Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
Ares said:
All cars depreciate, but that can be mitigated by removing the surprise.
My car is cost me £12k cash upfront, three years at £580, then I can ether buy the car for just over £16k or just hand it back. Beyond, there are no servicing costs, no maintenance costs, it may need a full set of tyres if I decide to switch to run-flats, if not it will likely need a set of rears. It shouldn't need brake pads or discs or any other bill beyond fuel and insurance.
I also get to run around in a brand new, list price £75k car that does everything I need it to, and more. Has a better than evens chance of being 100% reliable and gives zero worry.
Running a 3-4yr old car *might* well be cheaper for the subsequent 3 years (but also *might* not be)....but will they be any more enjoyable? I don't think any of the ones mentioned would be be more enjoyable, most would be slower, but sound better - at least from the outside.
1. - its your money and your choice and I see the point why you choose to do so - it's just funny you are worried of big bills for repairs, but you approach is great for industry of course. My car is cost me £12k cash upfront, three years at £580, then I can ether buy the car for just over £16k or just hand it back. Beyond, there are no servicing costs, no maintenance costs, it may need a full set of tyres if I decide to switch to run-flats, if not it will likely need a set of rears. It shouldn't need brake pads or discs or any other bill beyond fuel and insurance.
I also get to run around in a brand new, list price £75k car that does everything I need it to, and more. Has a better than evens chance of being 100% reliable and gives zero worry.
Running a 3-4yr old car *might* well be cheaper for the subsequent 3 years (but also *might* not be)....but will they be any more enjoyable? I don't think any of the ones mentioned would be be more enjoyable, most would be slower, but sound better - at least from the outside.
2. - list price mean nothing, you have car worth £48.000 new (12.000 deposit+20.000 finance+16.000 car at the end)
3. - ok so you paid 32.000 for 3 years of using this car, if I buy that car 3 years old for let say 20.000 (good one) I can sell it after 3 years for 10.000 - so 22.000 for consumables and repairs.....you must be very unlucky to spend half of that - we talking "normal cars" here. And yes I have to "suffer" in second hand car, which is NO for many - and I understand that too.
Edited by XFR100 on Friday 4th September 10:51
hornetrider said:
Ares said:
My car is cost me £12k cash upfront, three years at £580, then I can ether buy the car for just over £16k or just hand it back. Beyond, there are no servicing costs, no maintenance costs, it may need a full set of tyres if I decide to switch to run-flats, if not it will likely need a set of rears. It shouldn't need brake pads or discs or any other bill beyond fuel and insurance.
I also get to run around in a brand new, list price £75k car that does everything I need it to, and more. Has a better than evens chance of being 100% reliable and gives zero worry.
Actually just a thought - those are PCP figures right? Why on earth didn't you lease?! Those costs are insane for a brand new GC.I also get to run around in a brand new, list price £75k car that does everything I need it to, and more. Has a better than evens chance of being 100% reliable and gives zero worry.
Doesnt seem unreasonable for a car with a £75K list price?
Translates to a third off list and interest free credit for three years basically.
Edited by daemon on Friday 4th September 11:28
daemon said:
If he pays the PCP amount, then he'll have bought the brand new car for £48,880 including all interest payments, and spread the cost over 3 years.
Doesnt seem unreasonable for a car with a £75K list price?
Translates to a third off list and interest free credit for three years basically.
Yes it isn't bad at all. He could pay the balloon and flog it to offset some of the costs, as they're worth about 30k at 3 years old. But he could do all of that with a 640/650i as well Doesnt seem unreasonable for a car with a £75K list price?
Translates to a third off list and interest free credit for three years basically.
Edited by daemon on Friday 4th September 11:28
The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.ORD said:
I hope that's a joke. If your mortgage is more expensive than car finance, you need to change mortgage! 
Not at all. It's not the rate, its the offset Too many people far too concerned about the short term deal rate rather than considering the overall cost of the loan. In comparison ANY car finance, save for wewillgivecashtoanyone.com is a poor deal. daemon said:
If he pays the PCP amount, then he'll have bought the brand new car for £48,880 including all interest payments, and spread the cost over 3 years.
Doesnt seem unreasonable for a £75K car?
