Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
macky17 said:
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.
My friend have 3.0d S and I have XFR, on same route he manage 30MGP and I 20MGP.....so there is difference, but not as big as one would think. He always said 3.0S is more then good for road....until he tried XFR
Try it
hornetrider said:
Cheapest petrol 38k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Cheapest diesel 30k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Well it looks as if you buy the diesel one you will have lower running costs than petrol and save between £18k and £45k on a new one depending on which version of man maths you use, and it is also cheaper than the petrol one to buy. Looks like no-brainer to me, even if you factor in a reasonable bork fund Cheapest diesel 30k http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
XFR100 said:
macky17 said:
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.
My friend have 3.0d S and I have XFR, on same route he manage 30MGP and I 20MGP.....so there is difference, but not as big as one would think. He always said 3.0S is more then good for road....until he tried XFRTry it
BrownBottle said:
Slow said:
Saying that seems low for them. These figures were hit by topping the tank every week, roughly £100 to 500odd miles I believe.
gizlaroc's figures are correct, my E39 530d averages 28mpg and only goes over 30mpg if I start doing regular motorway journeys.My '00 E46 330d averaged 35/37mpg. My '59 530d averaged 40/43mpg. My '14 640d averages mid-43-46. (all from trip computer - I don't have the time or will to calculate from the pump/fill-up)
yonex said:
Ares said:
You'll find that idea is almost exclusively that of those who could not spend £50k+ on a car.....and might just be the reason why! 
But 99% of them are on finance It would be complete madness to take £50K out of your bank account and drop it on a new car.
Ares said:
BrownBottle said:
Slow said:
Saying that seems low for them. These figures were hit by topping the tank every week, roughly £100 to 500odd miles I believe.
gizlaroc's figures are correct, my E39 530d averages 28mpg and only goes over 30mpg if I start doing regular motorway journeys.My '00 E46 330d averaged 35/37mpg. My '59 530d averaged 40/43mpg. My '14 640d averages mid-43-46. (all from trip computer - I don't have the time or will to calculate from the pump/fill-up)
hornetrider said:
Ares said:
hornetrider said:
Ares said:
But is a £20/25k petrol really going to be that inspiring compared to a £50k+ diesel?
What a dull life you lead if you can't think of a nice petrol engine to drive for around 25k 
None of these are that old, lots have manufacturer warranty too when you buy approved. I've gone from truly desireable to pretty sensible - and all with a nice big multi-cylinder mill under the bonnet. Go ahead and look at them all, it's an eclectic mix so there's plenty of choice!
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - Infinity FX50
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - Camaro 6.2 V8
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - S5
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - Z4 S-Drive M-Sport
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - Tasty M135i
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - C350 AMG
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... - Skoda Superb V6
Edited by hornetrider on Thursday 3rd September 10:40
Ares said:
All cars depreciate, but that can be mitigated by removing the surprise.
Yes, but brand new cars depreciate more than slightly older ones. Simple economics.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.
So if you buy your car outright it'll be 48k total outlay for your '75k' car. What is it out of interest, that's some hefty discount. There's some argument that it was never a 75k car if they are punting them out for sub 50k anyway but we don't need to argue that point. If you don't buy it outright it will be 32k for 3 years motoring in a diesel and you'll have nothing to show for it at the end, right? 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.
Ares said:
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.
I'd imagine all the cars I've listed about would depreciate at worst 12k over a three year period, meaning three years motoring would have cost you 12/13k plus additional fuel and manufacturer extended warranty costs. The BMWs will cost you about 600 a year so lets call warranty costs over that period as 2k. Hell, lets bump it to 3k for the sake of it. let's be ultra pessimistic and say 200 a month worse on fuel. It's fag packet but hell lets go with it.Let's summarise those costs then.
Diesel for 3 years - 32k cost.
Petrol as above based on a 25k motor:
13k depreciation
3k warranty
7k extra fuel
Total cost - 23k.
Now, obviously you won't be able to tell your neighbours your car is 'worth' 75k with it's shiny new plate but at the same time you wouldn't have to drive around in a dirty diesel either
Your costs above miss a couple of aspects. My £32k is assured. I won't be more. I may well be less if the car, after 3 years, is worth more than the GFV, which it should be, especially given the Schnitzer kit. (Your example cars above had a list prices (well) less than mine, are are still worth near £10k more than my GFV.
It will also not have any scary bills, and most likely no, if any maintenance costs. It *may* near rear tyres, but no brakes/discs/fluids/filters/etc. Once a car gets between 3 and 6 yrs they start costing more. You will probably need brakes and pads. You will probably need a full set of tyres. You will also have to pay for servicing, and after 3 years, any decent car (which these are) will have a big service. So if you add in £1000 for tyres, £1000 for a full set of brakes and £1500 for servicing, you £9k advantage becomes £5.5k.
You are also likely to run into bills of some sort. Pretty much everyone I know with a 3-6yr old car has had to spend money on it, whether exhaust/engine/suspension/etc. So that dents your £5.5k further.
Even without that, assuming we buy a great and perfect/fault-free car at 3yrs old, what I am paying for is effectively £5.5k to have a brand new car, zero worry and the feel-good-factor of driving a 640d GC Sport rather than a 3yr old SUV/Skoda/S5/135i/etc.
For me that is worth it, well worth it. For other it won't be. But the economics are not as poles-apart as assumed!
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.
Ares said:
Car is a 640d GC MSport. (bought on the last day of the quarter for max dealer contribution, plus using BMWFS for their contribution, then put on at a 'special' APR - I'm classed as a diplomat...!
Nice - lovely motor.Ares said:
It will also not have any scary bills, and most likely no, if any maintenance costs. It *may* near rear tyres, but no brakes/discs/fluids/filters/etc. Once a car gets between 3 and 6 yrs they start costing more. You will probably need brakes and pads. You will probably need a full set of tyres. You will also have to pay for servicing, and after 3 years, any decent car (which these are) will have a big service. So if you add in £1000 for tyres, £1000 for a full set of brakes and £1500 for servicing, you £9k advantage becomes £5.5k.
You're not going to service the car in 3 years? Or have you negotiated a service plan inclusive to your costs you've not previously mentioned? So there's 1500 back on. I'm not sure you can count tyres as costs, because both cars will be owned for 3 years so will use the same amount of tyres. So that's a grand back on. A grand for brakes?! I've run my E61 for just coming up to 3 years and 55k and have only replaced rear pads and disks at a cost of approx £200.Ares said:
You are also likely to run into bills of some sort. Pretty much everyone I know with a 3-6yr old car has had to spend money on it, whether exhaust/engine/suspension/etc. So that dents your £5.5k further.
No it doesn't, I've included a rather generous 3k allowing for a comprehensive BMW warranty. Personally speaking I run mine without a warranty, and have only been 'stung' for a £150 quid diversity aerial. Ares said:
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.
kith said:
XFR100 said:
macky17 said:
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.
My friend have 3.0d S and I have XFR, on same route he manage 30MGP and I 20MGP.....so there is difference, but not as big as one would think. He always said 3.0S is more then good for road....until he tried XFRTry it
I agree, 35mpg is difficult to beat but the toys, comfort and image more than compensate. Wouldn't trust the 35i engine personally...
confused_buyer said:
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".
It's funny right, well to me their whole strategy is, I just presume they said "well, we want to become the largest brand by vehicle volume, so let's copy what the largest volume manufacturers such as Ford do. Oh look, it's working!". How long it will work for remains to be seen. I certainly won't be buying a BMW again, the new M6 was such a let down. daemon said:
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
No doubt, it is a good deal, and it looks like the guy did well - just not £75k for £48k well 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
daemon said:
Granfondo said:
hornetrider said:
Sorry my point was there's also been massive deals for them on lease - curious as to why you didn't go for that and keep your 12k deposit in your pocket.
Some people don't like the inflexibility of a lease.XFR100 said:
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.
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.
1. So true. I'm 100% happy. It's knowing it will be reliable and not have nasty shocks that becomes a big factor.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
2. Again true. Although at the same time, people bought the same car for £54,000. 6 months earlier, people paid £58k for the same car. In three years, is mine automatically worth less just because I paid less for it?
3. That gets back to my original point, I can't think of a 3yr old, £20k car that I would rather be in though compared to mine.
The figures worked to above. The peace of mind/reliability/smile factor of a new 640 was worth the £9k/£5.5k premium.
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.
Deals weren't anything like as keen on the 650i (lack of physical cars most likely). I did look at the 640i where the deals were similar. I chose the 640d as I preferred everything about it (apart from the engine note....) The fuel part is a very minor cost when you consider the depreciation.hornetrider said:
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
Maybe some people just don't want to drive a 3 to 6yr old V8, with associated costs. And a full warranty at that age is still insurance backed, not true manufacturers.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
I did what you are saying years ago with a Range Rover V8 with an 'extended' warranty. Never again. I've had new (or very nearly new) ever since.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff