Used car market is dead...?

[Sheepshanks]

J4CKO said:

Can certainly see how, for the additional effort and the potential liability of it stting the bed spectacularly how a lease is compelling, say a Golf GTI for an amortized £260 a month, no skinned knuckles, no worrying about noises, no MOT messing, nice new car, no worrying about flogging it.

Yeah but....it's kind of a pointless comparison - your older V8 CLS vs a new Golf GTi. If you'd bought an older Golf GTi then that probably wouldn't have cost much to keep going.

And on a new lease car you have to pay rip-off pricing for servicing and replace tyres etc if needed.

Having said that I've got an old C270CDi Estate which I bought at a very good price at 5 months old. Assuming it's worth £1500 now (and that might be stretching it) it's lost £150/mth in depreciation at the price I paid (£23,500) and £230 based on new list price (£35,000 - and there weren't hefty discounts then).

So for a few quid more (which I've probably spent in other costs) I could have leased a new one, but now I might as well just run it into the ground.

[havoc]

a said:

So that's £3,050 on costs that my lease car will not incur, plus ~£400 per year difference in fuel.

I didn't get the cheapest lease car I could as I don't like low-spec cars... but I now have a car with a value of ~£24k for an amortised cost of £3,098 per year. The 8 year old Mondeo was £3,050 over 8 months.

Is that car equivalent to the Mondeo? And would the Mondeo have continued to incur those costs year-on-year?

You had a bad experience with a lemon (albeit IMHO any old common-rail turbo-diesel is a gamble, TBH) - doesn't mean the next one will be.

Leasing CAN be cheaper than ownership for a given profile, but equally it CAN be a lot more expensive. And the hidden cost of leasing is the 'unfair wear and tear' charges when the car goes back. No-one talks about that...

[ST Ford]

Can't believe anyone can say a lease is as good as or better value than buying used cars!
Take my situation. I got offered a brand new Fiesta ST on lease for in total 4.5k over 2 years all in which is cheap compared to most deals.
My 2006 Focus ST225. After running for 18 months and putting 15k miles on it and re selling it cost me 2.3k to own all in.
My Mondeo ST220 over 12 months has cost me £300 in total for service and mot and I could sell that for near enough what I paid right now.
So there are 3 very similar cars all the same sort of power etc and it would have cost twice as much to lease a new ST than what my 2 used cars have cost.
Leasing is by far the most expensive way to own a car.

[daemon]

ST Ford said:

Leasing is by far the most expensive way to own a car.

It's really not.

Cash is often more expensive when comparing like with like.

PCP is often more expensive too.

Running an older car can be cheaper, but likewise it can be more hassle and throw up biggish maintenance bills.

I'd a low miles 2004 Volvo T5 2.5T and in the six months I had it it was off the road for six weeks in total for diagnostics and awaiting parts and cost something like £900 in repairs. Previous mg zt 2.5 V6 was similar in terms of cost and over a similar timeframe.

Maybe I've been "unlucky" but likewise I think I'm too much of a perfectionist to run an older car and I don't have enough time that I am happy to dedicate to wallying about after old cars when something goes wrong, particularly given I work away from home 3 nights a week.

There's no wrong or right answer. It's just down to each person's personal circumstances and requirements.

I can see why people lease. £250 a month for say a golf GTI or golf R all in sounds palatable.

Edited by daemon on Saturday 22 July 12:12

[havoc]

daemon said:

£250 a month for say a golf GTI all in sounds palatable.

Which is exactly what the wife is doing right now (less, actually - £4,700 over 2 years) - did some sums and even averaging dep'n over 3 years a 2nd hand Mk7 GTi wouldn't really have been any cheaper per year.

Conversely the Octavia vRS lease I backed out of would have been >£8k over 2 years, which didn't compare quite so well vs running a 2nd hand small-saloon/big hatch.

So it depends on what you're after, what deals are around at the time, and how long you typically keep cars for. Leases also don't make sense if you load them with options...so you need to be happy with the car almost as-is...

[nickfrog]

ST Ford said:

Leasing is by far the most expensive way to own a car.

By far the cheapest way for us for a car under 2-years if you rationally look at all the parameters but you can't generalise - it can be expensive, it can be cheap. Like paying cash.

[Sheepshanks]

ST Ford said:

My 2006 Focus ST225. After running for 18 months and putting 15k miles on it and re selling it cost me 2.3k to own all in.

When was that 18 month period? If you buy a car at 10yrs old and sell it at 11.5yrs old then you really shouldn't expect to lose much on any car, unless you overpaid when buying it.

[daemon]

Sheepshanks said:

ST Ford said:

My 2006 Focus ST225. After running for 18 months and putting 15k miles on it and re selling it cost me 2.3k to own all in.

When was that 18 month period? If you buy a car at 10yrs old and sell it at 11.5yrs old then you really shouldn't expect to lose much on any car, unless you overpaid when buying it.

+1

My last 3 oldish cars i got withing +/- £100 of what I paid for them.

Not much point in running an old car then blow your brains out in depreciation anyway...

[a]

havoc said:

Is that car equivalent to the Mondeo? And would the Mondeo have continued to incur those costs year-on-year?

You had a bad experience with a lemon (albeit IMHO any old common-rail turbo-diesel is a gamble, TBH) - doesn't mean the next one will be.

Leasing CAN be cheaper than ownership for a given profile, but equally it CAN be a lot more expensive. And the hidden cost of leasing is the 'unfair wear and tear' charges when the car goes back. No-one talks about that...

Given the issues I'd had with the last Mondeo, and the fact that my 5 previous Mondeos were not much better (I don't know why I keep going back to them ), I've decided to stay away from Ford for now. Replacement car is a Hyundai Tucson, which is very different obviously, but retail value is similar.

I have only heard a few cases of lease companies trying it on with wear and tear charges, and usually it's fairly simple to dispute by following the BVRLA standards. The issue is more with scratches/dents/chips/kerbs that you might have lived with if it was your car, but obviously they will charge for them. I think that's fair enough, they would reduce the sale/trade-in value of the car even if you did own it.

[Prohibiting]

The whole leasing vs cash used vehicle ownership debates crops up all the time on PH.

Cash for interesting old used vehicles for me.

[nobrakes]

It also depends if you have cash or not. Roughly, £2.5 deposit plus £7200 (36 x say 200) totals say £10k and in return you get "use" of a brand new (say £20k worth) car. Not bad if you only have £2.5k to start with.

Having said that, I bought a 6 year old main dealer Merc e320cdi estate with a years merc warranty. I negotiated 2k off the 14k screen price trading in a banger nearly 3 years ago. Now, it's probably only worth 7 if I sold it but it's a great car and I plan to run it as long as possible. Tyres and and break pads I think. Servicing ? 30 a month service plan by the main dealer, and that includes MB breakdown which also covers Europe - happy days!

So I've paid a bit over 3 year lease money for it but have a great motor. I could have leased a brand new one but I'd be needing to find another 2.5k deposit now. In fact the lease cost for the new version of that was probably more like 350 to 400 a month at the time.

I'll probably never lease one, but I can see how it suits loads of folk. Sure a 5 or 6 year old motor can be a bag of nails, but I reckon I mitigated these risks by going to a merc dealer ( they were topically only a fraction more than cargiant type places).

[ST Ford]

Sheepshanks said:

When was that 18 month period? If you buy a car at 10yrs old and sell it at 11.5yrs old then you really shouldn't expect to lose much on any car, unless you overpaid when buying it.

Last year bought it for 5k put 15k miles on it then sold it for 4.2k.
£800 loss for putting 15k miles on it is nothing. The other 1.5k over the 18 months in maintenance was the cambelt/waterpump which is £400 then £400 on 4 tyres the rest was just servicing and brake discs. That's a total cost of 2.3k total over 18 months of owning.
My Mondeo ST220 has only cost me £300 in just coming up 12 months.
Both have worked out far cheaper than any lease would cost for a similar car

[Prohibiting]

2002 Saab 9-5 Aero Estate, 2.3 litre turbo.

Used daily.
Bought £1,520, 3 years ago.
Worth now, £1,200.
Servicing/MOT in 3 years, £910 (4 tyres, oil/filter changes done myself, spark plugs and DI cassette)

In 3 years, it's cost me £1,230 then.

Equivalent new car leased, £300/month? £10,800.
£9,250 worse off over 3 years.

Cheers then.

Absolute no brainer to me.

I guess some people don't like to be seen driving around in older cars and would rather keep up with the Jones'. Funnily enough, this car is amazing. I bet it has more options/extra's than most poverty spec'd leased cars.

Each to their own.

Edited by Prohibiting on Saturday 22 July 21:01

[mondeoman]

What's a 550 touring going to set me back on a lease? Oh that's right, 750 a month plus vat, so let's call that 900. A month. Or best part of 32k over three years.
Compare that with 10k for a 6 yo 2nd hand, just as good. Which has cost me nothing so far except insurance and fuel, which I'd have to pay anyway. And in a years time I'll get 3k for it, so I'll lose 7k in 2yrs, compared with 21k

Doesnt compare at all.

[Butter Face]

Oh good, we're on to comparing old cars bought at the bottom of their depreciation curve to brand new vehicles at the top of theirs. This is always fun....



Not.

Old car costs less than new car shocker, CALL THE PAPERS, STOP THE PRESS

[Prohibiting]

Butter Face said:

Oh good, we're on to comparing old cars bought at the bottom of their depreciation curve to brand new vehicles at the top of theirs. This is always fun....



Not.

Old car costs less than new car shocker, CALL THE PAPERS, STOP THE PRESS

Well there's some plonkers on here saying that lease deals are more cost effective/better etc etc. We're just proving that they're completely wrong.

[Olivera]

Prohibiting said:

2002 Saab 9-5 Aero Estate, 2.3 litre turbo.

Used daily.
Bought £1,520, 3 years ago.
Worth now, £1,200.
Servicing/MOT in 3 years, £910 (4 tyres, oil/filter changes done myself, spark plugs and DI cassette)

In 3 years, it's cost me £1,230 then.

Equivalent new car leased, £300/month? £10,800.
£9,250 worse off over 3 years

Edited by Prohibiting on Saturday 22 July 21:01

You are forgetting that an old 9-5 was a thoroughly mediocre car even in 2002, compared to a 2017 £300 p/m small exec saloon, it will be thoroughly dogst in comparison.

But yes I agree it will be cheaper.

[Sheepshanks]

ST Ford said:

Both have worked out far cheaper than any lease would cost for a similar car

You can't lease a 10yr old car.


It would be slightly ridiculous if it wasn't cheaper to run an old car otherwise there would be absolutely no market for them - cars would be thrown away at 3yrs old.

[mondeoman]

Sheepshanks said:

ST Ford said:

Both have worked out far cheaper than any lease would cost for a similar car

You can't lease a 10yr old car.


It would be slightly ridiculous if it wasn't cheaper to run an old car otherwise there would be absolutely no market for them - cars would be thrown away at 3yrs old.

Isn't that where we're heading?

[cat220]

Olivera said:

Prohibiting said:

2002 Saab 9-5 Aero Estate, 2.3 litre turbo.

Used daily.
Bought £1,520, 3 years ago.
Worth now, £1,200.
Servicing/MOT in 3 years, £910 (4 tyres, oil/filter changes done myself, spark plugs and DI cassette)

In 3 years, it's cost me £1,230 then.

Equivalent new car leased, £300/month? £10,800.
£9,250 worse off over 3 years

Edited by Prohibiting on Saturday 22 July 21:01

You are forgetting that an old 9-5 was a thoroughly mediocre car even in 2002, compared to a 2017 £300 p/m small exec saloon, it will be thoroughly dogst in comparison.

But yes I agree it will be cheaper.

All a matter of opinion, most £300/month lease deals these days all revolve around 4 pot diesels. Despite having plenty of tech, in my mind to drive are mediocre. I'd much rather have a 9-5 aero.