House affordability
Discussion
okgo said:
How has my £500 car cost me less than £500 to run in the last 3 years then?
Its 16 years old, has done f
k knows how many miles, and costs me almost nothing..
Unless you have a new Ferrari then when you changed your cars tyre and for what cost is largely not relevant, surely...
sssshh….I'm trying to do my homework..Its 16 years old, has done f
k knows how many miles, and costs me almost nothing..Unless you have a new Ferrari then when you changed your cars tyre and for what cost is largely not relevant, surely...
Go onto the Ferrari thread (and I very much suspect it'll be the same for Lambo or MacLaren) and ask them there what they've spent on their cars between buying new and first MoT.
Hint: you aren't going to like the answer.
drainbrain said:
Depreciation isn't a running cost, nor is opportunity cost a running cost. DEFINITELY cheating with those!
Good answer, tho. Because as I suspect you're very well aware, keeping bangers running (i.e. working) isn't far from the cost effectiveness of motorsport as a hobby.
Sorry, but you are twisting the arguement to make an irrelevant point. We are talking about overall cost of running a vehicle. sure I could buy a supercar and probably get servicing thrown in for "free" for the first few years. But that is ignoring the cost of the £200k loan I would need to buy it.Good answer, tho. Because as I suspect you're very well aware, keeping bangers running (i.e. working) isn't far from the cost effectiveness of motorsport as a hobby.
Plus, back in the real world of this thread, we are talking about the cost of running a £200/month lease car (so that would be £2400 a year before you start.....) compared with buying a £500 car and spending maybe the same again to tax and maintain it in the year. Personally I have found £500 the top end of what it should cost to run such a car but I would not want you suggesting I was being optomistic
drainbrain said:
sssshh….I'm trying to do my homework..
Go onto the Ferrari thread (and I very much suspect it'll be the same for Lambo or MacLaren) and ask them there what they've spent on their cars between buying new and first MoT.
Hint: you aren't going to like the answer.
Or he really will not care. As per my last post, I suspect it is near to zero (or maybe even you could argue a profit if the vehicle has appreciated). But so what? Are you really suggesting that someone struggling to buy their own house should by a Ferrari or Lambo to commute in Go onto the Ferrari thread (and I very much suspect it'll be the same for Lambo or MacLaren) and ask them there what they've spent on their cars between buying new and first MoT.
Hint: you aren't going to like the answer.
Oh, and by the way, I was talking to someone a couple of years ago who had a Maserati. Total costs of repairs before its first MOT? North of £40k iirc.........
Well I've personally had an old car which was costing me about £150 a month in maintenance back a few years ago. I simply didn't have the money to replace it and could just about pay the repairs when they came along.
Buying something better isn't always an option and not everyone knows how to work on cars although I do ok. I had all manner of things go in that year, 2 seized callipers, brake master cylinder, head gasket. fking nightmare.
I should borrowed and bought a 458!
Buying something better isn't always an option and not everyone knows how to work on cars although I do ok. I had all manner of things go in that year, 2 seized callipers, brake master cylinder, head gasket. f
king nightmare. I should borrowed and bought a 458!
drainbrain said:
okgo said:
How has my £500 car cost me less than £500 to run in the last 3 years then?
Its 16 years old, has done fk knows how many miles, and costs me almost nothing..
Unless you have a new Ferrari then when you changed your cars tyre and for what cost is largely not relevant, surely...
sssshh….I'm trying to do my homework..Its 16 years old, has done f
k knows how many miles, and costs me almost nothing..Unless you have a new Ferrari then when you changed your cars tyre and for what cost is largely not relevant, surely...
Go onto the Ferrari thread (and I very much suspect it'll be the same for Lambo or MacLaren) and ask them there what they've spent on their cars between buying new and first MoT.
Hint: you aren't going to like the answer.
First off, petrol, assuming we're are talking about an old Ford Diesel, a 458 doing 4k miles will cost more in fuel than a Focus doing the average of 12k a year.
Insurance is more.
Servicing is A LOT more.
New pads, 20x the price.
Tires, I recently had a puncture on the R8, that was £600 for a pair, you don't need those high rated tires on a Focus.
The 458 will cost SUBSTANTIALLY more, to be honest if it didn't even move apart from it's service, it would cost more.
Laugh all you like, but its started with "which is cheaper to MAINTAIN?? A new fezza or a banger". And the honest answer is the fezza.
People who buy £500 bangers which never run up nasty bills are lucky. And rare. So rare and lucky that they should take up gambling. Because the world is not full of 15 year old low maintenance cars. Who's not learned that the hard way? You buy a £500 car you take a chance.
These days a new Audi A4 sport is £120 a month inc vat to lease. And with all the bells and whistles of the deal I'd be stunned if it's much if at all dearer than okgo's 15 year old banger to run.
Sorry mate, the banger's not an economy for the potential house buyer. And with all the grief that comes with them, not a wise move by any standard.
People who buy £500 bangers which never run up nasty bills are lucky. And rare. So rare and lucky that they should take up gambling. Because the world is not full of 15 year old low maintenance cars. Who's not learned that the hard way? You buy a £500 car you take a chance.
These days a new Audi A4 sport is £120 a month inc vat to lease. And with all the bells and whistles of the deal I'd be stunned if it's much if at all dearer than okgo's 15 year old banger to run.
Sorry mate, the banger's not an economy for the potential house buyer. And with all the grief that comes with them, not a wise move by any standard.
swerni said:
If your sorn it for 11 months you aren't running it so it's pointless.
Are you also going to do your 4000 miles all in 1 month?
As to tyres, if after three years they don't need changing, you haven't been using it.
Insurance wise, you may be an old duffer but it's still going to be cheaper to insure a ford.
Let's compare like shall we or it's a pointless comparison.
As above, MAINTAIN was the question. So my sorn nonsense was just a response to your non-maintenance cost nonsense.Are you also going to do your 4000 miles all in 1 month?
As to tyres, if after three years they don't need changing, you haven't been using it.
Insurance wise, you may be an old duffer but it's still going to be cheaper to insure a ford.
Let's compare like shall we or it's a pointless comparison.
Tyres: Well when mine sold the 3 unchanged ones weren't illegal tho they probably got changed for the resale. I don't think it's at all unrealistic to get 10-12k out of Bridgestone Potenzas on road use. Its 430 predecessor was much the same, and I always found the tyres to be surprisingly cheap compared to, say, an A7 etc etc.
Insurance wise you're just plain wrong. Maybe good insurance is dear, but on an Admiral multi-car with garage, good postcode, big NCB, limited mileage and high excess it's not just cheap it's very cheap. Can't fully remember but think its annual share of the multi started with a 3.
And anyway ins isn't maint…..
C'mon have you never owned a banger? Yer hand's never out yer pocket as you well know. The phrase most banger owners hear most is "not an economic repair".
drainbrain said:
As above, MAINTAIN was the question. So my sorn nonsense was just a response to your non-maintenance cost nonsense.
In that case it was your question that was a nonsense in the first place. The cost of maintenance is just one aspect of the running costs that need to be considered yet you're ignoring the others. Why?Marc p said:
You are joking right?
First off, petrol, assuming we're are talking about an old Ford Diesel, a 458 doing 4k miles will cost more in fuel than a Focus doing the average of 12k a year.
Insurance is more.
Servicing is A LOT more.
New pads, 20x the price.
Tires, I recently had a puncture on the R8, that was £600 for a pair, you don't need those high rated tires on a Focus.
The 458 will cost SUBSTANTIALLY more, to be honest if it didn't even move apart from it's service, it would cost more.
Petrol isn't maintenance.First off, petrol, assuming we're are talking about an old Ford Diesel, a 458 doing 4k miles will cost more in fuel than a Focus doing the average of 12k a year.
Insurance is more.
Servicing is A LOT more.
New pads, 20x the price.
Tires, I recently had a puncture on the R8, that was £600 for a pair, you don't need those high rated tires on a Focus.
The 458 will cost SUBSTANTIALLY more, to be honest if it didn't even move apart from it's service, it would cost more.
Insurance isn't necessarily more and anyway isn't maintenance either.
Servicing is zero for 7 years with Ferrari
Pads don't need frequent changing on road use cars. Not doing 4k a year, anyway.
Tires- should have ticked the insured box, but Potenzas aren't 200 a corner never mind 300. I needed 1 in 3 years.
