It's quite clear that a reasonable number of BRers buy new cars & run them for 3 years until the warranty runs out. Very sensible. You always get to run a nice new shiny car (Huzzah!) & you know that you will never have an unexpected bill in the unlikely event that something goes wrong.
So there are lots of cars on the market that are just about 3 years old (some a month or two younger so that the new buyer has the confidence of some warranty, some a month or two older as the owner has 'chanced it' for a short while).
Therefore 3-year old prices are slightly depressed, relative to a straight line (or more likely a pure log curve), so it is a popular age at which to buy a second hand car.
Owner two has therefore an expensive car for half price, and can be all smug about depreciation, yet has to suffer the risk of premature bottom end failure/new gearbox etc. If he's really unlucky, both of these will fail & he will be really miserable with the car and have spent as much on it as it cost. Having replaced the engine/'box he will want shot of the car to owner three as he thinks it is a 'lemon'.
By the time owner 3 has finished with it - and has replaced the aircon & expensive rear shocks, it's 7 to 10 years old, and worth under £1,000.
Owner 4 is buying a 10 year, 150k car that has had lots of new, vital parts over the previous 3 or 4 years. Best of all, the replacement parts have been better engineered than were the originals - as the manufacturer has found that all his gear boxes go for the same reason.
So owner 4 runs the car. He knows that if the engine blows up or the gear box goes, he can have a second hand one fitted for £350. If the gear box has become dodgy & the engine blows, then the car is still worth £400 scrap.
So, of owners 1,2,3&4, which is the wisest, and which the most foolish. And of course, who is the unluckiest? Discuss.
|
Its a good theory, but I'm not sure it works quite like that.
Buy a decently reliable and properly serviced car at 3 years and you are most unlikely to have a sudden catastrophic failure (which is why those are just the sort of failures that warranty companies cover.....). It is things like aircon leaks that can be a bit of a headache.
A three year old Toyota, Nissan, Honda etc. is unlikely to give you grief. A three year old Renault or FIAT on the other hand......
|
|
I'm in owner one - but not a new car - max 6 months old with remainder of warranty and swap after two years. Main reason is reducing the potential for breakdown. I've done the bangernomics and with the trips I sometimes do I need a reliable car. I've done the car dying on the M6, the clutch suddenly going, the car overheating etc etc and for some reason when it happens its never convenient! Then there's the hassle of getting it fixed and not having a car, finding a replacement when its scrapped etc etc. In reality I want a car that I get in, drive for 30,000 miles and only need to worry about not having it for one or two days whilst its being serviced.
|
|
|
|
I've gone through being owner 4, 3, 2, 1 in that order on different cars. Owner 2 was definitely the worst - significant depreciation, big bills, and loads of hassle. Currently owner 1, which will be expensive in terms of depreciation (about £5k over 3 years so far), but has been hassle free, which means a lot to me.
I'm attracted by the owner 4 scenario, but with no mechanical knowledge and a low tolerance for hassle, I think owner 1 works best for me. Also I think your depiction of owner 4 is a little on the optimistic side - a lot of 10yro/150K cars will have not seen a decent service or repair since it passed 6yro/90K, when owner 3 deemed it unworthy of any more serious cash. All sorts of significant but non-fatal problems may just have been left to fester.
In terms of 2 vs 1, I think a lot of people assume 2 is better (miss that big initial depreciation hit, right?), but when I do the sums it nevers looks very attractive. I guess that's partly because I'm looking at the cheap end of the market (< £12k). Maybe for high-depreciation cars like Mondeos, owner 2 makes more sense.
|
|
|
of owners 1,2,3&4, which is the wisest, and which the most foolish
Depends what they all wanted and whether they were willing to pay for it.
If owner 4 wanted an impressive car that would be reliable and trustworthy even under high loads then he is silly.
If owner 1 wanted a cheap runabout, is mechanically able, and isn't fussed if he has to change plans if there is a breakdown then he is silly.
Horses for courses.
|
But is this really true?
Owner 4 doesn't have to be mechanically able, he merely has to ensure that the car is serviced according to the service schedule.
Ask ND about being Owner 1. Or indeed any of the many people who post here about their new cars spending several weeks of their first year in the garage.
Aprilia makes a rather different point, in that - on the balance of probabilities - the important factor in car ownership is the manufacturer, not the car's age.
|
Owner 4 doesn't have to be mechanically able, he merely has to ensure that the car is serviced according to the service schedule.
Hmmm. I think you may be a little optimistic there, mapmaker. Eventually big thngs do break even if servicing is done properly.
Ask ND about being Owner 1. Or indeed any of the many people who post here about their new cars spending several weeks of their first year in the garage.
So follow the advice that Aprilia (and I) would give - choose the right make.
|
Which? magazine publish graphs showing breakdown rates for 'recent', 'older' and 'oldest' cars of different makes. For some brands the 'recent' models break down more often than the 'oldest' of other brands.
As some BR's will know from my previous posts, I used to be involved in the retail trade ( a good many years ago now). We would regularly get involved in fixing quite new cars of some brands (e.g. Renault, FIAT) but for other makes we never did any work other than straight servicing. This was a time when the old RWD Nissan Sunny and Bluebird was popular. The only one of these we ever saw with a major problem was a Sunny estate used by the local chimney sweep. It had a blown head gasket (and over 250k miles on the clock!).
Of course things change, but many brands will easily give 6-10 years of reliable service with nothing other than service parts being replaced. Other brands will spend their first three years in the 'shop having faults fixed.....
|
|
|
|
Its a pity that as a private buyer you can't buy a new car in the UK without a manufacturers warranty,if i could buy say,a Honda or a Toyota without a warranty,but with a cost saving i would buy that way everytime.
|
I suspect that Honda and Toyota warranty claim rates are low and therefore don't cost the manufacturer much - there any likely cost saving would be small.
In the US, Mazda were giving 5-year, 100k mile warranties as long ago as 1974! Again, in the US a couple of years back Nissan were offering 8-year warranty on the powertrain and 5-year 'bumper to bumper'.
|
In the US, Mazda were giving 5-year, 100k mile warranties as long ago as 1974! Again, in the US a couple of years back Nissan were offering 8-year warranty on the powertrain and 5-year 'bumper to bumper'.
Hyundai over here currently give 10 years/100k on the power train and 5 years bumper to bumper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am owner 2 (sort of), car bought at 2 years old with a year's warranty, now car is 4 years old. Have paid so far £250 to fix the aircon, and £150 for new ball joints. Sort of waiting for a big engine related bill.
i aspire to be owner 4, but have reservations over safety and the hassle factor when things do need doing. The low capital cost is what appeals.
|
|
I must be an odd sort of owner. I buy nearly new or even new and then keep it until it becomes unreliable. I live in Australia so rust isn't as big a problem as in the UK. If a car is properly serviced and has all repairs done promptly with quality parts then it is going to last much longer than if the owner intends to sell it in another year so doesn't want to fix problems. I have a 1978 Holden Kingswood 3.3lt which I bought in 1980 when it was 2 years old. I use it every day for short runs round town and occasionally give it a 100km run to the city. That car cost me about GBP1400 and has had very few major repairs. The odd clutch and radiator and that is all. I'll keep it till it starts costing me money. In 1991 I got a Nissan Skyline but that only lasted 8 years before it started costing me money so I traded it for a new Mazda 323. That has needed no repairs in 5 years and I hope to get at least another 5 years out it. If you buy a good car and look after it well it will be much cheaper motoring than any other way. Changing cars costs big money.
|
I'm with expat on this.
My last three new cars were all company cars, so were changed at three years whether I liked it or not. The only new car I have purchased with my own money before these was an MG Metro which I ran for eight years until serious structural rust dictated sale. It was without question not just the best pure fun car I have ever owned, but the best decision in terms of cost per mile, too. Excluding the extensive modifications to engine and chassis that I chose to make, it was peanuts.
Having decided that Gormless Gordon was getting more than his pound of flesh from me with respect to company cars, the V70 2.4T SE that I purchased new in 2003 is my own. How long do I intend to keep it? Years. And years.
|
|
|
I'm sure you are right expat that looking after cars and keeping them a long time really achieves good value motoring, but here in the UK we live in a culture of 'image is all'.
Our mass media and marketing is very effective at convincing people that society will consider you a failure if you don't upgrade your car on a regular basis and drive the most expensive one you can afford. Or in many cases the most expensive car you can manage to borrow the money for!
|
I'm sure you are right expat that looking after cars and keeping them a long time really achieves good value motoring, but here in the UK we live in a culture of 'image is all'. Our mass media and marketing is very effective at convincing people that society will consider you a failure if you don't upgrade your car on a regular basis and drive the most expensive one you can afford. Or in many cases the most expensive car you can manage to borrow the money for!
Too right.
I'm lucky enough to have a fair bit of cash at the moment and could go out tomorrow and order a new 7-series or S-Class. But I won't.
I've been there before and I can tell you its a waste of money (not to mention additional aggro). 'Average price' cars are now so good that you are very much into 'diminishing returns' by buying a prestige model - in effect what you are buying is the 'prestige'. A new Mondeo will deliver 95% of what a new C-Class will deliver, and you probably don't really need that extra 5%. Couple in buying a 6-month old Mondeo/Vectra/Primera from a car supermarket (40% under new list, with 2.5 years warranty to run) and its a no-brainer.
One of my current chariots is a C-Class, but it will probably be the last prestige car I buy. I have better things to do with my money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
