I do wonder about the economics. Everyone seems to say that you lose loads by buying new. I'm not so sure.
I keep reading reviews where someone praises buying a 3 year old/70,000 mile car 'for half the price of the machine when it was new'. Well OK, but in another 3 years and 70,000 miles the thing is an old banger. I accept that it will still have some residual value, but it will be offset by the increased risk of high repair bills.
This is mainly the 'low depreciation' cars we're talking about - say BMW or Audi - the ones the price guides show keeping 60% or so of their value after 3 years.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you're better off either buying BMW/Audi new and selling after 2-3 years, OR buying Mondeo etc at 1-3 years old and running forever.
What do you guys think? Am I completely mad?
|
I should have said, I have the option to buy my company car. 3 years/75,000 miles. It cost £28k, and the lease company want 15k for it.
So that's 13k loss in 3 years. Lets say it drops 10k in the next 3 years - that means that running around in a new car is only £1000 a year more expensive before repairs.
|
Someone I used to work with buys a new Mondeo when the old one reaches 20K.
He gets most concerned at the prospect of the car not working. I tried to tell him that at 10K per year the car won't cause him any major headaches for at least 100K and he'll save on the depreciation, but he wouldn't have it.
I would consider replacing the xantia with a newer one if the newer one was a good deal, in fact I am thinking about running this P reg I have and haven't got around to re advertising yet. The main problem for me is that it does not have a sun roof, and I do like sun roofs.
H
|
My last car was a 1.8 Xantia. I bought it new in 1993 for £14030 on the road. I kept it for 9 years / 105,000 miles then traded it in for the C5. I got £1350 at trade in. Repairs over the years were few and far between. I serviced the car myself - every 5000 miles like clockwork.Before that, I tended to keep cars about 3-5 years then change. I just found the Xantia so satisfying in so many ways (inc reliability!)that I couldn't part with it.
C5 is now a year and a half old (22,000 miles) and it looks as if it might go the same way as the Xantia. My only concern is that after the 3 year warranty I might not be able to service it myself. (There's still no workshop manual available!) Will decide just before the warranty runs out!
I tend to think these days that even substantial repair bills never come near depreciation and if a car is basically satisfying and reliable it makes a lot of sense to run it into the ground. Bodywork isn't such a worry nowadays (the old Xantia didn't have a spot of rust at 9 years.)
Graeme
|
Graeme
You will have no problems changing the oil.
Eurocarparts sell C5 brake pads and discs.
Air and Fuel filters are similar (same) as other HDI engines.
The only C5 problems I foresee are with the EOLYS (on 2.2) and with changing the hydraulic fluid.
You won't have a chance with any electrical faults though.
Ben
On my 3rd Citroen. Saxo, Xsara, C5.
|
The economics vary from car to car. Take a "prestige" make with strong residuals. Not such a bad idea.
Then look at my previous transport, a Rover 416SLi auto. Purchased new by some poor soul at a list price of £19,000. Picked up by me at 3 years and 60,000 miles for £3,900. Granted, they probably paid closer to £17k for it, but that's still a stonking £365pm, before servicing and repairs are taken into account.
Ran it for 3 years, taking it up to 100k, then got £1300 for it. It cost me about £1500 in repairs and servicing, (Notably, the cat. went, as did the ABS pump which, for reasons known only to Rover, also contains most of the ECU and is exposed to road spray.) So that works out at just over £100pm including servicing, tyres and repairs. Not bad for comfortable and spacious travel, even if it did come with stringback driving gloves and trilby image at no extra cost.
Although I've posted my desire to change for a 158 when they come out, the reality is that I shall be running my Alfa until it hits around 100k, so at current mileage, I'm in it for another three years. I will review things then and if all is well, keep it running until the wheels fall off.
|
|
|
The cost of running a brand new car must be more expensive than running an older one. If it wasn't, no rational person would buy second-hand cars, except those who had no means of raising the capital. For the extra money though, you get peace of mind, no squeaks, warranty, a car you know hasn't been abused (unless you do it yourself!), etc.
In a perfect market, the amount of depreciation a car suffers will reflect the amount of true value the car has lost, in terms of reliability, luxury, "newness", refinement, "modernity" and anything else people buy new cars for. The cars that depreciate heavily do so for a good reason - they have a lower life expectancy, are notorious for problems or whatever. Even unfashionable cars' depreciation is genuine - they are less desirable to own. A possible imperfection in the market is something like a Mondeo losing half its value in one year. This is due to the preception that it will have been a fleet car and not cared for. This may not be the case with a privately owned version, but the value will still suffer and would then represent a genuine bargain to a second-hand buyer.
However, the subject of this thread was "Why buy the same car again?" I would suggest that buying the same car more than twice is daft. Firstly, you only live once - I've driven seven different makes of car for the seven cars I've owned (I've ruled a couple out for the future (Alfa!!!)) Secondly - after 5-10 years, the market will have changed and how do you know that yours is still the best (if it ever was!) Read up, test drive and try another.
|
Mattster,
Try a JTD Alfa. Many grins and no problems* with reliability (unlike the petrol ones that seem to have a mind of their own).
(* yet)
|
No Dosh
I'm afraid there's no-one in the world who could convince me ever to buy another Alfa. My 156 was a dog. Loads of niggles that couldn't be fixed, or were uneconomical to do so. Suspension problems galore. Hundreds and hundreds spent (in one year of ownership. Dealers who didn't care (or who had seen it all before). Thousands lost in depreciation. Previous owner (who had it from new) also spent a fortune on suspension problems and a new steering rack.
So hacked off with it, I decided to treat myself and buy a new Civic Type-R. Take delivery on Wednesday and can't wait. I know it'll probably cost me as much as the Alfa, but at least it'll work and give me plenty of pleasure - something of which I got very little with the Alfa.
|
Now that's a fine choice. Had one of the previous model Civic VTi's (3 dr '97). Went through shocks at an alarming rate, but otherwise a great car, if a little sterile on the inside.
At least the Civics will have a new life with the Mugen-fixated Ricemobile merchants when you've done your bit with it. My Alfa will end up with an "enthusiast" who spends their life under the bonnet, muttering to themselves as they look for the sparkplugs on a Diesel......
|
|
|
|
"13k loss in 3 years"
Hell's teeth - that's £83/week!
At the other end of the scale, my daily transport is a perfectly presentable Audi that cost £1000 nearly four years ago. Of course, I'm glad other people buy new cars...
|
Don't forget, when this Rover was new, the management at the aforementioned were still trying to kid the public that the 400 was a contender in the BMW 3 series arena and not a comfy Ford Orion.
Since the parting with the Bavarians, prices on these cars new have outperformed gravity, which has helped people like me buy used ones cheaper.
I've checked the prices again and the list was about £18k with the aircon (it was an option in '96), not £19k, so let's say the original buyer got it for £16k. Still a deeply unpleasant £330pm or £77pw.
On the plus side, the drop in new prices has helped fuel the supply of other peoples new cars to the likes of you and I, JBJ.
Good, innit.
|
I suppose it depends on your reasons.
Buying the same car again because its what you really like and enjoy driving are perfectly good reasons.
The reason your friend gave is just plain crazy. It is amazing the number of people who throw away thousands of pounds because they are badly informed.
I have bought the same car (model) again but only because its what I like driving and the alternatives dont appeal.
|
Somebody I know purchased a brand new Peugeot 307 LX last year, on an 02 plate.
This year, they did exactly the same thing again. Bought another brand new 307 LX, but on an 03 plate. Both cars are identical in every respect bar colour and the fact the new one says '03' on the back.
Madness.
|
|
|
Buying identical apart from plate/colour change does seem idiotic?
Upgrading because the latest model offers you Climate/RCL/CD/Rear Wiper/mucho more power, performance and image over and above what you were already used to ? well, that's just plain common sense!...
|
|
"The cars that depreciate heavily do so for a good reason - they have a lower life expectancy, are notorious for problems or whatever."- I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm on my 4th Saab(a 9-5) , all bought used and all have depreciated greatly in the 3 or 4 years(the point at which I buy them) from new. They're solid, reliable cars with an individuality missing from many modern cars, even the base models perform well ( all turbos now) but as the other cars in the same sector (BMW , Audi etc) have a higher perceived prestige factor so Saabs devalue like nobodys business and make a good long-term ownership option.
|
Marlot said:
"I keep reading reviews where someone praises buying a 3 year old/70,000 mile car 'for half the price of the machine when it was new'"
Yes, your logic would be correct if those were the figures. In the case of a Mondeo, a 2000W, 70,000 mile 1.8LX is going to cost £3,500 private, £3,100 at auction. That's for a car that retailed at £16,000 new. So, in your example, the first owner has lost £12,500. Even if the second owner threw it in a skip after three years, the most he could lose is £3,500, leaving £9,000 for the extra repairs on the older vehicle.
So, barring needing three new engines, the secondhand buyer gets the better deal in pure cash terms.
However, I do agree that the original buyer gets the joy of a new car, is probably less likely to break down and gets the peace of mind of a warranty, which has to have some value.
V
|
Marlot, forgive me, but I seem to have agreed absolutely with everything you said. Normal service will be resumed.
V
|
|
|
Oh dear! I'm on my third Passat, and my wife has one, too. To make matters worse, all of them were bought second-hand, sight unseen, via the VW website. Even worse, my first one (2.8 V6 Synchro) was a dog, requiring in excess of £8000 work done under warranty. But we love 'em. Perhaps we ought to get out more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
