Confusing purchase price with "value for money"
Discussion
(Or A-level man maths)
I see a lot of people on this forum conflating the purchase price of a car with "value for money".
My personal man maths says what I should really be interested in is "the cost to me to own the car"
So if I could buy a v12vs manual for £150k or a new Jaguar XF at £45k many would say the Jaguar XF is "better value"
But if in 5 years time the v12vs manual is worth £150k (for sake of argument) and the XF is worth £18k. Which is actually better value? I would argue the v12vs
I've owned a lot of expensive cars in my time - most of them cost me less than £40k to buy. By far and away my cheapest car to own was a db5......
I throw this out there because I think sometimes people look at headline price and forget the true cost to own some of these things
I see a lot of people on this forum conflating the purchase price of a car with "value for money".
My personal man maths says what I should really be interested in is "the cost to me to own the car"
So if I could buy a v12vs manual for £150k or a new Jaguar XF at £45k many would say the Jaguar XF is "better value"
But if in 5 years time the v12vs manual is worth £150k (for sake of argument) and the XF is worth £18k. Which is actually better value? I would argue the v12vs
I've owned a lot of expensive cars in my time - most of them cost me less than £40k to buy. By far and away my cheapest car to own was a db5......
I throw this out there because I think sometimes people look at headline price and forget the true cost to own some of these things
A logical and accurate approach to this financial aspect.
However, I think the motor trade will be appalled by your revelation. -
The whole industry puts great effort and enormous marketing budgets, into pursuading the majority of car buyers, that having low fuel consumption is almost as important as breathing.
Fortunately for the trade, the average Joe never even realises that over 3 years of car ownership (rental these days), they probably spend £4,000 on fuel, but £12,000 on depreciation.
Your DB5 ownership was a masterstroke, but of course your timing was spot on.
Even for that car, there will have been some periods of depreciation since the 1960s, and/or expensive restoration costs for some owners.
With my own Aston Martin, the depreciation during the first 3 years was £50,000, but then during the following 4 years only £10,000.
Around year three is often a good buying point, if you can find a well cared for car.
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 25th April 10:21
Twenty years ago I could buy a Merc or similar brand and sell it a year later for the same price or slightly more. This was because I could add value in presentation - my cars always looked better when I finished with them.
That gradually changed until today every car I sell is a loss maker no matter what brand or condition - excluding appreciating classics which are invariably out of my price range anyway. It's a financier's market.
That gradually changed until today every car I sell is a loss maker no matter what brand or condition - excluding appreciating classics which are invariably out of my price range anyway. It's a financier's market.
We are told that more than 60% of new car buyers, are now financing their transactions using 3 year rental contracts (PCP). This is the motor industry dream ticket, because a significant proportion of customers cannot afford the purchase cost (balloon payment) at the end of the rental period. Therefore they usually choose to have another new car.
I wouldn't have thought that a significant proportion of Aston Martins are financed in this way, but I don't know.
The question being, will the increasing popularity of PCP, cause an increase in the historic rate of vehicle depreciation?
The system puts a large number of 3 year old cars into the used marketplace, but many previous used car buyers, will now have been tempted by PCP to have a new car instead.
If you are looking at value and cost in relation to the purchase of an Aston as a measure of money, then you're missing the whole point IMHO. I see 'Cost' as being the measure of the burden of ownership, both financial and the sacrifices you are making to own and run the car. With 'Value' being the opposing benefits which would include the financial side, but also the joy of the ownership experience.
If 'Value' exceeds 'Cost' then its good 'value for money'.
It has to factor in your own personal circumstances otherwise it just becomes a cold financial transaction devoid of any emotion, and that should be left to the guys who buy low mileage Red Ferraris
If 'Value' exceeds 'Cost' then its good 'value for money'.
It has to factor in your own personal circumstances otherwise it just becomes a cold financial transaction devoid of any emotion, and that should be left to the guys who buy low mileage Red Ferraris
RobDown said:
(Or A-level man maths)
I see a lot of people on this forum conflating the purchase price of a car with "value for money".
My personal man maths says what I should really be interested in is "the cost to me to own the car"
So if I could buy a v12vs manual for £150k or a new Jaguar XF at £45k many would say the Jaguar XF is "better value"
But if in 5 years time the v12vs manual is worth £150k (for sake of argument) and the XF is worth £18k. Which is actually better value? I would argue the v12vs
I've owned a lot of expensive cars in my time - most of them cost me less than £40k to buy. By far and away my cheapest car to own was a db5......
I throw this out there because I think sometimes people look at headline price and forget the true cost to own some of these things
Rob I'm having trouble understanding the original thesis - are you saying a v12vs will not depreciate over 5 years?I see a lot of people on this forum conflating the purchase price of a car with "value for money".
My personal man maths says what I should really be interested in is "the cost to me to own the car"
So if I could buy a v12vs manual for £150k or a new Jaguar XF at £45k many would say the Jaguar XF is "better value"
But if in 5 years time the v12vs manual is worth £150k (for sake of argument) and the XF is worth £18k. Which is actually better value? I would argue the v12vs
I've owned a lot of expensive cars in my time - most of them cost me less than £40k to buy. By far and away my cheapest car to own was a db5......
I throw this out there because I think sometimes people look at headline price and forget the true cost to own some of these things
I will probably never buy a new car again but I agree with the 3 year rule unless I was buying to keep for 10+ years. I am careful to buy good cars with good history and that are in tidy condition but you dont buy an Aston as a sensible way to get from A to B. The Value for Money is the smile it puts on my face on a Saturday morning
Jockman said:
krisdelta said:
Value is subjective, cost isn't.
My V8V was cheaper to run for 3 years than our 6 year old VW Golf. (Depreciation, Servicing, Tax, Insurance). It was a particularly crappy golf
Watcha Kris - my old DB9 was cheaper to insure than my brother's 5 series My V8V was cheaper to run for 3 years than our 6 year old VW Golf. (Depreciation, Servicing, Tax, Insurance). It was a particularly crappy golf
Neil1300r said:
Jockman said:
Watcha Kris - my old DB9 was cheaper to insure than my brother's 5 series
What that before or after the keys were left in the car and it was stolen from a Liverpool petrol station? 
I remember Mikey coming up to inspect the car after we got it back (from a pond with a different reg plate)...
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff