|
other companies like Ford will introduce engines like the VAG 1.4TSi engine to get power and economy. Lots seem to be assuming it's just a normal engine whereas there are turbo (120ps) and turbo/supercharged versions (170ps).
|
and some of us are saying that get get 170 pferderthings from 1.4 capacity means over stressed and over complex.
|
Forgot to say, a few months ago I spoke with a well known Internet car dealer about the VW 1.4 TSI and he felt that a turbo and super-charged engine would not last long.
I know nothing about engines other that what I read here so I have no idea whether he is right or wrong but thought it was worth mentioning.
|
|
£17k for a 1.4 Golf that is pretty much a re-skin and production costs saving exercise over the old one? Barking. Does anyone go to a main dealer these days? After it's been out for a few months the web dealers will be able to get supplies, and if you must have a new one, why not go to them and save a few 'thou? I've got a Mk V and love it, but I'd never have paid the list £18k for it new. Happy to pay half that at 2 1/2 yrs old though, which is about what you'll lose if you pay the money asked.
|
Lifes not a rehearsal and you're a long time dead.
What was the question again OP?
|
|
|
|
I'm no engineer but that makes perfect sense to me, AE and Tawse.
It seems logical that a big, comparatively unstressed engine will last longer and be generally less temperanental than a small highly-tuned - even highly-strung - powerplant. The big engines - even some petrol ones - tend to have plenty of low-end torque which is surely far more useful for the sort of driving that most of us do every day.
Particular favourites of mine have been -
- the B-series Austin engine in my first car, the beloved A50
- the 2.0 Renault engine which I had in a 20TS and two 18 GTX estates in the 1980s
- the V6 24v in the Laguna
- the 1.8 XUD in the Peugeot 205
- the 2.5 TDI in the A4 Avant of blessed memory and the current VAG 2.0 TDI (though I believe both these can give trouble when they get to high mileages).
I've only test-driven the VAG 2.0 TFSI (in an Octavia vRS) and liked that too: I suppose I should reserve judgement till I have a go in a 1.4 - but it does sound as if it may be at its best only at high revs - which isn't what I want.
|
Avant, if it was naturally aspirated I'd expect a 1.4 with 122bhp to be a buzz box.
However, given that the TSI is forced induction I'd expect the torque curve to be fairly flat with maximum or near maximum torque at low rpm similar to a turbo diesel. Coupled with a wider useful rpm range than a TD the engine is probably very tractable.
Edited by Manatee on 27/12/2008 at 16:42
|
|
Just looked it up. Max torque 200Nm @1500, 122PS @ 5000. Acceleration 0-62 in 9.5 secs within a gnat's of the TDI140 and nearly 2 seconds ahead of the naturally aspirated 1.6 petrol. More than respectable.
|
|
|
Oh dear, Europe not listening to Backroom experts, again:
"...The Volkswagen Golf was once again the most-registered car in Europe during November, and VW itself was the most successful manufacturer, according to the latest report by JATO Dynamics..."
|
|
|
|
From the reviews I've seen the 120 and 170 motors are mightily impressive, but as above, the longevity question would concern me if I was buying privately with a view to extended ownership outside of warranty. Time will tell whether modern oils can overcome the bearing failure issue. I assume VW have gone down this route for reduced CO2 emissions, in which case can we expect other manufacturers to follow suit? Interesting that Honda sell a 1.8 Civic motor with similar performance and mpg/CO2 credentials, without the need for forced induction. I know which one I'd trust 5 years and 70000 miles down the road, despite being quite a fan of VW/Seat over the last few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hang on a moment - there seems to be an implied assumption that the VW Golf 1.4 will cost £17k whereas Oldgit was simply talking about the fairly upmarket version
At last common sense prevails. I want the SE model because that has the better spec. than the basic 'S' version and to which I have to add about £1300 extras, including metallic paint which I believe is extra on most mass produced cars. I want parking sensors and steering wheel control of the audio and onboard computer which is included in those extras.
I also specced up a Ford Focus with a 1.6 engine and it wasn't far short of the Golf and yet still did not have some of the features that I now take for granted.
|
specced up or not - its still 17 grand for a 1.4 golf.
>At last common sense prevails.
you wanted opinions - didnt know we had to agree with you.
|
|
|
Those just saying 1.4 when it's a turbocharged 1.4 puts a different slant on the comments though doesn't it ;-) It's as powerful as some 1.8s but has more torque (lower down) and better CO2 and other emissions.
As I said higher up, Ford/GM etc are going down this route soon - they have to do this to cut CO2/improve MPG.
Whether the long term reliability is as good as a low stressed larger engine I have no idea. But oldgit was not asking this and for him the car will probably be under warranty until he swaps it so no an issue.
Nobody seemed to mind when VAG got 225PS out of a 1.8 Turbo petrol engine. I had the 150PS in an Audi A4 (briefly), two Passats and a Golf GTi. I like the engine a lot.... but the Golf needed a new turbo from day one to stop it sounding like a jet engine on take off ;-) All sorted on warranty.
Don't FIAT have a Grande Punto and the nice 500 with a turbo 1.4... I think the Abarth 500SS is even 180PS... so why pick on VAG. And Peugeot has 1.4 turbo I think...
Maybe this thread should stick to questions by the OP and not discuss the longevity of the VAG 1.4TSI engine? That could be a separate thread which would be very interesting.
Rob (as himself and not a mod)
PS I agree with those that say a turbo/complex engine is going to perhaps have more costly work needed in the future. Fine if under warranty but not as a banger. But that's the EUs fault with their emission targets.
Edited by rtj70 on 27/12/2008 at 19:14
|
|
Who cares about reliability and under-stressed engines? As long as the interior plastics are of the finest quality and the headlights come on as soon as you turn the key that's all that matters, surely? ;-)
|
I have a 90 bhp per litre turbocharged engine in my Volvo which has done 140,000 miles, still flies, and doesn't even need the oil topping up between services. I don't think turbocharged engines are necessarily less reliable, given modern oils, proper servicing and a decent standard of engineering.
|
Personally I think VW have taken the opportunity with the Golf VI to increase it's margins significantly and on the whole I also find VW's overpriced for what they offer.
Any company (chairman) that states publicly their cars are too expensive to manufacture and subsequently designs a new one that is cheaper and takes the opportunity to increase prices at the same time has only got increased profits on his mind and not customer value. As such I could not buy another VW although I remain a fan of the VW Golf - I just wish they would only make it with one badge. I am not a fan of having the same car in many different badges and they do not have a clue about customer service and have also managed to con the public into thinking they offer a quality product.
Their marketing is brilliant as it manages to capture significant sales.
Having said all that OG is a big fan and would clearly be happy owning one - so if you can afford it like you say you can then go for it big guy - and enjoy every minute of it. I don't fully agree with tawse but life is going to be allot harder than of recent times - even the PM is going public to say so - I cannot remember when that was done in this country so being in your position OG should be savoured and enjoyed - you have clearly worked hard enough for it.
|
Why are many people assuming that just because it's got a 1.4 engine, that it'll be stressed producing 122PS and will therefore be unreliable?
There isn't necessarily a direct correlation between an engines cc and the strength of it's mechanicals. Just because the cylinder capacity is only 1400cc (or whatever exact number it is), doesn't mean the mechanics are the same as a conventional 1400cc. Historically, smaller cc engines have been "lighter" engineered than bigger engines because their power output meant they didn't need to be any stronger. But if output is increased, there's nothing stopping you increasing the strength and engineering.
You could engineer the mechanics from a 3.0 engine into 850cc if the bore & stroke were altered. I seriously doubt VAG have just slapped a turbo onto an existing 1.4 engine without doing a few more calculations.
And frankly, £17 isn't even remotely unusual for a specc'd up hatchback. Plenty of people pay £20k upwards for Audi A3's and the such-like. I paid £18k for my own MkIV GT TDi Golf 8 years ago!
Just because the BR is full of financially savvy (penny pinching?) motorists who trundle around in 100,000 mile Mondeos which cost nothing more than three buttons and a handfull of bellybutton fluff, it doesn't mean VW are wrong for putting a £17k price tag on a car, nor does it mean that someone is necessarily a "fool" for buying one if their financial circumstances and requirements allow.
|
>>But if output is increased there's nothing stopping you increasing the strength and engineering.>>
So that's what they've done, is it? Do they say so?
I agree with Mapmaker. The OP is perfectly entitled to his preferences and his extravaganzas - good luck to him - but he doesn't really seem to fancy the car much, and what's then the point of bothering about ?50 gallons of petrol a year?
The Jaguar looks great - probably a good thing there's only 10 minutes or so to go!
|
|
|
|
And three years hence when you want to swap again:
Volkswagen Golf S 1.4 Petrol 5-door Hatchback
5 Speed Manual Front Wheel Drive
Year: 2005 05 Mileage: 18,000
Part-exchange Price:Excellent condition: £5540
Average condition: £5000
Below average condition: £4450
If you're going to spend 4k a year on depreciation, plus maybe £500 on other servicing - so 75p per mile - on your driving, why not buy something a bit more fun than a Golf with bad trim that does 42mpg. You're going to use 430 gallons in the next three years, so a mere £1,660 of petrol. If it manages 21mpg, the extra cost is only 13% of your capital cost over the next three years.
Why spend so much money on something so utterly mundane? Hey spend it; there's nobody keener than me on spending money on nice things. But a Golf? 17k??? And call it luxury????? And every mile costing you probably £1 after insurance and petrol.
That's wasting money in my book.
Travel in style instead: tinyurl.com/9g676k - if it lasts you a year, you're quids in compared to that grotty Golf.
|
"Travel in style instead: tinyurl.com/9g676k - if it lasts you a year, you're quids in compared to that grotty Golf."
Mapmaker, that ties in neatly with the current "White Car" thread. I think the XJS looks fantastic in white would have posted so, except that we have the white car debate every 6 months and gets a bit tedious.
And of course you can have a 2000 model XJR for £5,000 and spend the other £12,000 not worrying about the recession.
|
|
|
And three years hence when you want to swap again:
SNIPQUOTE!!!!!!
Mapmaker,
The example you (carefully) chose cost £12495 new (probably just over £10k as it was just before the MkV intro). You seem to have chosen a ridiculously low mileage and chosen the worst valuation you can find which you then ignore and claim £13000 depreciation. (over 100%)
Your calculations are wildy inaccurate and to state that (in general) Golfs cost £1 per mile to run is absurd and likely to attract the attention of VW's legal dept.
Or are you just aping Jeremy Clarkson?
Edited by Webmaster on 29/12/2008 at 01:11
|
Brum's rant>>Mapmaker The example you (carefully) chose
Nah. I'm busy at the moment. It was the first 3 year old 1.4 Golf I typed into Glass's internet site.
You seem to have chosen a ridiculously low mileage
OP's intended mileage. He told us. If, of course, I choose a "sensible" mileage, lets say 80k, then it's unlikely to increase the valuation, is it???
chosen the worst valuation you can find
Just Glass's trade-in valuation, which is what OP will get when he trades it in.
>>which you then ignore and claim £13000 depreciation.>> (over 100%)
Ac tually 12k :) Calculated as the difference between the 17k OP wants to spend, and the 5k (mid valuation) that Glass's tells me that a similar looking car will be worth. I dare say that the exact colour of the plastic thingy bits that OP is so delighted by might make 10p difference to the final valuation.
>>Legal department
LOL.
If you're only doing 6k miles p.a. as OP is, then it WILL cost you that sort of money.
RTFQ.
To state that (in general) Golfs cost £1 per mile to run is absurd
Did I? Must have done it quite without writing it down.
Imagine somebody else who only does 2k miles p.a. That Golf will cost him £2 per mile in depreciation alone...
|
Sorry MM, I didnt realise that the textbook definition of depreciation had changed recently or that an 05 car was only 3 years old or that when I read "every mile costing you probably £1" it was a trick of the light.
I stand corrected
|
Sorry MM I didnt realise that the textbook definition of depreciation had changed recently
Difference between what you pay for something, and what you get for it; like wot I sed. Pretty much cost to change, if you're swapping like with like.
that an 05 car was only 3 years old
Near enough, isn't it? Within the roundings, by the time OP gets his order in, and it's delayed and finally arrives.
>>or that when I read "every mile costing you probably £1" it was a trick of the light.
Not a trick of the light, it's costing OP £1 owing to his low mileage over a short period of time in a highly depreciatory environment. I never made a general statement that a Golf cost £1 per mile to run.
I stand corrected
Good! Apology accepted.
|
|
And three years hence when you want to swap again: Volkswagen Golf S 1.4 Petrol 5-door Hatchback
SNIPQUOTE!
It doesn't really matter what the prices are (as above) as long as the 'price to change' for me, to exchange my excellent condition, low mileage 1.6FSI golf with sunroof for a new 1.4TSI SE with a few extras, comes to, say, about 10 to 11 grand, then I'll be happy.
The garages will certainly, in the next few months or so, be discounting cars or offering carrots in order to bolster their sales.
I rather have this car, or similar new car rather than some old gross hack. I know that a lot of people like buying and using people's hand-me-downs, but not yours truly.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 29/12/2008 at 13:42
|
>>to exchange my excellent condition, low mileage 1.6FSI golf with sunroof for a new
>>1.4TSI SE with a few extras, comes to, say, about 10 to 11 grand, then I'll be happy.
Fair enough. Means I'm not far off track with my prediction of 12k depreciation over 3 years.
>>I know that a lot of people like buying and using people's hand-me-downs, but not yours truly.
Fair enough, it is your choice. But, but, but, BUT he says. Something more exciting? And keep it a bit longer? A Morgan?
|
|
|
|
The Golfs are great cars, and I am saying that as a previous owner of a MK5. They handle well, very well built, lots of equipment and good image. Mine has now been sold because of abuse and damage it recieved at a main VW dealership during a routine service and warranty work. Because of this IMO VW dealers are the worst in the business, but I still highly rate the Golfs.
OP - I think buying the MKVI for you makes sense, but get it through an internet broker or at least use the deal they are offering to help with haggling. Carfile.net have TSI SE 5dr Golfs at £14,699. Your not from uk-mkivs.net by any chance are you by the way??
> And three years hence when you want to swap again:
SNIPQUOTE!!!!!!
Mapmaker - A 1.4 S (75bhp) that costs a shade over £12k new is simply NOT comparable to the 1.4 TSI SE (122bhp) costing £17k. Not only will the TSI be worth considerbally more because its a much bigger engine with much more equipment, its a more desirable model so as a percentage it hangs onto its value better.
Your post is completely stupid, and you shouldnt really be on this forum if thats your knowledge of cars. Its annoyed me so much that I have bothered to register and reply you.
As for those cars at motorpoint, I can tell you now the BMW 525i SE is the pre-facelift E60, it has been sat arround in Malyasia for about 2-years unsold before been exported to the UK and sold at a cut-down price with no manufacturers warranty. The B150 I don't know its source exactly, but again its pre-facelift and non-UK spec, it wouldnt have a 3-year manufacturer warranty maybe a 2-year if your lucky.
Also as a general thing (not specifically aimed at anyone here), the prices of the MKVI seem steep compared to the previous model because of inflation. £17k in 2009 is worth less than £17k in 2004.
(va1o returns to lurking mode)
|
Your not from uk-mkivs.net by any chance are you by the way?? > And three years hence when you want to swap again:
Yes, I do contribute to those forums quite often and often a bit testy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Pendlebury for your support. I am a person who, although somewhat flushed with the necessary spondoolies is of a nervous and anxious nature and is going to find the ordering and interminable waiting, a trifle trying, when it seems that so many people seem to have an anti-VW attitude here and present such a negative stance.
|
to have an anti-VW attitude here and present such a negative stance.
Not at all - a lot of us drive VAG products. We are just realists.
|
Now my company scheme has brought back VAG cars (dropped GM) then I can see my next car being a VAG car (VW or Skoda). And my personal miles have dropped (personal reasons) so petrol turbo vs diesel probably makes sense.
I too might look at a VAG engined 1.4TSI (either turbo or super/turbo car next). Or perhaps a 1.8TSI. Got three years to go if the Mazda6 lasts ;-)
And I have had a fair few problems with VAG cars (more than GM/Ford/Mazda). But still would have another if the monthly price is right. Could opt out and the figures next time round mike make me rethink.
Edited by rtj70 on 28/12/2008 at 23:18
|
|
|
"...a lot of us drive VAG products. We are just realists."
Fair enough - so am I. We can each report as we find: I've had three VAG cars and all have been fine, the current one obviously so far.
I suspect AE's Touran, which I seem to remember wasn't new when it was leased to him, had been abused by a previous driver. How goes your Altea, AE, which was new to you?
It's probably true to say that Japanese cars can take abuse / inconsiderate use / lack of car sympathy etc better than European ones, and there's less of the 'some good, some bad'. Even then there are some exceptions, e.g. Honda diesels.
|
Avant... I have had problems with VAG cars but would have another. Current car (Japanese) I reserve judgement on... oil change at 3200 miles since the 12500 mile service on advise of lease company (I don't pay). It was not needed but they would not accept any responsibility. It's a DPF diesel.
|
>>Even then there are some exceptions, e.g. Honda diesels.
Do you mean Nissan diesels?
Edited by Manatee on 29/12/2008 at 06:15
|
My father in law has just ended an unbroken near 30 yr run of VW ownership (mk1 Golf, mk2 Golf, 2x mk3 Golfs, 2x mk4 Golfs) and bought a Volvo. I appreciate that is going to mean nothing to anyone outside my family, but for me, it was all I needed to know that modern VW's aren't a patch on the old ones. There are still those of us in the family who can't quite believe he'd made the switch....
|
Persona;;y, as someone who likes to obtain vfm when purchasing, buying a new 1.4 car for £17k is anything but vfm.
|
I suspect AE's Touran which I seem to remember wasn't new when it was leased to him had been abused by a previous driver. How goes your Altea AE which was new to you?
Its ok. 24k up in 14 months, two basic services, a rattle from one door the gear lever sizzles on the overun in 3rd.
The point is tho its a golf v plus in all but name and looks, loaded with all the extras as standard that would be costly in the golf, and is £4k cheaper than the equivalent golf.
As would be a skoda.
|
Perhaps the detractors would like to post up what exotica they drive and how they manage to run them on bread and butter money?
XJS were rusty unrelliable heaps when new, take the rose tinted off. I suppose its at least different to the usual buy a mondy instead reply.
|
I'm getting itchy feet now to buy something different and exciting so am waiting for the Mk 6 GTi to come out. I test drove the Scirocco the other week and loved it. My only gripe (apart from rear visibility which I'm sure I'd get used to) was the age old VW problem of price. By time I'd put metallic paint on and cruise control (not even standard on a near £21k car!!!!) and one or two other little bits I'm looking at £22k plus. I suspect the GTi will be in this region too, if not even more. The dealer would knock £500 off at the time if I'd bought there and then.
I was seriously tempted despite my well known falling out with VWs a few years ago but I just couldn't help thinking it was a couple of grand overpriced. I've since looked at various other things and could even get a one year old 330d BMW for that or a nearly new IS220d with leather and sat nav. The BMW would knock socks off the Scirocco, great car as the latter was and the IS220d, while being quite dull in comparison, would almost certainly be more dependable. I'm also sure I'd be much better looked after at Lexus if anything did go wrong than at VW.
In the end I'm going to wait to look at the GTi when it comes out in summer and make a decision then and I may well still buy a VW. But I think you can probably see my point about the price of their cars.
|
could even get a one year old 330d BMW for that
More comparable would be a 330i petrol. A bit of haggling will net you a 3-6 month old 330i M Sport with less than 10k on it from a BMW main dealer, and enough change for a year's road tax. One of the finest mass production petrol engines ever made, 30 mpg in daily use, sub 6 seconds 0-60 and truly beautifully engineered and screwed together.
No contest against a Golf or Scirocco. None whatsoever. It depends if "nearly new" is good enough, I suppose.
|
Re the OP - the Golf is a new model, discounts will be rare as hens teeth for a few months, regardless of economic situation.
Get your price to change for a Golf of the spec you want then visit the local Audi dealer for a look at an A3 Sportback with a similar spec. The vents aren't flimsy and the climate control system is well designed!
Decent discounts are readily available on A3s.
|
Re the OP - the Golf is a new model discounts will be rare as hens teeth for a few months regardless of economic situation.
SNIPQUOTE once more!!!
But it's not a pretty car any longer (never really was, IMHO). Anyway I had an Audi brochure and speccd. up a 1.4 125PS 5-dr hatch and with the extras I wanted, similar to the new golf, I was looking, IIRC at over £18k or nearer £19 and their sunroof price is OTT if you'll excuse the pun.
I am afraid that buying Audi is another piece of badge engineering, as the Golf is better value for money and the Audi is really Golf, in another guise - I wouldn't be tricked into doing that.
Edited by Webmaster on 29/12/2008 at 20:56
|
oldgit, would be grateful if you could please snip and summarise when quoting the message you're replying to, as per HJ's request. Have had to edit several of your posts in this thread.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=42612
The pop up message also requests this - "please keep this thread as readable as possible by editing the quote to include only relevant text"
Thanks.
Edited by Webmaster on 29/12/2008 at 21:04
|
19k list doesn't take into account the discount - 10% is no problem on an A3 and you may get more - my dealer will match a brokers price - no chance of this on the Golf VI.
This brings an "Audi badged Golf" down to less money than the Golf you are speccing which as you state is over £17k.
If you want a deal on a Golf VI wait 12 months.
|
Not sure what is all this worry about bhp per litre. As rightly mentioned, the VAG 1.8T engine has been around since 98' onwards and has proven to be very durable throughout the years when serviced regularly.
The turbos they come with aren't even running close to full boost whatsoever, nor is full boost applied in anything but heavy acceleration.
Plenty of owners have remapped them to higher outputs without much problems over than the MAF sensor or recirculation valves giving a little trouble - both which are cheap to rectify. Surprisingly economical given its power output, too.
Edited by smokescreen on 29/12/2008 at 21:51
|
Perhaps the detractors would like to post up what exotica they drive and how they manage to run them on bread and butter money?
I drive a car of the same size as the VW Golf, with a powerful 1.8 litre engine, a smooth auto gearbox, electric everything including full climate control, a nice leather steering wheel with remote audio controls, brilliantly supportive seats and pretty sharp roadholding. It cost me less than 7k just under 3 years ago, and is now probably worth half of that, but is only 4 years old and has less than 40k on the clock (I do about 10k miles a year).
It's a Nissan Almera, which isn't regarded as exotica in the UK, but it does everything that a new Golf VI would do at a fraction of the price, and has more toys. Plus it's a lot more reliable than a VW.
Depends what you want, but the extra £10,000+ for a new Golf doesn't seem to me to be buying much except the soft-touch plastics than some people obsess about.
|
NowWheels any car that is safe, road worthy and driveable does the same as any other car though. It's transport. Cannot quite see your point ;-)
My wife's FIAT does the same as a Bugatti Veyron if you want to get from A to B. But you would not compare them.
|
Yes, but surely the point is that the Almera and Golf are both small/medium hatchbacks designed to do the same job. I can't think offhand of any Fiat that was designed to do the same job as a Veyron....
You could certainly argue about whether an Almera is as good to drive as a Golf, but if NW's priority is getting safely and reliably from A to B and back again, she has a strong case in that the Almera does the job she wants it to.
|
My point was (using an extreme example) is a car is for transport from A to B. Pick any car of the size of a Golf of any age and it does the same job. A silly comparison by NowWheels.
BTW I think some FIATs (aka Ferraris) might compare to a Veyron though ;-)
|
NW, I don't understand your logic, if everyone takes your advice and doesnt buy new, where does your next nearly new car com from?
|
NW I don't understand your logic if everyone takes your advice and doesnt buy new where does your next nearly new car com from?
Dox, you're absolutely right. Folks like me who buy nearly new are the beneficiaries of the huge generosity of people who throw away thousands of pounds so that they can enjoy a few weeks of car-new-smell and several months of running in my new car for me.
I'm very happy to benefit from their extravagance, but it's only fair to remind them just how much cash they are throwing my way.
Edited by NowWheels on 30/12/2008 at 14:37
|
Dox, you're absolutely right. Folks like me who buy nearly new are the beneficiaries of the huge generosity of people who throw away thousands of pounds so that they can enjoy a few weeks of car-new-smell and several months of running in my new car for me
And I'm slightly further down the food chain. 3 year old vehicle, probably ex-lease with sensible mileage. I aim for the "sweet spot" where the annual depreciation rate is reducing sharply, but the car is still reliable. I expect to pay for some of the bigger servicing costs (e.g. cambelt/water pump) during my tenure along with the costs of making sure the car is properly maintained, but would ditch the car when it comes out of the sweet spot - i.e. repair costs start to ramp up (together with a higher probability of a breakdown).
|
But if nobody bought new cars there would be none for you guys to benefit from.
Rob
|
But if nobody bought new cars there would be none for you guys to benefit from.
True - but what proportion of new cars are bought by private buyers (vs firms/leasecos)?
Edited by LondonBus on 30/12/2008 at 15:20
|
|
42.2% private according to SMMT
|
the huge generosity of people who throw away thousands of pounds so that they can enjoy a few weeks of car-new-smell and several months of running in my new car for me. I'm very happy to benefit from their extravagance but it's only fair to remind them just how much cash they are throwing my way.
The original lease purchaser of the car most likely paid less for the car new than you paid for it "nearly new". They also managed to get several thousand miles out of the tires, brakes, clutch and engine that you now own. The RRP new is rather high on certain brands so they can lease out the cars and then buy them back to sell them 9-12 months old to make people think they are getting bargains.
|
The original lease purchaser of the car most likely paid less for the car new than you paid for it "nearly new". They also managed to get several thousand miles out of the tires brakes clutch and engine that you now own. The RRP new is rather high on certain brands so they can lease out the cars and then buy them back to sell them 9-12 months old to make people think they are getting bargains.
Partly true, I think. Right enough, that's how the big hire companies make their money, by selling for more than they paid. I dunno how big their discount is, but maybe not much less than the 50% I got off for buying a 16-month-old car.
But both of us are still doing well compared with the person who paid the full RRP, with maybe 5% off from the dealer and a "free" tank of fuel. A year down the road, and they've thrown away half what they paid.
|
Perhaps the detractors would like to post up what exotica they drive and how they manage to run them on bread and butter money?
I don't think that's the point. Usually if somebody says "I want a xxx" some will say yes, some will say "what about a yyy".
Nobody in this thread has come out in favour of a 17k plastic-vented Golf.
OP enjoys spending his money on cars, fair enough. But posters here don't think he's getting very good value for the money he's spending...
|
150 seconds at Motorpoint.co.uk (HJ's link) suggests the following new cars that MUST be more fun and cheaper (or scarcely more expensive, anyway) than OP's Lada, or whatever it was. Crumbs, even I'm tempted by the following.
Subaru Impreza 2.5 Wrx 5dr [nav] body: 2.5 WRX 5dr [Nav] reg:
mileage: Delivery miles engine: 2457 cc
year: 2008 gearbox: Manual colour: Steel silver ref: 298269 £14,599
Mercedes-benz B Class B150 5dr body: B150 5dr reg:
mileage: Delivery miles engine: 1498 cc
year: 2008 gearbox: Manual colour: Polar silver ref: 301215 £11,999
Jaguar X-type 2.0d Se 4dr body: 2.0d SE 4dr reg: mileage: 10 engine: 1998 cc
year: 2008 gearbox: Manual colour: Midnight black ref: 281062 £18,999
BMW 5 Series 525i Se 4dr Auto body: 525i SE 4dr Auto reg:
mileage: Delivery miles engine: 2494 cc
year: 2008 gearbox: Automatic colour: Titanium silver ref: 278295 £21,999
I know they're not quite new but, but, but:
Volvo C30 Sports Coupe D5 Se 3dr Geartronic body: D5 SE 3dr Geartronic reg: 57
mileage: 8000 engine: 2400 cc year: 2007 gearbox: Automatic
colour: Brilliant blue ref: 304171 £12,999
Lexus Is 220d 4dr body: 220d 4dr reg: 57 mileage: 9916 engine: 2231 cc
year: 2007 gearbox: Manual colour: Argento Ice ref: 299218 £13,999
Mercedes-benz Clk Coupe 220 Cdi Avantgarde 2dr Tip Auto body: 220 CDi Avantgarde 2dr Tip Auto reg: 57 mileage: 15212 engine: 2148 cc
year: 2007 gearbox: Automatic colour: Obsidian black ref: 296479 £18,499
|
I am truly amazed and indeed honoured that you all (mainly detractors) should be spending so much time discussing my OP, on whether I should spend my money as I please.
We live in a sort of free society, I assume and, yes perhaps I should buy that Toyota Auris or Ford Focus however I think that the former, although statistically more reliable is an utter bore and no-no as far as I'm concerned - a Nissan Almera - I shudder to when I think of such cars. I know I could go and buy a nice second hand Beemer for that money but I don't want a larger car as I spend most of my driving time in country lanes where a large wide car is a pain. And I never, or very rarely use the Motorway system - again for personal reasons.
I always have, in the last decade and a half, bought new cars and can afford so to do. I enjoy getting in and driving away in a brand new car. It helps to compensate for the fact that, in reality, i'm never going to be able to drive very far in it (for reasons I have already mentioned) which galls me considerably, if the truth be known.
|
Mapmaker, you forgot to tell us what exotica you drive, did your £1K (for example, I've no idea what you drive) buy a micra or an aging S class merc?
Which cars in your list don't have plastic vents?
The list you put up in the current ecconomic climate are as desirable as farmer giles, ask a second hand car sales place whats selling at the moment Fiestas or high end BMWs.
|
I think 17K is a lot for a normal hatch, but i can fully understand why Oldgit likes his cars brand spanking.
Not every one year old car has been bought new by members of the BR, many will have been scratched, thrashed, abused, neglected, misfuelled and had all sorts of mistreatment thrown at them, and given the high tech engine he's contemplating i think he's doing the right thing.
We didn't have a choice when we bought the pick up, as we bought new cheaper than we could get used from the main dealer, sounds daft but its true.
The truck is now 16months old and we have no regrets, we know exactly how that vehicle has been treated from day one (one of my workmates even delivered it to the dealership), it hasn't had one hour of being abused and that gives considerable peace of mind should we keep it till it disintegrates as planned, and we hope a considerably better chance of a long trouble free life.
I bet we'd all like to buy Oldgit's used cars, unfortunately in the used car lottery it can easily have been Youngchavs car for the first 5000 miles of hell and torture.
Thats the gamble Oldgit's missing, and i don't blame him.
Edited by gordonbennet on 30/12/2008 at 15:10
|
I am truly amazed and indeed honoured that you all (mainly detractors) should be spending so much time discussing my OP on whether I should spend my money as I please.
I don't see anyone here suggesting that you shouldn't spend your money as you please. There are several people telling you that they think you are daft, but you're entirely free to ignore us all if you want to.
We live in a sort of free society I assume and yes perhaps I should buy that Toyota Auris or Ford Focus however I think that the former although statistically more reliable is an utter bore and no-no as far as I'm concerned - a Nissan Almera - I shudder to when I think of such cars.
As you say, it's your cash to spend as you want, and I have no desire to stand in your way at all. But I do find it quite funny to watch how successful the marketing men have been in persuading some people that there are anything more than minor differences between an Auris, a Golf, a Focus and an Almera. They accommodate the same number of people in similar space and carry similar amounts of luggage, they have similar performance and similar equipment levels, and all will cover a journey in very similar times. There are minor differences in noise and ride comfort and in handling, but in any given conditions they will all produce broadly similar results.
If, in the days of the MKII or MKIII Golf, someone was presented with a completely VW-badged versions of any of those recent vehicles and told that it was a Golf of the future, I would be very surprised if they thought that the car they were testing of them was anything other than a mighty fine example of how VW continued to improve its fine products.
It's your money to use as you wish, and that's your right. Others have an equal right to be bemused. :)
|
I think in a (relatively) free country you're entitled to buy as many new cars as you wish. Just wouldn't be my choice.
Are you still planning to try and get a new Golf VI at launch or maybe wait a couple of months and see if you can juice the dealer?
|
To try to answer your original post OG.
"Shall I, or Shan't I"
I don't have a need for that category / size of car, but from the information you have provided it would seem to suit your needs. Couple that with your liking for the marque in preference to its competition and on the assumption that you are comfortable with the deal, I dare say you probably should buy one. It sounds as if it would please you and that is ultimately all that matters here.
If, however, the question was, would I buy one, then my answer would be no, for many of the reasons discussed above.
I do remain pleased nonetheless, that we are all thus far at least, free to make those choices.....
Hope you enjoy your car. If it's right for you, go for it I say.
|
I think in a (relatively) free country you're entitled to buy as many new cars as you wish. Just wouldn't be my choice.
Are you still planning to try and get a new Golf VI at launch or maybe wait a couple of months and see if you can juice the dealer?
No, probably not, now at launch but if I'm satisfied with the car, having looked at what I'm going to get for my money, in more detail (i.e. a test drive and thorough examination of all the trim etc.) then I hope to place an order between now and, say, March. The delivery is still, apparently, 10 to 12 weeks (goodness knows why).
I ordered my current Golf in Sept 2004 and picked it up in the middle of Dec. in that year.
The new Golf, apart from the GT model, cannot be had with a sunroof any more which is annoying and I want parking sensors and the MF steering wheel - these being the minumum essential extras and of course the ubiquitous silver metallic paint - easy to keep and look clean.
I will, despite my 'wealth' still try and get a good deal, obviously, but ultimately it's the price to change which is important and not, necessarily, how much my current car will fetch.
Edited by Webmaster on 01/01/2009 at 00:38
|
I know where you are coming from with the sunroof.
( Just watch I'm now going to be roasted for cliche speak ;-) )
I like them too. My old car has one and my "new" one doesn't. Not that I open it much at this time of year but I like the light.
|
I am truly amazed and indeed honoured that you all (mainly detractors) should be spending so much time discussing my OP on whether I should spend my money as I please.
BECAUSE YOU ASKED US TO! the thread title says "Shall I or shan't I"
|
So OG - after all the "help" you have received - are you any nearer to making a decision.
Me thinks you will go for it.
Keep us posted on your thoughts and what ever you decide - I am sure we all wish you the very best with your decision.
Remember one thing though - you are the one with the money and make sure you get the dealer dancing to your tune - whatever they say, they are desperate to sell cars at the moment so you make sure you enjoy the whole experience and take control.
Cheers.
|
We live in a sort of free society I assume and yes perhaps I should buy that Toyota Auris or Ford Focus however I think that the former although statistically more reliable is an utter bore and no-no as far as I'm concerned - a Nissan Almera - I shudder to when I think of such cars.
See this is the bit I never get with these topics on cars like VWs, Peugeots and Renaults.
What exactly is so special about a Volkswagen Golf for pity's sake?
Are they the most reliable cars around? No.
Are they the best to drive? No.
Are they the most luxurious? No.
Are their engines either the most powerful, frugal or refined? No.
Are they the most stylish, or the prettiest? No.
They are just an ordinary hatchback, and a pretty bland one at that.
If you are so quick to turn your nose up at such bland cars as the Almera or Auris, then I fail to see the attraction in another boring box, and one with a torque-free zone for an engine as well.
If you want to spend nearly twenty grand on a car, take advantage of the current situation and buy something like that Impreza as Mapmaker says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
