Are new cars genuinely reliable?
Discussion
Hi,
I am getting a little disheartened with trying to do cheaper motoring by having a 7 plus year old car as a daily runner. Maintenance is proving to be far more time intensive than expected compared to cars I have owned which were of previous generations of the same class of car.
I did the big excel sheet comparison of newly new with loan vs not. I went with a 7 year old 6k car in cash than a 13ish k 2 year old car as I thought it would work out more cost effective particularly with the hope and potential of buying a property soon. However I seem to be spending a lot of time trying to sort issues out, ranging from water ingress in the boot to an issue that may be a wheel bearing but has no symptoms when checked (or may be worse!), to the brakes binding and having to strip and reassemble those, to an alternator and aux tensioner failing so doing those too. I also changed the top mounts (at 80k miles). All in the space four months since buying. (The car had dealer FSH when I bought it too)
If I were to fork out and go down the new / nearly new route, would they prove any more reliable realistically?
I ask because just take a look at issues such as the BMW EGR recall that has left lots without their cars. Or the JLR recall for emissions. Etc.
I also once had an Astra Sports Tourer as a company car and that went back multiple times during warranty due to rear brake issues, centre brake light failing and some other minor problems.
As someone who has relatively short time as I am quite into my sports and spend most weekends away, I can really see why people like going down the lease route. Drawback at 24k miles per annum that doesn't really work for me.
Thoughts?
Ps. I appreciate this may read more of a rant and blowing off steam but I needed to get it out.
Thanks,
I am getting a little disheartened with trying to do cheaper motoring by having a 7 plus year old car as a daily runner. Maintenance is proving to be far more time intensive than expected compared to cars I have owned which were of previous generations of the same class of car.
I did the big excel sheet comparison of newly new with loan vs not. I went with a 7 year old 6k car in cash than a 13ish k 2 year old car as I thought it would work out more cost effective particularly with the hope and potential of buying a property soon. However I seem to be spending a lot of time trying to sort issues out, ranging from water ingress in the boot to an issue that may be a wheel bearing but has no symptoms when checked (or may be worse!), to the brakes binding and having to strip and reassemble those, to an alternator and aux tensioner failing so doing those too. I also changed the top mounts (at 80k miles). All in the space four months since buying. (The car had dealer FSH when I bought it too)
If I were to fork out and go down the new / nearly new route, would they prove any more reliable realistically?
I ask because just take a look at issues such as the BMW EGR recall that has left lots without their cars. Or the JLR recall for emissions. Etc.
I also once had an Astra Sports Tourer as a company car and that went back multiple times during warranty due to rear brake issues, centre brake light failing and some other minor problems.
As someone who has relatively short time as I am quite into my sports and spend most weekends away, I can really see why people like going down the lease route. Drawback at 24k miles per annum that doesn't really work for me.
Thoughts?
Ps. I appreciate this may read more of a rant and blowing off steam but I needed to get it out.
Thanks,
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff