carried on using my TomTom.
|
>> How on earth they can charge anything from £500 to £1000 for built in sat nav when >> a £50-£100 standard sat nav does the same thing?
Then dont buy a car with a £1k plus sat nav. Its not as tho they wont let you have the car without one.
|
PS: Please don't compare car price with that of 30 years back. At that time a PC would have cost more than a small company's yearly revenue.
Why not? Its the *only* accurate way to decide if cars are "cheaper" "these days"or not.
I dont know of too many companies, even small ones, that would have survived on a revenue of £5k - even 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
