the £ cost of a car, is the gap between purchase and selling
Discussion
the true cost of a car is the the gap from buying to selling.
it seems you'll loose less money over 3 years on a Lamborghini huracan rwd than a high spec focus, where does the limit stop? I've bought a few things that have dropped nothing in 'value'. including servicing.
what's the wider option? how far can yous stretch the maths?
it seems you'll loose less money over 3 years on a Lamborghini huracan rwd than a high spec focus, where does the limit stop? I've bought a few things that have dropped nothing in 'value'. including servicing.
what's the wider option? how far can yous stretch the maths?
The true cost of a car, is
the gap between buying and selling
+ the interest paid or lost on the final value
+ the total cost of maintenance/warranties
as well as incidentals like fuel, road tax etc.
At an extreme example, the cheapest ever car to run was Rowan Atkinson's McLaren F1, which cost him negative eleven million dollars, less maintenance, averaging at a net profit of about half a million per year of ownership.
Harry Metcalfe's Zonda also sold for about double the purchase cost, again outweighing the maintenance costs along the way.
At a less exotic level, I'm about to sell my RX-7, the appreciation in the decade I've had it is a lot in percentage terms (450% or so), but that probably covers about half my maintenance costs
So the cost of maintenance can easily wipe out a paper 'profit', especially on the older cars that are most likely to rise in value, but on the other hand it's always better to offset the expensive running costs than not.
the gap between buying and selling
+ the interest paid or lost on the final value
+ the total cost of maintenance/warranties
as well as incidentals like fuel, road tax etc.
At an extreme example, the cheapest ever car to run was Rowan Atkinson's McLaren F1, which cost him negative eleven million dollars, less maintenance, averaging at a net profit of about half a million per year of ownership.
Harry Metcalfe's Zonda also sold for about double the purchase cost, again outweighing the maintenance costs along the way.
At a less exotic level, I'm about to sell my RX-7, the appreciation in the decade I've had it is a lot in percentage terms (450% or so), but that probably covers about half my maintenance costs
So the cost of maintenance can easily wipe out a paper 'profit', especially on the older cars that are most likely to rise in value, but on the other hand it's always better to offset the expensive running costs than not.jason61c said:
the true cost of a car is the the gap from buying to selling.
it seems you'll loose less money over 3 years on a Lamborghini huracan rwd than a high spec focus, where does the limit stop? I've bought a few things that have dropped nothing in 'value'. including servicing.
what's the wider option? how far can yous stretch the maths?
You might lose less % of the purchase price on a Lambo but I bet you lose more actual £ money. High spec focus might lose £20k, I bet the Lambo loses £20k the minute it turns the wheel (unless it’s one of those cars in low supply getting overs at first?)it seems you'll loose less money over 3 years on a Lamborghini huracan rwd than a high spec focus, where does the limit stop? I've bought a few things that have dropped nothing in 'value'. including servicing.
what's the wider option? how far can yous stretch the maths?
edc said:
You're overthinking it. The cost of a car is just the purchase cost. If you ever had a car or are just buying more cars then there is no selling. The affordability might be the difference in price.
On the contrary, the cost of ownership is all the expenditure minus the retained value at the end. Affordability is how accessible it is to get into that vehicle.
A desirable Porsche that barely depreciates or gains value has a low cost of ownership, but wouldn’t be affordable for most people to get a deposit or pass a credit check.
Alex Z said:
edc said:
You're overthinking it. The cost of a car is just the purchase cost. If you ever had a car or are just buying more cars then there is no selling. The affordability might be the difference in price.
On the contrary, the cost of ownership is all the expenditure minus the retained value at the end. Affordability is how accessible it is to get into that vehicle.
A desirable Porsche that barely depreciates or gains value has a low cost of ownership, but wouldn’t be affordable for most people to get a deposit or pass a credit check.
jason61c said:
the true cost of a car is the the gap from buying to selling.
it seems you'll loose less money over 3 years on a Lamborghini huracan rwd than a high spec focus, where does the limit stop? I've bought a few things that have dropped nothing in 'value'. including servicing.
what's the wider option? how far can yous stretch the maths?
It all depends at what stage you buy the Focus, also if you buy the Huracan & put Focus levels of mileage on it watch the depreciation then along with the service costs fuel etc.it seems you'll loose less money over 3 years on a Lamborghini huracan rwd than a high spec focus, where does the limit stop? I've bought a few things that have dropped nothing in 'value'. including servicing.
what's the wider option? how far can yous stretch the maths?
jason61c said:
The true cost of a car is the the gap from buying to selling.
When I've bought a car for myself I calculate what it's cost me to own, and then divide into a weekly figure. Depreciation + servicing costs.So when you've done 12k in one year (about the time til I get an urge for something else) I work out it's cost me £230 per week.
That helps ease the pain a little, what could you hire for £230 a week? Not much.
I've had a few that cost me nothing per week, namely VW van, Porsche's 987, 981, Macan GTS, quite a few low mileage Z3's
So yes, the true cost of a car is all down to what you sell it for when the time comes, many are free.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff