Mini review.
in [Tuning]
|
From: Tim S Kemp on 28 Feb 2010 09:19 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jemh70.yeu22tbqavy8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > Heck, why didn't you come up with the fact that you can get a diesel Jag > XF for �29,000 and the 5.0 supercharged XFR for �62,000 and hence > "prove" that diesels cost �33,000 less than petrol engined cars? Here's an extreme one for you. Merc S350CDI vs S350 petrol. Buy new, run 120k miles over 4 yrs. Diesel car is 1932 cheaper to buy, 570 cheaper to tax, 5152 cheaper to fuel and worth 1300 more at the end of the period... -- And remember kids, RAID is safe and the UPS never fails, and Cisco routers never develop intermittent faults, and external hard drives never fail with only a month's use, and the DNS is reliable and resilient, and the mailserver is protected from all forms of attack, and the replacement UPS will be reliable as the first one was an unusual failure. No one will ever guess /that/ password, the aircon can't fail 285V is close enough to 230, and the QoS on the PWan won't obstruct the tagged traffic.
From: Steve Firth on 28 Feb 2010 09:27 Tim S Kemp <news(a)timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > Diesel car is 1932 cheaper to buy, 570 cheaper to tax, 5152 cheaper to fuel > and worth 1300 more at the end of the period... And 400% more pikier throughout. It's a winner.
From: Tim S Kemp on 28 Feb 2010 09:41 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jemo33.sa7t0ziytgldN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > Tim S Kemp <news(a)timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Diesel car is 1932 cheaper to buy, 570 cheaper to tax, 5152 cheaper to >> fuel >> and worth 1300 more at the end of the period... > > And 400% more pikier throughout. It's a winner. 9000 quid in pocket, that's enough mental compensation. Debadging - no cost option - that sorts the image out. -- And remember kids, RAID is safe and the UPS never fails, and Cisco routers never develop intermittent faults, and external hard drives never fail with only a month's use, and the DNS is reliable and resilient, and the mailserver is protected from all forms of attack, and the replacement UPS will be reliable as the first one was an unusual failure. No one will ever guess /that/ password, the aircon can't fail 285V is close enough to 230, and the QoS on the PWan won't obstruct the tagged traffic.
From: Steve Firth on 28 Feb 2010 11:23 JackH <jackhackettuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > But if you'd wanted your original argument to be backed up by > something along those lines, perhaps you'd not have come across as > quite so clueless if you'd not generalised with the figure of �2k. �2K appears to be a fairly reasonable average differential between diseasel and petrol *of the same spec* however you insist on talking about S/H price differentials. So all you're proving is that someone lost even more by buying a diesel (the previous owner). "For a while diesel has traditionally been seen as the cheaper alternative - giving many more miles to the gallon - it now costs on average 12p per litre more than petrol. "That, combined with the extra cost of the initial car purchase, means it can take years of driving in some models for the switch to make economic sense. "The research by car experts Parker's shows that choosing, for example, a BMW 318 diesel could take 28 years to recoup the extra cost of the diesel car over an equivalent version powered by petrol. "Even in a diesel Mini, it could take the driver six to seven years to break even. A Ford Mondeo diesel could take almost as long, at around six years." .... "A diesel car costs on average �1,400 more than its petrol equivalent." http://www.50connect.co.uk/motoring/motoring_news/is_diesel_really_the_c heaper_alternative
From: JackH on 28 Feb 2010 12:25
On Feb 28, 4:23 pm, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > JackH <jackhacket...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > But if you'd wanted your original argument to be backed up by > > something along those lines, perhaps you'd not have come across as > > quite so clueless if you'd not generalised with the figure of 2k. > > 2K appears to be a fairly reasonable average differential between > diseasel and petrol *of the same spec* however you insist on talking > about S/H price differentials. In one of the two examples I've given, I reeled off the difference between the initial prices when new, and then the differences as outlined by price guides at the mo should you sell either on now - are you so hard of thinking that you can't comprehend that the sum of the latter is linked to the former when slinging around 'But it's going to cost you this!' style comments? And then I've reeled off another, current example, which disproves the £2k initial purchase differential figure you gave as well as the original example did. In both examples, I used the *same spec* models fitted with different engine options. In the case of the latter, I picked models with the same BHP... In the case of the former, pre-empting your pedantry, I gave examples of the two engines which were as closely matched to the TDI as possible in the range at that time. > So all you're proving is that someone > lost even more by buying a diesel (the previous owner). I've proven they've lost less if they buy a new one in the longer term, than the figures I'd proven were already lower than the £2k you were bandying around. You over exaggerated the initial price difference, and you failed to identify that there's still a price differential when the respective cars are then sold on later on. > "For a while diesel has traditionally been seen as the cheaper > alternative - giving many more miles to the gallon - it now costs on > average 12p per litre more than petrol. Which bit is it that you missed whereby I pointed out that the fuels concerned are largely at a level of parity at the moment (and have been for some time), then? Here, most places are charging 109.9p a litre for both unleaded and diesel at present. The article you posted up at the bottom of your post dated November 2009 stated a difference of 3p a litre... > "That, combined with the extra cost of the initial car purchase, means > it can take years of driving in some models for the switch to make > economic sense. Do you see the key words there? 'Can' and 'some models' I illustrated how on an atypical mid range car such as the Golf, the difference is A: not £2k, and B: is even less in the longer term once you've factored in how much the respective models are worth when it comes to selling them on. I'm sorry this doesn't align with your flawed opinion on the subject, but just so as you know, continuing to squirm as you are isn't making what I said any less correct, or what you said any less flawed and wrong. If the above is wrong, how about instead of continuing as you are, you look at the examples I've given and then reel off exactly why the figures are wrong. Another point that's just occured to me, is that for someone who likes to sneer that diesels are solely for 'cheapskate pikeys', you seem pretty fixated on how much more they cost to buy over a petrol equivalent. Pikey. :-P Finally, as I have said before and will say again, some of us choose to drive diesels because we *like* them and they suit our needs better than a petrol one does. Shockingly, I feel all dirty and like I'm letting the side down when I ride my bike or take the M3 for a spin. :-P <SNIP> > "A diesel car costs on average 1,400 more than its petrol equivalent." Sorry? Did I read that right? £1400... and not £2k? WHOA! ;-) Average indicates a median point... which means some cost even less than that compared to the petrol equivalent - I elected to give an example which used a mid range car, and this is reflected in the kind of cost difference involved between the petrol and diesel models in the range, and just as I said in my last post, there are plenty of examples you could reel off of upmarket cars and the like, where the difference is more than £2k. -- JackH |