Mini review.
in [Tuning]
|
From: JackH on 27 Feb 2010 20:44 On Feb 27, 12:05 am, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > JackH <jackhacket...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > *swallows nerd bait* 100k miles will cost about £15k to fuel a typical > > > 1.8-2.0 petrol car, and about £10k for an equivalent diesel. The > > > difference in purchase price is typically <£1k, when new. > > > Break-even mileage is closer to 20k than 100k. [1] > > > There are other financial factors as well. > > Yes, like diesels tending to be closer to 2K more expensive than petrol > engines. Really? <looks> New in 2001, mine was £1100 more than a 1.6 16v and about £500 more than a 2.0 petrol... nowhere near £2k in other words. Having said that, the point is I didn't buy it new... maybe you should try factoring in that before coming out with yet more 'my calculations equate to', because your calculations aren't relevant to every scenario where someone has bought a diesel over a petrol. I'll play along for now though... according to Parkers, the 1.6 16v is now worth about £700 less than mine - so actual extra the diesel would have cost someone overall who'd bought one new and went to sell it now going by the *guide* price, is £400 or thereabouts. The 2.0 is now worth about £600 less than mine, so using the same scenario as above, it's actually cost £100 more in real terms, to own the petrol than the diesel. Then there's the fact that the diesels are much easier to sell - it may surprise you to know that not everyone is as blinkered as you when it comes to what they want from a car, and as a result not only do the Mk4 diesels fetch a premium over the petrols when sold, they depreciate slower and the demand for them is much higher. -- JackH
From: JackH on 27 Feb 2010 20:55 On Feb 27, 12:06 pm, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > On 27/02/2010 01:47, Clive George wrote: > > > On 27/02/2010 01:01, Tim S Kemp wrote: > > >> Anyone doing <15k miles/yr is unlikely to break even on an equivalent > >> diesel car. > > > <waves> Me sir, I beat it. > > Likewise. I get 20MPG more with my diesel Mondeo than a petrol one. The > car cost 1k more than its petrol equivalent (3yr old used). I've not had a petrol Mk4 Golf, but I had a 1.8 petrol Mk3 briefly at around the same time I had a Mk3 TDI, so I'll use those for comparison purposes. The TDI cost a grand and tended to average 52mpg overall. The petrol, £600 and at best it did 38mpg. £400 difference in price. Over say 12k miles, the TDI would have used 230.7 gallons, which at todays prices equates to £1151 in fuel. The petrol, using the same figure for fuel, as in £1.09.9 = £1571 in fuel... and this is with me being generous about the MPG, as the TDIs seemed to be more consistent economy wise over the petrols, which took far more of a knock to the MPG around town or when you booted it. The TDI won't have depreciated any more than the petrol pro-rata... in fact it may have depreciated less due to the even higher demand than before, for economical cars. -- JackH
From: Steve Firth on 27 Feb 2010 21:42 JackH <jackhackettuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Yes, like diesels tending to be closer to 2K more expensive than petrol > > engines. > > Really? Yes really, but thanks for playing "This shagged out old nail didn't cost that much."
From: Steve Firth on 28 Feb 2010 07:33 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > And you're going to have to run both cars for 420,000 miles before the > diesel shows a return on the price differential. Bollocks, brain trouble - 90,000 miles.
From: Steve Firth on 28 Feb 2010 08:12
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Umm, not quite that simple - and I dunno where those prices came from, > because it wasn't VW... http://www.carpricechecker.co.uk/ |