Nobody wants big engined petrols for trade-in.

[With these feet]

edward1 said:

If you are not selling this can be a good thing. It never fails to amaze me what you can get for you money. For the price of a second hand astra, XJ anyone? S type R, stick it on LPG and away you go. If you do any sort of miles a conversion will pay for itself in 18months to a year and after that you can look down on the little under powered 1.4 econobox from the comfort of you leather clad interior knowig that when you get the pump it won't cost you any more.

As I said before, you really need to be doing proper mileages - 18k+ to make it worthwhile unless you keep your cars forever.
Out of curiosity, whats a litre of LPG cost? It doesnt give the same MPG as fuel either so you wouldnt be getting a direct PPL exchange either. I read somewhere LPG is 30-40% less efficient than petrol. So if LPG got to around £1 a litre then it would be somewhere near petrol overall??
My neighbour at work has LPG on his Merc MPV and has been saying its less cost effective since gas prices have increased.

[Zwoelf]

With these feet said:

What's a litre of LPG cost? It doesnt give the same MPG as fuel either so you wouldnt be getting a direct PPL exchange either. I read somewhere LPG is 30-40% less efficient than petrol. So if LPG got to around £1 a litre then it would be somewhere near petrol overall??

LPG currently around £0.75/litre with petrol at £1.35/litre. 45% cheaper.
Running on LPG vs. petrol is generally around 10-15% less efficient.

[zakelwe]

hornetrider said:

PhilboSE said:

Seriously, why do people worry about the road tax as part of the cost of running a car? Yes it's a cost to be borne but nothing compared to the depreciation of the car.

This should mean that there's some good deals out there to be done. During the onset of the last credit crunch and rocketing fuel prices I must have been one of the few shopping for a big V8 4x4, and a nice Audi dealer practically gave away an ex-demo model to me.

Because people are stupid. We as petrolheads should rejoice however, because it means we can get massive V8s for peanuts.

I was thinking about these comments and not sure if they make sense. True you can get a better deal initially, but the only reason they are such a deal is because they can't sell them. So depreciation is likely to be higher. As well as that all the time you are spending money on extra fuel and on VED.

So I wonder who is stupid or whether people are just convincing themselves so they can justify a V8?

[GBB]

zakelwe said:

I was thinking about these comments and not sure if they make sense. True you can get a better deal initially, but the only reason they are such a deal is because they can't sell them. So depreciation is likely to be higher. As well as that all the time you are spending money on extra fuel and on VED.

So I wonder who is stupid or whether people are just convincing themselves so they can justify a V8?

True, but it makes sense at the bottom of the market (say £500 to £3000) where any actual £ depreciation will be minimal no matter the % age depreciation and also at a certain point (say £500) depreciation disappears, the only true cost is the risk of big bills.

My main car is a 2.8 and cost £2000 4 yrs ago, it's now worth £500-£1000 so let's say £750 - That's 63% loss in 4 yrs, but only £1,250 or £312.50 p.a. Our Honda on the other hand has lost 65% in 5 yrs (using Wisebuyers valuation) so as a % per year is far better but as that cost a lot more to buy (as it was a lot newer) thats £5,850 in total or £1,170 per annum. Both cars have done the same mileage (60,000) during my ownership.

If you do few miles or have paid mileage (offsetting lower depreciation/maintenance vs poorer fuel economy) then a big engine can make sense. Just as with any capital expenditure, buying well is the most important thing.


EDIT - Wisebuyers reckons my 190K mile 328 is worth £1,180! That would make the depreciation only 41% in 4 years, or £205 p.a. that would be amazing.

Edited by GBB on Thursday 9th June 11:58

[MGJohn]

GBB said:

zakelwe said:

I was thinking about these comments and not sure if they make sense. True you can get a better deal initially, but the only reason they are such a deal is because they can't sell them. So depreciation is likely to be higher. As well as that all the time you are spending money on extra fuel and on VED.

So I wonder who is stupid or whether people are just convincing themselves so they can justify a V8?

True, but it makes sense at the bottom of the market (say £500 to £3000) where any actual £ depreciation will be minimal no matter the % age depreciation and also at a certain point (say £500) depreciation disappears, the only true cost is the risk of big bills.

My main car is a 2.8 and cost £2000 4 yrs ago, it's now worth £500-£1000 so let's say £750 - That's 63% loss in 4 yrs, but only £1,250 or £312.50 p.a. Our Honda on the other hand has lost 65% in 5 yrs (using Wisebuyers valuation) so as a % per year is far better but as that cost a lot more to buy (as it was a lot newer) thats £5,850 in total or £1,170 per annum. Both cars have done the same mileage (60,000) during my ownership.