Point is it's clearly not a £75k car. That's just a meaningless list price that they put to make people think they are getting a good deal. If he had bought it cash up front he wouldn't have paid £75k either. I'm presuming this is a BMW because they are the worst ones for doing the insane list price markup over the actual true price. For reference I bought a brand new M6 Cabrio with a list price of £102k and I paid £72k for it - including service plan. From what I remember (on PCP) I paid about £15k upfront and £1k per month. PCP doesn't make anything cheaper, it's just a different way of paying for it. You don't get a '£75k' car for £48k. You get a £40k car for £40k + interest & fees. Just because they use ridiculous 'list prices' which no-one ever pays does not make PCP a bargain, it's just a different way of paying for things which comes with a 'free' sell option.Doesnt seem unreasonable for a £75K car?
If you think it really works like that, see what PCP deal you get on a £75k Range Rover or any other car which actually costs £75k, I guarantee you it will be a lot more than £500 per month!!!
hornetrider said:
Yes it isn't bad at all. He could pay the balloon and flog it to offset some of the costs, as they're worth about 30k at 3 years old. But he could do all of that with a 640/650i as well The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.
True, although then you have new car depreciation and x2 the fuel cost. The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.sealtt said:
Just because they use ridiculous 'list prices' which no-one ever pays does not make PCP a bargain, it's just a different way of paying for things which comes with a 'free' sell option.
BMW's pricing these days is truly bonkers. I wonder at what point someone sat around in a meeting in about 2010 and said "you know what, I've been looking, and when it comes to our next 10 year strategy I think the kind of company we want to be is Vauxhall".sealtt said:
PCP doesn't make anything cheaper, it's just a different way of paying for it.
Exactly. 1. No such thing as a free lunch
2. If something seems to good to be true, it usually is
It's just a different way of spreading your finances. If you have money tied up in longer term things then a PCP makes sense. The only people who enter into the agreement thinking they have got a 'deal' are kidding themselves IMO.
sealtt said:
Point is it's clearly not a £75k car. That's just a meaningless list price that they put to make people think they are getting a good deal. If he had bought it cash up front he wouldn't have paid £75k either. I'm presuming this is a BMW because they are the worst ones for doing the insane list price markup over the actual true price. For reference I bought a brand new M6 Cabrio with a list price of £102k and I paid £72k for it - including service plan. From what I remember (on PCP) I paid about £15k upfront and £1k per month. PCP doesn't make anything cheaper, it's just a different way of paying for it. You don't get a '£75k' car for £48k. You get a £40k car for £40k + interest & fees. Just because they use ridiculous 'list prices' which no-one ever pays does not make PCP a bargain, it's just a different way of paying for things which comes with a 'free' sell option.
If you think it really works like that, see what PCP deal you get on a £75k Range Rover or any other car which actually costs £75k, I guarantee you it will be a lot more than £500 per month!!!
Yes, i subsequently changed it to "a car with a £75K list price".If you think it really works like that, see what PCP deal you get on a £75k Range Rover or any other car which actually costs £75k, I guarantee you it will be a lot more than £500 per month!!!
I'm not seeing too many BMWs with a £75K list price being able to be bought for less than £48K new though?
And even IF you got it for £48K, then its back to my point that because of the way the deals are structure with "finance contributions" from the manufacturer then its essentially interest free.
Ares said:
XFR100 said:
Ares said:
Remember I said inspiring compared to a £50k+ diesel.....
But you've kind of made my point. You have to go to a car that is out of warranty, or soon will be, and rely on a used 3/6/12mth insurance backed warranty. Of the ones you mentioned, I've love a go in the Camaro but wouldn't want to own it. The S5 would be nice, but at over 3yrs old would risk bigger bills. The 135i would be a hoot, but wouldn't likewise wouldn't tempt me away.
Everyone is different.
From an ownership prospect, there isn't a car there that makes me think 'I wish I'd got that instead' (of my £50k+ diesel). For many, they would take the gamble of a 3yr+ old car, with the running costs of such, JUST so their horses were petrol powered. Each to their own!
I'm always amazed by this.....you accept loosing 7-9k/year on first 3 years on new 50k+ car, but you are afraid of potential BIG bills for repairs (and we don't talk 20 years old V12 here).....I just don't get it :-)But you've kind of made my point. You have to go to a car that is out of warranty, or soon will be, and rely on a used 3/6/12mth insurance backed warranty. Of the ones you mentioned, I've love a go in the Camaro but wouldn't want to own it. The S5 would be nice, but at over 3yrs old would risk bigger bills. The 135i would be a hoot, but wouldn't likewise wouldn't tempt me away.
Everyone is different.
From an ownership prospect, there isn't a car there that makes me think 'I wish I'd got that instead' (of my £50k+ diesel). For many, they would take the gamble of a 3yr+ old car, with the running costs of such, JUST so their horses were petrol powered. Each to their own!
My car is cost me £12k cash upfront, three years at £580, then I can ether buy the car for just over £16k or just hand it back. Beyond, there are no servicing costs, no maintenance costs, it may need a full set of tyres if I decide to switch to run-flats, if not it will likely need a set of rears. It shouldn't need brake pads or discs or any other bill beyond fuel and insurance.
I also get to run around in a brand new, list price £75k car that does everything I need it to, and more. Has a better than evens chance of being 100% reliable and gives zero worry.
Running a 3-4yr old car *might* well be cheaper for the subsequent 3 years (but also *might* not be)....but will they be any more enjoyable? I don't think any of the ones mentioned would be be more enjoyable, most would be slower, but sound better - at least from the outside.
If I can do maths that is £32,880 over 3 years! Over £10k a year in depreciation/finance and you bothered to even look how many mpg it does? I'm sure it's a nice car but f
k me, if I was spending that sort of money on a car I'd be driving something obscenely excessive with at least six litres, 12 cylinders and many, many BHP under the bonnet (and I wouldn't even bother looking at the fuel economy figures). My car will probably cost me perhaps £3k over 3 years and that hurts enough for me 
.This seems a very good example of what the OP was on about, still I suppose money's for spending and whatever makes you happy.
daemon said:
hornetrider said:
Yes it isn't bad at all. He could pay the balloon and flog it to offset some of the costs, as they're worth about 30k at 3 years old. But he could do all of that with a 640/650i as well The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.
True, although then you have new car depreciation and x2 the fuel cost. The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.Cheapest petrol 38k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Cheapest diesel 30k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Anyway as per my original argument, you'll pay s
tloads more in total costs for a new diesel than a 3 year old V8 (which you can run under warranty) so I just don't understand why you'd do it.sealtt said:
If you think it really works like that, see what PCP deal you get on a £75k Range Rover or any other car which actually costs £75k, I guarantee you it will be a lot more than £500 per month!!!
Yes, no doubt.However BMW throw a lot of finance subsidies in by the back door which helps the thing.
Irrespective, its a car with a £75K list price, that probably cant be bought for £48K with cash from a dealer, paid for over three years, totalling £48K
TurboHatchback said:
If I can do maths that is £32,880 over 3 years! Over £10k a year in depreciation/finance and you bothered to even look how many mpg it does? I'm sure it's a nice car but f
k me, if I was spending that sort of money on a car I'd be driving something obscenely excessive with at least six litres, 12 cylinders and many, many BHP under the bonnet (and I wouldn't even bother looking at the fuel economy figures). My car will probably cost me perhaps £3k over 3 years and that hurts enough for me .This seems a very good example of what the OP was on about, still I suppose money's for spending and whatever makes you happy.
I dont see how this relates to the original post? Surely buying the petrol variant would work out similar, just cost even more in fuel?
Plus its ok being johnny big balls about a 6 litre v12, but you're not buying anything like that for £1K a month new and you're going to probably triple your fuel costs, which could turn a £1000 + £200 fuel outlay into £1000 + £600 fuel outlay, plus maintenance if its used.
hornetrider said:
daemon said:
hornetrider said:
Yes it isn't bad at all. He could pay the balloon and flog it to offset some of the costs, as they're worth about 30k at 3 years old. But he could do all of that with a 640/650i as well The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.
True, although then you have new car depreciation and x2 the fuel cost. The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.Cheapest petrol 38k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Cheapest diesel 30k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Anyway as per my original argument, you'll pay s
tloads more in total costs for a new diesel than a 3 year old V8 (which you can run under warranty) so I just don't understand why you'd do it.However, it depends what the manufacturer wants to "push". Often there arent subsidised deals or better residuals on the petrol variant.
Because some people dont want to drive a 3 year old v8, for various reasons. Doesnt make your reasons right and theirs wrong.
Dunno if anyone has mentioned the Jag XF yet as I can't be bothered to read 15 pages of this thread. As you can see from my history, I'm not a diesel person at all but I happened to buy a 3.0d S a few months ago as I like the look of them and didn't want 17mpg from the petrol V8 in a dd. OK, when cold with all the windows open you detect a diesel clatter - at all other times you really can't tell. It sounds great and the auto box prevents you from ever thinking about the low rev limit. Been very impressed with it - and it's an early 2009 car. The difference between this and some of the 4 pot diesels I've tolerated in the past is night and day.
daemon said:
Because some people dont want to drive a 3 year old v8, for various reasons. Doesnt make your reasons right and theirs wrong.
Well, when their reasons for having a diesel are cost based - 'because zomg I get 40mpg!!11!' you need to analyse all the costs to have a balanced view. And as I've proved above buying a new 50k diesel makes no financial sense compared to a 3 year old V8. So you can perhaps understand my puzzlement.Hell. You could buy a 3 year old V8 GC with a full extended warranty, and if you give that much of a s
t about what the neighbours think whack a PP on it and no-one would tell the difference to your brand new shiny diseisel anyway. And be better off. And not drive a diesel. I just don't get it.
Anyhoo, I've said me piece
hornetrider said:
daemon said:
Because some people dont want to drive a 3 year old v8, for various reasons. Doesnt make your reasons right and theirs wrong.
Well, when their reasons for having a diesel are cost based - 'because zomg I get 40mpg!!11!' you need to analyse all the costs to have a balanced view. And as I've proved above buying a new 50k diesel makes no financial sense compared to a 3 year old V8. So you can perhaps understand my puzzlement.Hell. You could buy a 3 year old V8 GC with a full extended warranty, and if you give that much of a s
t about what the neighbours think whack a PP on it and no-one would tell the difference to your brand new shiny diseisel anyway. And be better off. And not drive a diesel. I just don't get it.
Anyhoo, I've said me piece
Likewise you could buy a used 335i BMW for the price of a new 320i.
daemon said:
TurboHatchback said:
If I can do maths that is £32,880 over 3 years! Over £10k a year in depreciation/finance and you bothered to even look how many mpg it does? I'm sure it's a nice car but f
k me, if I was spending that sort of money on a car I'd be driving something obscenely excessive with at least six litres, 12 cylinders and many, many BHP under the bonnet (and I wouldn't even bother looking at the fuel economy figures). My car will probably cost me perhaps £3k over 3 years and that hurts enough for me .This seems a very good example of what the OP was on about, still I suppose money's for spending and whatever makes you happy.
I dont see how this relates to the original post? Surely buying the petrol variant would work out similar, just cost even more in fuel?
Plus its ok being johnny big balls about a 6 litre v12, but you're not buying anything like that for £1K a month new and you're going to probably triple your fuel costs, which could turn a £1000 + £200 fuel outlay into £1000 + £600 fuel outlay, plus maintenance if its used.
A meaty petrol alternative certainly wouldn't triple the fuel costs, maybe double if it was really silly but more like 1.2-1.5x the cost I would guess. With an average annual mileage that would equate to less than £100 a month difference. It relates to the OP because If I had that sort of cash to splurge on driving a nice car then spending a few percent more to drive the nicest, woofliest V8 version would be an absolute no-brainer, I wouldn't even consider the diesel.
On an separate note it's amusing how people bend figures to make the calculations prove what they want them to. On the one hand you have the dieselists claiming that all petrols do 17mpg and are slower really because the torques and on the other there are the petrolheads claiming their V8s do 35mpg, all diesels break constantly and it's really the sensible option. I'm more guilty of the 2nd than most, my excel man-maths assumptions have caused much damage to my bank account over the years but I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff