Is fuel economy blown way out of proportion?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Cost of new car = £20,000.

100,000 miles at 30 mpg = 3,333 gallons = £21,000 fuel cost.

100,000 miles at 40 mpg = 2,500 gallons = £16,000 fuel cost.

Is a £5,000 fuel saving "blown out of proportion" compared with depreciation of, say, £15,000?

[briang9]

SystemParanoia said:

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

not sure a five mile each way trip would be all that good for a V12 would it? I always thought larger engines dont like short trips where they don't get a chance to really warm up properly

[Stedman]

This is the exact reason I keep on running my 20mpg car, and am now looking at supercharged V8-hearted cars. At 5k miles PA, it's no biggie.

The cost of the change to a 50mpg city car would be silly.

[Nuttah]

i had a midly tuned saab 9-5 aero averaged around 22mpg swapped it for a 120d. i used to put in £400 a month not i put in around £200 pretty big saving for me.

[SystemParanoia]

briang9 said:

SystemParanoia said:

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

not sure a five mile each way trip would be all that good for a V12 would it? I always thought larger engines dont like short trips where they don't get a chance to really warm up properly

you're right.. but its 5 miles down a motorway.. and the money i save from not commuting a million miles a year means i can go for a long fun drive more often, instead of having all my drive time dedicated to boring commuting

[anonymous-user]

What price do you put on fun? I remember a couple of years ago the first time it cost me over £100 to fill up with fuel. Now it's about £125. The only way to beat the system is to buy a knackered diesel Rover or similar and drive it on chip fat but it won't put much of a smile on your face.

[8vFTW]

I think most "normal" people see having a car that does more MPG than their neighbors some how makes them more shrewd or in the know.

But I don't think your comparison is entirely fair either, fuel consumption is only one aspect of running a car. Things like insurance may make a V8 prohibitively expensive.

Edited by 8vFTW on Friday 29th March 22:55

[Devil2575]

Whether it's blown out of proportion or not depends entirely on what you drive, how many miles you do and your attitude to cars.

[STW2010]

tbc said:

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

What a mong.

Read the OP again

[CYMR0]

SpeckledJim said:

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

Assuming he could straight swap his M5 for a two year old Skoda, that's spot on.

If he buys the car now, he funds the cost to change with the fuel saving. (Keep it easy, £5k for the M5, £15k for the new car).

In 2 years, he'll have a £10k Skoda and nothing left to pay on it.

If he waits two years, he'll have a £3k M5 and still have to find £7k to buy a two-year-old Skoda, for the same outlay.

Of course, buying a two-year-old car immediately might have been cheaper again - but there'd be interest to find (only a few hundred quid though) plus at some point, that car will be two years older and therefore two years further along the maintenance and depreciation curves.

[SystemParanoia]

Devil2575 said:

Whether it's blown out of proportion or not depends entirely on what you drive, how many miles you do and your attitude to cars.

i'd drive a car with the engine from an oil super tanker if i could.

but im limited to driving what i can afford to fuel.. AND repair / maintain <-- important

[anonymous-user]

Devil2575 said:

Whether it's blown out of proportion or not depends entirely on what you drive, how many miles you do and your attitude to cars.

Exactly.

My impreza mpg is not great, however I love diving it. It's a combination of getting from a to b and a hobby! I spend money on others hobbies: climbing, mountain biking etc. I also spend a bit more on petrol because driving is a bit like a hobby.....I enjoy it. I don't do many miles and I commute on a motorbike. If you're not a petrol head then running a v6/12/ whatever seems pointless.

Each to their own. My car isn't efficient; I don't care; I like driving it..

[jjr1]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Cost of new car = £20,000.

100,000 miles at 30 mpg = 3,333 gallons = £21,000 fuel cost.

100,000 miles at 40 mpg = 2,500 gallons = £16,000 fuel cost.

Is a £5,000 fuel saving "blown out of proportion" compared with depreciation of, say, £15,000?

Except this is ste as the diesel will cost loads more and generally not be as fast or as much fun over those 100,000 miles.

[SpeckledJim]

CYMR0 said:

SpeckledJim said:

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

Assuming he could straight swap his M5 for a two year old Skoda, that's spot on.

If he buys the car now, he funds the cost to change with the fuel saving. (Keep it easy, £5k for the M5, £15k for the new car).

In 2 years, he'll have a £10k Skoda and nothing left to pay on it.

If he waits two years, he'll have a £3k M5 and still have to find £7k to buy a two-year-old Skoda, for the same outlay.

Of course, buying a two-year-old car immediately might have been cheaper again - but there'd be interest to find (only a few hundred quid though) plus at some point, that car will be two years older and therefore two years further along the maintenance and depreciation curves.

I accept all your well-made points. But he made the switch away from one of the all-time greats for financial reasons, but chose a car that would take two years to be any cheaper week-in week-out than a BMW M5. That sounds like a strange decision.

[SystemParanoia]

a v10 m5 can generate some major bloody bills that can easily exceed the value of his new steed.

[daemon]

talksthetalk said:

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

You mean like a Seat Exeo?

[405dogvan]

Currently, fuel is 50% of the cost of running my car and that's at 42mpg average...

My last car scraped 32ish and so it was a MUCH larger proportion!

I don't mind because it's still the cheapest and most convenient way to get around by such a massive margin that to complain about it is a first-world-problem of the most enormous proportions...

Fuel costs could DOUBLE and I'd still be better-off using my car than I would getting public transport - and it would have go-up 6-fold to match the cost of a taxi

[SystemParanoia]

public transport would mean i can look forward to a 2hr commute each way instead of the current 45mins

I would also be unable to get to work, or get home from work if im on an early or late shift.

brilliant lol

[V88Dicky]

I find it strange that the same people who wouldn't bat an eyelid doing, say, 15k per year in a 50mpg car, simply can't believe that some people would do 7.5k per year in a 25mpg car.

Much sucking of air through teeth and rolling of eyes from them.

[busta]

Worrying about fuel economy is for poor people