Is fuel economy blown way out of proportion?

[bp1000]

I run a v8 XFR and wife a rav4 diesel

I get 19-21mpg average and she gets 35mpg. This never really changes and both are a very respectable mix of dual carriageway, a-road and town. What i would call a proper average.

I get a lot of comments about running a v8, all centred around, "oh i bet that costs a lot in fuel"... well no, not really.

On 5k miles it is an extra £43 a month compared to the rav4. At 10k miles assuming longer journeys its an extra £64 a month or £204 in total for monthly fuel on the v8. Less than a sky subscription and about what some people spend on wine and alcohol per month. (the increase over the diesel that is, not the full amount)

If you take this increase in cost outside of motoring it seems to become a little more justifiable. Of course if you did high mileage or you had a strict budget you need to get as economical as possible.

But it seems to me mpg is blown way out of proportion and in peoples heads v8's seem to be prohibitively expensive to fuel. My 335d did 36mpg average and i've never driven a car that would do more than about 42mpg true mixed average. If you sit on the m-way all day a VAG diesel is going to give you nearer to 50mpg and your mileage probably does require you have a sensible car for the job.

It just amused me to hear a mum comment on my fuel usage when she was driving a 1.8 tonne diesel people carrier that doesn't get much more than 32mpg.

Depreciation eclipses the extra cost in fuel by quite some margin.

[SystemParanoia]

i burn through over £200 a mth @ 15k p/a

a v6/v8/v12 would have me bankrupt and homeless before the end of the month

no depreciation to worry about here either

[ATTAK Z]

bp1000 said:

................ Depreciation eclipses the extra cost in fuel by quite some margin.

This ^^^^ is true

[talksthetalk]

^^^^^^if you buy a car that depreciates faster than it uses fuel.

[gizlaroc]

I had the S4 V8 and it cost me around £700-900 a month, the car was not worth that outlay imho.

Swapped for a 335i and that cost me £450-600, far better.

Then swapped to a, E320cdi auto estate, cost me £300-400 a month. For the driving I was doing it was spot on.



However, As an overall cost, I do think it is overated, if you think the fuel is costing money as you're doing loads of miles the depreciation will make you cry!!!


Or just buy an older car and say sod it to the fuel.

[CYMR0]

SystemParanoia said:

i burn through over £200 a mth @ 15k p/a

a v6/v8/v12 would have me bankrupt and homeless before the end of the month

no depreciation to worry about here either

38 mpg from the Metro... 28 mpg from an (admittedly straight 6, not V6) E36 328i would be £73 a month extra. Okay, that might make a big difference to your monthly budget but it sounds like it's less than you thought.

[tbc]

what kind of Sky subscription costs £200 a month, does it come with it's own satellite

[CYMR0]

tbc said:

what kind of Sky subscription costs £200 a month, does it come with it's own satellite

OP said the difference between an XFR and a 'sensible' car is roughly the cost of Sky, not the whole amount.

[SpeckledJim]

ATTAK Z said:

bp1000 said:

................ Depreciation eclipses the extra cost in fuel by quite some margin.

This ^^^^ is true

Yup. At less than say 8-10k per year, a nice luxury car that has done the vast bulk of its depreciating, yet has a large engine and is worth, say, £5k, will probably be cheaper to own over a few years than a £5k 1.6 hatchback that's heading rapidly towards a retail value of £450.

Thankfully, almost nobody has done these sums and it is still a huge, huge secret. So shush!

[dwol]

Just gone from a 110 afn passat to a remapped octavia vrs (old shape) costs an extra £10 a week in fuel but has another 90 bhp so a fair trade off I reckon

[mattshiz]

tbc said:

what kind of Sky subscription costs £200 a month, does it come with it's own satellite

Are you trying to be a dick?

He's talking about the difference between the mpg for his car and his wives, which is up to £64 a month. This is also about what you'd pay for sky with the sports channels etc.

[k-ink]

I currently run a 1.8 turbo. But I am looking at changing to a V8. The economy will be lower, but as you say in the grand scheme it is not a massive deal. Also one aspect I can make a saving on is the purchase price. A used V8 model on my list is half the cost of the more mainstream used 1.4 turbo cars I have seen. So for a few extra quid per month on fuel I get to keep thousands more in my bank, will ride in more comfort and speed. Less depreciation too. Not a terrible trade off.

[Contigo]

Fuel economy is a nightmare if you are doing mega miles. Unless you are made of money and want to be at the pump everyday where the average fill price is £80 a tank then don't get a car that has below 20mpg economy it's really that simple. If you only do say 5-7K miles a year than suck it all up and just get on with running a car that you enjoy driving but make sure it's got the performance to match as running a car that is juicy but doesn't perform is even more of a headache imo.

[SystemParanoia]

CYMR0 said:

SystemParanoia said:

i burn through over £200 a mth @ 15k p/a

a v6/v8/v12 would have me bankrupt and homeless before the end of the month

no depreciation to worry about here either

38 mpg from the Metro... 28 mpg from an (admittedly straight 6, not V6) E36 328i would be £73 a month extra. Okay, that might make a big difference to your monthly budget but it sounds like it's less than you thought.

but there is no way in hell I would have one of those engines and not squeeze the loud pedal to hear its sweet music..

i anticipate single digit MPG's during the entire 60mile round trip... every single day


on the plus side, if i get the new job i applied for, ill be shopping for a v12 as my commute will only be 5 miles each way

Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 29th March 22:24

[A900ss]

I have a TVR Chimera V8 for fun and a 520d for the boring stuff.
Best of both worlds.

[talksthetalk]

I do 35k a year in a car that has averaged 49.3mpg since new.
35000m/50mpg*4.54lpergal*£1.40ppl = £4449 pa fuel cost - ME
35000m/20mpg*4.54lpergal*£1.35ppl = £10725pa fuel cost - Me in a v8
Dunno about you but I can't afford an extra 6.3k on top of all the depreciation I have to pay as I have to have a car under 5 yrs for work.

I agree, however, for an average private owner (not a PHer) they look at how long a £20 quid top up lasts and how much the Tax Disc costs, cos it always takes them by surprise.

A family friend just bought a new 160 Bhp Diesel Astra. His last car, a cityrover, was eight years old and had 34k on the clock.

[V400TC]

I consider not Smoking and Drinking by choice a good trade off for
20MPG V8 27MPG V6 and 34MPG 4 cylinder
the only issue now in our house is whose car we can take next
the 4 cylinder never gets picked unless we are collecting building materials.
when we run out of money then we will worry.
until then

[CYMR0]

talksthetalk said:

I do 35k a year in a car that has averaged 49.3mpg since new.
35000m/50mpg*4.54lpergal*£1.40ppl = £4449 pa fuel cost - ME
35000m/20mpg*4.54lpergal*£1.35ppl = £10725pa fuel cost - Me in a v8
Dunno about you but I can't afford an extra 6.3k on top of all the depreciation I have to pay as I have to have a car under 5 yrs for work.

I agree, however, for an average private owner (not a PHer) they look at how long a £20 quid top up lasts and how much the Tax Disc costs, cos it always takes them by surprise.

A family friend just bought a new 160 Bhp Diesel Astra. His last car, a cityrover, was eight years old and had 34k on the clock.

Of course not, but if you were doing 7k per year then you'd be saving £100 a month going from something super frugal to something super silly (C200 to C63, for instance) rather than, say, a 1.6 diesel Astra to a 2.0 petrol turbo - say 55 mpg to 35mpg, which is about £35 a month in fuel saving and probably an extra £2k on the purchase price in the wrong direction.

[Cemesis]

A year ago I sold my M5 and bought a 1.6 litre Diesel Skoda. The reason for this was that the difference in fuel alone was over £4,000 a year for the 20,000 miles I drive. Add onto this the road tax, tyres and maintenance items on a 100k car and the potential savings were huge.

However, the replacement car was brand new so actually, I save very little for the first two years of ownership whilst I pay off the finance (at 0%). After two years though I am going to be saving a minimum of £5,000 a year. Thats a massive amount of money.

[SpeckledJim]

Cemesis said:

A year ago I sold my M5 and bought a 1.6 litre Diesel Skoda. The reason for this was that the difference in fuel alone was over £4,000 a year for the 20,000 miles I drive. Add onto this the road tax, tyres and maintenance items on a 100k car and the potential savings were huge.

However, the replacement car was brand new so actually, I save very little for the first two years of ownership whilst I pay off the finance (at 0%). After two years though I am going to be saving a minimum of £5,000 a year. Thats a massive amount of money.

So why not go for a two year old model? You've volunteered to postpone the benefit for two years, at a cost of £10,000.

You could have driven the M5 for two more years, then bought a 2-yo Skoda and been no worse off.