If you do few miles or have paid mileage (offsetting lower depreciation/maintenance vs poorer fuel economy) then a big engine can make sense. Just as with any capital expenditure, buying well is the most important thing.


EDIT - Wisebuyers reckons my 190K mile 328 is worth £1,180! That would make the depreciation only 41% in 4 years, or £205 p.a. that would be amazing.

Edited by GBB on Thursday 9th June 11:58

Nicely demonstrated GBB. Low initial value where values have bottomed out anyway.

Doesn't have to be a big V8. Many 2 - 3 litre petrols also now in that position hence the reason for the thread title. Within the vast number of car consumer circles, compared to the far fewer car enthusiasts circles, 2 litres is often regarded now as BIG engines, 1.8 even!

100% depreciation of a car say £750 is only .... £750! Peanuts! Not unknown to buy a car for that kind of sub £3000 figure, use it for a year or two and get most of that back when reselling. Sometimes show a profit with those around say £1000. How do I know this? Go figure ...

Having said that, when I buy new ( private purchases, not company cars ) which I have done a few times over the years, I do not have a part exchange ~ my cars being well cared for one owner from new usually sell themselves ~ and ALWAYS negotiate a decent discount. This helps offset that initial depreciation drop as soon as you drive away from the showroom.

The last time I did P/X my one owner car was back in the 1970s, when I was made an offer I simply could not refuse after asking for a discount for the non-p/x new car deal. Sales person saw the car I pulled up in. Probably had a punter lined up for it ~ good luck to him.

Over the years, listening to work colleagues, relatives and others discussing their recent new car or used car purchases, my heart sinks. Far too many Brits pay way over the odds for their motoring, new or used and appeared pleased to do so... .

[hornetrider]

zakelwe said:

I was thinking about these comments and not sure if they make sense. True you can get a better deal initially, but the only reason they are such a deal is because they can't sell them. So depreciation is likely to be higher. As well as that all the time you are spending money on extra fuel and on VED.

So I wonder who is stupid or whether people are just convincing themselves so they can justify a V8?

GBB has ably demonstrated my point above. Depreciation simply cannot be large when the purchase price is so low (sub 5k). If the running costs are higher - piffle. The overall cost of ownership reflects favourably once depreciation is factored in.

[zakelwe]

It still doesn't make sense because it's not just V8's that cost little. You can get cheap diesels as well in that price range. So you are still left with large fuel costs and and this price point the VED band really does make more of a difference compared to the cost of the car.

It's even less sensible to run a big V8 if you are bottom feeding.

They are nicer to drive though

[HellDiver]

Carrot said:

Mates company mondeo's DMF went @70k miles, if it wasn't a warranty job dealer would have charged £1400. Job has a book time of 10 hours ITS A fkING CLUTCH PART - 10 HOURS??!

Well, it does take that time, because the Mk3 Mondeo needs the front subframe and engine dropped to do the clutch. I've seen it done, and it took 7 hours solid work for two people (me and my mechanic mate). It's NOT an easy job.

[Balmoral Green]

MGJohn said:

Poor folks who can only afford to tax their cars for six months pay a HEFTY premium load of 10% for that priviledge.

Those we entrust with the well being of our nation do frequently penalise the less well financially endowed in many ways, whilst at the same time stating that they do care about those with less or low income. Yeah... right ...

Here here. Not just on VED, but all sorts of services & utilities. The poor, who can't go the whole hog and have to pay in small doses having scrimped and saved to get by, get screwed. Be it insurance, leccy/gas meter, having to use the P.O. for rudimentary banking services, supermarket bulk buys etc.

[Twincam16]

Thing is, what if you're trading in a 'big-engined petrol' at a second-hand lot for another 'big-engined petrol' (and I used to characterise 'big' as in excess of about 3.5 litres, but for some reason it seems to be anything north of 1.4 to most clueless commuters these days)? Surely it's a zero-sum game in that case?

[DickSkruttock]

Twincam16 said:

Thing is, what if you're trading in a 'big-engined petrol' at a second-hand lot for another 'big-engined petrol' (and I used to characterise 'big' as in excess of about 3.5 litres, but for some reason it seems to be anything north of 1.4 to most clueless commuters these days)? Surely it's a zero-sum game in that case?

To quote the salesperson-

'Sir, your car isn't wanted as it's got a big engine and is therefore unloved on the used car market, whereas the car you wish to buy is a sort after model albeit with a big engine and you will pay a premium for it'

[GBB]

zakelwe said:

It still doesn't make sense because it's not just V8's that cost little. You can get cheap diesels as well in that price range. So you are still left with large fuel costs and and this price point the VED band really does make more of a difference compared to the cost of the car.

It's even less sensible to run a big V8 if you are bottom feeding.

Not really. A big V8 is a relatively unstressed engine so mileage they can achieve without major repairs will often be far better than a turbo-diesel (and costs of fixing lower), also as everyone seems to want a diesel you'll probably get a better condition V8 for your £1,000 than if you went for a TD.

I considered a Golf MK4 a while back and prices for GT TD's are significantly higher than those of V5's or GTi Turbos' of the same age/mileage.

[Bill]

GBB said:

Not really. A big V8 is a relatively unstressed engine so mileage they can achieve without major repairs will often be far better than a turbo-diesel (and costs of fixing lower), also as everyone seems to want a diesel you'll probably get a better condition V8 for your £1,000 than if you went for a TD.

I considered a Golf MK4 a while back and prices for GT TD's are significantly higher than those of V5's or GTi Turbos' of the same age/mileage.

IME (looking at Disco 2 V8s vs Td5s) the V8 is approximately half the price of a diesel of similar spec and miles, and that £4k saving pays for a lot of fuel.

[The GMan]

Up until last month I was spending roughly £1200 a month on fuel for my 645ci, which was for a long commute and normal weekend driving. Now working more back in Newcastle and thought I might see a bit of a drop in spending. Not really as I’m getting 14mpg town driving and hitting a few country lanes. V8’s are great!

[GBB]

Bill said:

IME (looking at Disco 2 V8s vs Td5s) the V8 is approximately half the price of a diesel of similar spec and miles, and that £4k saving pays for a lot of fuel.

Laws of supply and demand, no one wants big engined petrol cars but until 3 yrs ago sales were reasonable. Now virtually all new sales are diesel so in about 5 yrs time petrol car prices will firm up a bit as there will be few about.

[stevieb]

kbee540 said:

Tell me about it. She Who Must Be Obeyed runs an XC90 with a 4.4 V8 petrol...fully kitted up, low miles, mint condition, and worth naff all.

Its a cracking engine for the Car. Completely transforms the drive when compared to the underpowered D5

[Zwoelf]

stevieb said:

kbee540 said:

Tell me about it. She Who Must Be Obeyed runs an XC90 with a 4.4 V8 petrol...fully kitted up, low miles, mint condition, and worth naff all.

Its a cracking engine for the Car. Completely transforms the drive when compared to the underpowered D5

Although the 3.2 is equally pleasant for the majority of folk.

[stevieb]

Zwoelf said:

Although the 3.2 is equally pleasant for the majority of folk.

But the 3.2 has the dodgy gearbox. Unless they have fixed that for the later models.

[renrut]

zakelwe said:

It still doesn't make sense because it's not just V8's that cost little. You can get cheap diesels as well in that price range. So you are still left with large fuel costs and and this price point the VED band really does make more of a difference compared to the cost of the car.

It's even less sensible to run a big V8 if you are bottom feeding.

Although not a V8 I think I'm perfectly equipped to answer this one:

I fancied a rwd and powerful ish car last summer. I quite liked the look of the Jag S-types (many don't). Options for insurance reasons were 3.0 Petrol or 2.7TDV6 (for some reason the insurance companies throw wobblers when I trip over the 3.5Litre mark). Both great engines. I could buy a circa 100K mile petrol for ~£3000. Or a 150K diesel for £6000.

I do approx 10K miles a year. The petrol does ~22mpg round town. Diesel owners report about 30 in mixed driving. So 36% more in fuel or using current prices ~£2655 for petrol (@1.30ppl)and ~£2040 (@1.36ppl). So it would take ~4.8 years to recoup the difference in purchase price. And that's assuming something like a turbo or injector doesn't start giving grief.

Yes I could go buy a Pg 106 1.5D for £500 and experience the cheapest motoring imaginable but then I wouldn't be sat in leather luxury, in a car with more than enough power to have lots of fun, that can carry 5 + luggage and tow a track car without a worry. If you compare like for like big petrol engined cars take a lot of beating once you start looking at the lower end of the market.

If I was buying new it would have to be a diesel because I'd never have to worry about failures under warranty and the false beliefs of the typical buyer would rape me for depreciation if I bought a petrol one.

[Zwoelf]

stevieb said:

Zwoelf said:

Although the 3.2 is equally pleasant for the majority of folk.

But the 3.2 has the dodgy gearbox. Unless they have fixed that for the later models.

The older (pre 2007 model year) 2.9T6 has the dodgy gearbox, the 3.2 litre inline six (2007 model year onwards) was an all new engine and has the same six speed gearbox as contemporary D5s and V8s. The V8s have a habit of eating their gearboxes and steering racks a bit though.