All old bangers are high maintenance (apart from PH ones) apart from being singularly depressing. A good modern car these days should be quite the opposite.Cheap to run and cheerful to own. What's the point in sitting in a nice house and running a banger, not to mention making a hundred other lifestyle economies? None. It's for people who live for tomorrow. The big middle-class con. Future gratification. Apart from being a huge gamble on a tomorrow which may never come and one day is 100% certain not to come.
Carpe Diem! Live for the moment! Be Here Now! Eat drink and drive a good car! You never know, you may not be able to do it tomorrow.
mackay45 said:
drainbrain said:
As above, MAINTAIN was the question. So my sorn nonsense was just a response to your non-maintenance cost nonsense.
In that case it was your question that was a nonsense in the first place. The cost of maintenance is just one aspect of the running costs that need to be considered yet you're ignoring the others. Why?You said:
Has anyone got a 'not sure if serious' meme handy?
"A supercar is considerably cheaper to maintain than a banger." - that's the most ridiculous thing I've read on here for some time, which makes me think you are just trolling?
So, old boy, which is the cheaper to m-a-i-n-t-a-i-n ? New 458 or Old Banger???
Which has the higher maintenance costs? The one with almost constant garage needs or the one whose needs are entirely covered by warranties and guarantees- not that these need called upon much.
Come on, don't be such a scrooge, be magnanimous in your reply!
You know the Ferrari servicing still has a cost right? Even if it's 'free' for 7 years that doesn't mean the owner hasn't paid for it elsewhere.
I stand by my statement, you are a troll. If I could be bothered I'd pick apart every line of your arguments the same way you're trying to do to others but it's time for a beer.
I stand by my statement, you are a troll. If I could be bothered I'd pick apart every line of your arguments the same way you're trying to do to others but it's time for a beer.
mackay45 said:
You know the Ferrari servicing still has a cost right? Even if it's 'free' for 7 years that doesn't mean the owner hasn't paid for it elsewhere.
I stand by my statement, you are a troll. If I could be bothered I'd pick apart every line of your arguments the same way you're trying to do to others but it's time for a beer.
Nice answer.I stand by my statement, you are a troll. If I could be bothered I'd pick apart every line of your arguments the same way you're trying to do to others but it's time for a beer.
Try this:
Most if not all new cars are cheap to maintain because of the guarantees and warranties that accompany them not to mention build improvements including even the materials of which they're made which are aimed at reducing maintenance costs.
Most if not all old bangers are expensive to maintain because of the lack of guarantees and warranties that mean the constantly increasing running cost of wear and tear has to be paid for by their owners. Generally the older they are and the longer they are used the more expensive they become, which is why almost all of them end up scrapped rather than used forever. They become uneconomic.
I think you know this but are just unwilling to say so.
Returning it to topic…….
If considering a property purchase it may not be an economy to sacrifice a decent car for a banger for that reason alone because it may not work out to be an economy at all.
swerni said:
Yup, despite the 458 having 7 years free maintenance.
I'm certainly not naive, i know the delta is nowhere near what people imagine, but that wasn't the question.
Your assumption is that something major is going to go wrong or a series of more minor faults with the cheap car, but that is just an assumption.
BTW does yours require a tracker?
I'm afraid mine had to be sold last November, but it came supplied with tracker. Don't even recall it being an option. Pretty sure it was standard.I'm certainly not naive, i know the delta is nowhere near what people imagine, but that wasn't the question.
Your assumption is that something major is going to go wrong or a series of more minor faults with the cheap car, but that is just an assumption.
BTW does yours require a tracker?
And yes that certainly was my key assumption. In terms of the faults, both major and series of minor, either of which lead to my conclusion - a new car is 'cheaper' than an old car. But it's a safe assumption, isn't it?
In one way it possibly isn't. As established, I am old, and the bangers of my day are all gone other than the odd one in a museum. But nowadays cars ARE more robust in certain ways, esp. relating to bodywork versus UK weather. However, they're also more complex. FAR more complex. The downside of which is there's more to go wrong and the fix must be more specialist to enact. And more specialist is always more expensive, isn't it? Even specialist tools, unique to a make, are often required. And of course diagnostic equipment and its proper use are well beyond the average 'bloke who knows his spanners'. So maybe it's a safe assumption after all.
I also recall back in the 80's being pally with a neighbour in Spain who was an ex senior engineer at Ford (probably my favourite make back then). He talked about 'built in obsolescence' back then. Wouldn't think that was a policy anyone had reversed. And the whole point of that game is to make new more attractive than clinging on to old by making it a financial no-brainer.
drainbrain said:
And yes that certainly was my key assumption. In terms of the faults, both major and series of minor, either of which lead to my conclusion - a new car is 'cheaper' than an old car. But it's a safe assumption, isn't it?
no, sorry, not a safe assumption. In fact totally wrong. Have you heard of the bathtub curve? It is an old concept but still valid today. Basically it tells you that the most failures occur (in any product, including humans) when it is nearly new or very old. The early stuff is infant mortality (generally manufacturing faults), the later stuff due to wear and tear.So your new car is going to (statistically anyway) have more faults than an average age one. A really old one will have more faults still.
So the trick is to buy a car that is old but not so old that it is worn out. Perhaps that is your problem, you equate "banger" with what they were in your youth when everything older than 10 years old was a rust bucket with a knackered engine? Nowadays a 10 year old car is still getting down the banger prices (ie sub £1000) but is probably only half way through its life mile wise (if looked after).
drainbrain said:
In one way it possibly isn't. As established, I am old, and the bangers of my day are all gone other than the odd one in a museum. But nowadays cars ARE more robust in certain ways, esp. relating to bodywork versus UK weather. However, they're also more complex. FAR more complex. The downside of which is there's more to go wrong and the fix must be more specialist to enact. And more specialist is always more expensive, isn't it? Even specialist tools, unique to a make, are often required. And of course diagnostic equipment and its proper use are well beyond the average 'bloke who knows his spanners'. So maybe it's a safe assumption after all.
here I would say you are half right new cars today are getting too complex, both safety stuff, emissions stuff and general toys. Again, statistically this means more stuff to go wrong and bigger bills. Todays bangers (ie 10+ years old) are about the sweet stop imho. In 2000 to 2005 design and manufacturing was light years ahead of "the old days" so the cars are inherently more reliable (and rust proof!) than they used to be. But at that point the technology was not so complicated. So actually more reliable that new cars are today (or at least cheaper to fix when they do go wrong). And an ODBII tool is £20 on ebay so well within the remit of the "average bloke who knows his spanners".
drainbrain said:
I also recall back in the 80's being pally with a neighbour in Spain who was an ex senior engineer at Ford (probably my favourite make back then). He talked about 'built in obsolescence' back then. Wouldn't think that was a policy anyone had reversed. And the whole point of that game is to make new more attractive than clinging on to old by making it a financial no-brainer.
Depends what you mean by built in obsolescence. To suggest that they design cars deliberately to make them fail is I think wrong. However they will have reliablity and life span targets and are probably not much interested in spending more money (either in design or manufacturer) to make it last longer than that target. drainbrain said:
Nice answer.
Try this:
Most if not all new cars are cheap to maintain because of the guarantees and warranties that accompany them not to mention build improvements including even the materials of which they're made which are aimed at reducing maintenance costs.
Most if not all old bangers are expensive to maintain because of the lack of guarantees and warranties that mean the constantly increasing running cost of wear and tear has to be paid for by their owners. Generally the older they are and the longer they are used the more expensive they become, which is why almost all of them end up scrapped rather than used forever. They become uneconomic.
I think you know this but are just unwilling to say so.
Returning it to topic…….
If considering a property purchase it may not be an economy to sacrifice a decent car for a banger for that reason alone because it may not work out to be an economy at all.
You haven't met the Toyota carina e......Try this:
Most if not all new cars are cheap to maintain because of the guarantees and warranties that accompany them not to mention build improvements including even the materials of which they're made which are aimed at reducing maintenance costs.
Most if not all old bangers are expensive to maintain because of the lack of guarantees and warranties that mean the constantly increasing running cost of wear and tear has to be paid for by their owners. Generally the older they are and the longer they are used the more expensive they become, which is why almost all of them end up scrapped rather than used forever. They become uneconomic.
I think you know this but are just unwilling to say so.
Returning it to topic…….
If considering a property purchase it may not be an economy to sacrifice a decent car for a banger for that reason alone because it may not work out to be an economy at all.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff