Aaah! mmmm! The smell of that new car that's all yours and never been in the hands of some miserable uncaring so and so. (excepting delivery monkeys of course).
You're right it does make true financial sense - but when did anybody make decisions just on cost. Is your daily paper the cheapest one? Is it always second class postage stamps? Cheapest holiday?
No - if you can afford it - do it. By the way, ignoring interest charges and actual fuel in tank, insurance and tax, i.e. just to park it in the driveway it has cost £241 per month so far - £8 per day.
But back to the question - buy a run out model cheap or buy newest at more cost?
|
Hard to say - if it's a huge saving over what you might normally be able to get, then obviously buy the run-out version.
However, if the saving merely involves your local dealer bringing the prices down towards what you might normally get from a broker, it's hard to see what the rush is. Otherwise you might find you're paying just as much for the run-out version as for the new, improved one.
Personally I would want to save at least £1k over the discount I would get anyway, if I waited for the facelifted one, before making the move.
|
|
|
If you are buying a car because you like new cars, then dont buy a run out model just prior to mk2 hitting the streets. Every sight of Mk2 on the road will have you gritting your teeth with envy.
If you are buying on cost grounds, it entirely depends on how long you intend to keep it to get you thro the depreciation hump (that will be a bit steeper due to Mk2 version being on the streets AND STILL making you grit your teeth)
Did I mention the ""damn I should have waited" (thro gritted teeth) at the traffic q behind shiney mk2 version" effect?
|
>>If you are buying on cost grounds...
which he isn't.
Stick with your current car. (Oh dear, HJ's site will be banned, as we persuade yet another person not to swap his car. Where's Legacy(still!)lad?)
|
|
|
|
My humble opinion......
So, the new one's due in January.....but would the dealer necessarily be able to deliver one then? Might that date slip (has been known)? Given you've been quoted 3-month delivery on the existing model and there will likely be a bit more demand for the new model, it seems to me that you could be looking at April for a face-lifted model without much difficulty - by which time your trade-in will have suffered another 7 or so months of depreciation, making the cost to change even greater. Is that going to be worth it? You're still getting a brand-new car in any case.
Personally, I'd go for the run-out - I did when I bought my Civic, which was admittedly pre-registered, but had delivery mileage only and represented a heck of a saving over the cost of a new face-lifted one.
|
>>' by which time your trade-in will have suffered another 7 or so months of depreciation, making the cost to change even greater.'
Oh that must just be a load of tosh! ;) Or at least, evaluating the cost to change must be a load of tosh in this context.
Our happy Audi buyer is obviously blessed with plenty of (facility for getting) cash (otherwise he wouldn't be buying a brand new car when he already has a brand new car ;o). Whilst admittedly the cost to change may be greater, it ignores the fact that the crucial measure (as if he cares...) is in fact probably the total cost of cars throughout his life.
So whilst the cost to change this car may be slightly higher, the cost to change the next car will be more than commensurately lower as his next trade-in will be 7 months younger.
I _refuse_ (!!) to be told (which is what Paulb is stating, if you boil it down) that 'it's more expensive to keep a car longer than it is to change it more frequently' which is the implication of evaluating 'cost to change', rather than cost per month of running the car.
Phew! Glad I got that one off my chest!
|
It can sometimes be the case, mapmaker.
Current car is worth £10k tradein. New car costs £20k. Cost to change is £10k. You have £10k in the bank.
Next year, current car is worth £9k. New car now costs £21k. Your £10k in the bank is now £10.5k at 5%. But the cost to change is £12k so you can't afford it any more.
Only an example, of course. But it shows how the sums work IF you only look at the (very) short term.
If your objective is to minimise costs over the long term, keep the old car, every time. But if your objective to to get hold of the new car at minimal cost, get it as soon as you have enough folding stuff to pay cash for it.
Anyway, back to the thread. I bought a run-out 323iSE in 1998 and loved it. The discount made it well worth having the old model, as I was on a fixed budget and so got a loaded 323 instead of waiting for a new shape poverty spec 318.
[TIC]And with downmarket marques such as Audi[/TIC], the "gritted teeth on seeing the MkII in front" effect is minimised by thinking of all those glitches on the new model that haven't been sorted out yet. This, to me, is the best reason for avoiding any new model.
|
|
I think that's what I wrote/tried to write... but maybe I didn't. On re-reading it, I think I might have done. If that makes sense. Long lunch, sorry!
|
|
|
Patently... look at it this way. You change now, cost to change is £10k instead of £10,500.
BUT in 6 months' time, your £20k car is now worth £17,500.
If you'd waited, you'd have maybe £18k's worth of car to sell on, so you'd get your £500 back there thank you.
As for the Mark II - I think the point of a facelift is to sort out all the glitches that were never sorted in the first generation.
|
David
I think you miss the point that Paul & Patently are right, IF & ONLY IF cost to change is the only measure of affordability, and IF & ONLY IF the amount of money you have in your bank account is only going up by the amount the bank gives you, rather than because you are saving up. (Which begs the question of where the first 10k came from.)
If you are that stuffed, then you shouldn't be driving/buying a new car.
Because the real calculation is then (to (ab)use Patently's numbers):
Next year current car worth 9k. Cash in bank 10.5k, best of all that car which you were going to spend 20k on this year was pre-registered by the dealer, so still only has delivery miles but is now last year's car and can be bought for 15k.
Suddenly there's 4.5k surplus cash to take the whole of the BR to eat moules frites in Carcassonne. Hurrah!!
|
|
|
BUT in 6 months' time, your £20k car is now worth £17,500. If you'd waited, you'd have maybe £18k's worth of car to sell on, so you'd get your £500 back there thank you.
My point re only looking at the sort term, exactly..
|
|
|
|
|
>>' by which time your trade-in will have suffered another 7 or so months of depreciation, making the cost to change even greater.' Oh that must just be a load of tosh! ;) Or at least, evaluating the cost to change must be a load of tosh in this context.
[snip]
I _refuse_ (!!) to be told (which is what Paulb is stating, if you boil it down) that 'it's more expensive to keep a car longer than it is to change it more frequently' which is the implication of evaluating 'cost to change', rather than cost per month of running the car. Phew! Glad I got that one off my chest!
Steady on, old chap!
I am not trying to tell anyone anything. I offered my post, which was in response to the original post, as my opinion only, based on what I myself did a few months ago and on the thought process I would go through if I was in DE's (happy) situation.
I am in no way saying that it's the best way of approaching these matters - I am sure that it isn't, since I agree that new cars are a money pit - it just suited my circumstances to do what I did in the way that I did it and I thought DE might appreciate the information, that's all. Sorry!
|
|
Long lunch, sorry! Not trying to say you're wrong, in fact I did say you're right, if you look carefully... just that (if I may justify myself for a second) you presented cost-to-change as terribly important, whereas as you rightly point out new cars are a money pit, and errr, I'll shut up now, but I hope you get what I'm saying - or rather trying to write.
|
Long lunch, sorry! Not trying to say you're wrong, in fact I did say you're right, if you look carefully... just that (if I may justify myself for a second) you presented cost-to-change as terribly important, whereas as you rightly point out new cars are a money pit, and errr, I'll shut up now, but I hope you get what I'm saying - or rather trying to write.
:-)
I do, and no harm done, sir - it's Friday night, the sun is out (well, here at least)....Have a virtual pint of a refreshing beverage of your choice.
I'd love to try buying an old car to avoid the depreciation, but I just know that with my luck I'd buy a total duffer, which is a risk I'm not comfortable taking as the lovely, lovely 300+ miles per week commute requires something dependable - hence the Honda.
One of these days I'll give it a go, Mrs B permitting.... ;-)
|
cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...1
It's not an OLD car, it's merely not a NEW car! Quite a different thing. Educate Mrs B.
|
It's not an OLD car, it's merely not a NEW car!
Hadn't thought of it like that.... :-) And quite a lot of car for £1,500, too.
Quite a different thing. Educate Mrs B.
Will try. Mrs B is, however, a lady of firmly-held views and so I suspect it may not be a five-minute task......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difficult one. Some things to consider would be that, generally speaking, when a new car comes out then the chances of getting hefty discounts on it are sometimes nil, and as they will probably be getting heavily advertised then maybe your cost to change may not be made that preferential with your part exchange.
I bought a Scenic not long before the new shape came out. I am now looking to possibly change but I just cannot get the same spec that I currently have, without going for a top of the range with options on top of that!
Unless you have seen the new car, and the spec etc, don't assume it is better than the current model (just ask any previous model BMW 5 & 7 series owners!)
|
|
|
|
|
