Modern cars vs Older Cars, what do you think?

[fenton_jd]

I stumbled upon a forum post in the V50 section, whereby a V50 1.8 petrol had a lot of random starting/acceleration issues

In 2011, the issue was fixed by literally updating the software in the engine computer.

In 1981, the issue would have been fixed by getting your hands mucky on the weekend and inspecting bits, giving them a clean.

Do you favour the stress free modern methods of fault finding, or do you prefer to get it onto Axel stands and have a good snoop around. Has your opinion of the modern car been changed recently, or vice versa for older cars?

[popuptoaster]

personally i like late 90's cars, much more reliable genarlly than the older stuff but still cheap enough to scrap them when they eventually do go wrong. Some of my mates pay more in reapair bills on newish cars than i pay for a whole car or two.

one of me mates just had to pay 1200 quid to have his 4 year old Audi A6 gearbox wiring replaced, that would have bought me two cars, even without the 200 quid you get back for weighing them in.

[SIAMBLUE]

IMHO, I would never own a modern car, most things are electronic now so you have to pay £££ just to download software so you can change the headlight bulbs.
Volvo stopped making real cars alongtime ago.


Gary.

[david philips]

i agree with both popup toster @saimblue,older cars are easyer to fix and maintain,most jobs can be done at home with little special equipment and they cost a lot less to run,but the age of electronics is here to stay,and if anything it will get more computerised ,and as for hybride vehicles with high voltage dc,well i hope i can run an old one long enuf to avoid them.:car:

[docjd]

progress-luddites etc
Many opinions

[kebab10]

I prefer the cars of the 80-90s for ease of fixing. Electrical problems then were bad earthing, alternator, or regulator problems. None of this looms corroding underneath the radiator, fretting of conncetors and other ridiculous software based issues.
Put your overalls on, get your hands dirty, fix it and not replace much. Those were the days.
Modern cars are far too complex nowadays and will cost a small fortune to fix in not many more years to come.

[volvorocks]

From a driving point of view I prefer new cars although the majority now all look the same and whilst there are differences they are all very similar

There is however so much to go wrong.

Whilst I wouldnt relish driving a Morris Minor I do like older cars and they are so simple too!

[RUTV70]

My biggest beef with the modern stuff is...they ain't got SOUL.!
Take the badges off and you'd be hard pushed to know the manufacturer in many cases.
I like difference...and I can always find my classic V70 in a car park...LOL
For me, my V70 is modern enough to give me the comforts...but old enough to give "character".

Neil

[Milky400]

TVR more reliable than the Volvo at the mo, and when the TVR goes wrong a trained mechanic fault finds and fix's.

Volvo goes wrong and no light on dash your screwed!!!!!!

friend at work has an 18 month old golf, and it hesitates and jults low down in the rev range, takes it to the local VW dealers who have it for 2 days and on picking it up, they say "definately got a problem, but as the engine light isnt on we cannot diagnose" unbelievable obviously we refused to take it away until its fixed. Collected it today (7 days later) with a nice new shiney turbo, inlet and exhaust manifold aswell as a new cat..........

Seems to run fine.

[stephend]

Let's just say I'm planning to keep my 740 running as long as humanly possible. :)

[SiRS2000]

I love them both.

I like the creature comforts of modern cars hence the V50 full of gizmos and luxurys.

I also like older cars whichdo tend to have more caracter, that said even my 90's RS2000 is far to modern for some as it has an ECU and Electronic fuel injection instead of carbs.

[weble]

For me each have their pro's and cons!

Modern normally brings Safety and economy (Compared to it's older counterpart).

Although i sway more towards old. I'd class my self as an ameture with the spanners, the most compicated stuff i've done has been change a diesel injection pump, a cambelt on a Ford CVH engine, Fit a 1100 ohv Fiesta engine. Anything more than that is down to my mechanic. So when it comes to that the repair bills on an older car are generally cheaper as i can do more my self, (Using my Fiesta and Sierra for examples) They dont even have ECU's to plug in and diagnose@ £50 a time. Then there are other modern gadgets like DMF's, ECU's, Sensors here and sensors there that i dont have, so less to go wrong.

My S80 is the newest car i've ever brought (although not what most would class as new), and i gotta be honest it does scare the crap out of me! In terms of what 'could' go wrong and how much it could cost! There is a lot less stuff i could do on the car my self too. But it's also the safest car i've even brought!

I guess i gotta get used to it, old cars wont last forever!

[Anadinolin]

i echo what people so far have said, modern cars for their creature comforts and economy - 88mpg some manufacturers are stating!!one!!!111!!!!eleven!!

i like the older cars because they are drivers cars, as much as i like traction control...it dosent like you HOONING about very much, the metals and alloys are much more fragile, and fiddly to fix - fiat grande punto's even use snap bolts to seal the gearbox to the engine so they can charge £2k for a new-ish engine - BAR STEWARDS

although seat design is good in modern cars - they hold you better and last longer, the older cars had some sense of comfort in them...my Escort cabriolet has sparco leather seats from a cosworth escort...they where the most comfortable seats i have sat in! after that an old renault 5 gt turbo

also older cars in the 80's and 90's tended not to have electronically speed limited ecu's it was just the mechanics of the car that limited your top speed!! the power the old group b rally cars used to produce...phwoar!

[andy_d]

whatever WE like or prefer ,doesnt matter.
the makers will Keep on adding more and more "Dealers only" bits as fast as they can.
Then prevent as many people as possible Other than their dealers being able to service them.

any volvo post 2000 is like that, you need £££££ worth of gear to turn a fkin light out,,,and volvo Wont sell you the gear as a private person....


older cars were Built properly, they lasted,, how may 740/940/960s are about now ?
volvo-fords,, well there failing terminally already.

fiat, dont make me laugh there a POS while still in the factory and only get worse from then on. any moron who buys one deserves all they get.

cars will Keep getting More expensive, lasting far shorter overall times and the "repair" bills at main dealers will get higher and more often.

progress?? no not for the owner/driver , fine for the brain dead morons out there who come out with "luddite" comments , or havent a Clue other than "fuel go here"
for the makers, it has to be better to make a car that Has to be serviced at stupid costs and at Their dealers only...

[Moosejaw]

Hmm, do I prefer a nice electronic ETM that needs half the front of the car to come off to change, and needs coded back into the car when (not if) it fails, costing close on £500, or would I prefer a £20 throttle cable held on by a couple of clips?

Or maybe I'd prefer an ECU computer-controlled engine management system which flashes warning lights on the dash and costs hundreds every time it finds a 'fault' over a carburettor I can adjust with a screwdriver?

To me, modern cars have gone too far up the 'sealed unit/plug it into a computer' route. Fair enough let's have fuel injection and airbags and so on but the complexity of modern cars combined with the expense of repairing them properly means that the life expectancy of a 2011 car is probably a lot less than it was for a 1981 car.

Look at the number of perfectly decent looking 52, 53 plate cars sitting in scrappies without a mark on them. Less than 10 years old yet because they're unfixable outside the expensive main dealer service bay, they're simply scrapped.

[volvorocks]

Hmm, do I prefer a nice electronic ETM that needs half the front of the car to come off to change, and needs coded back into the car when (not if) it fails, costing close on £500, or would I prefer a £20 throttle cable held on by a couple of clips?

Or maybe I'd prefer an ECU computer-controlled engine management system which flashes warning lights on the dash and costs hundreds every time it finds a 'fault' over a carburettor I can adjust with a screwdriver?

To me, modern cars have gone too far up the 'sealed unit/plug it into a computer' route. Fair enough let's have fuel injection and airbags and so on but the complexity of modern cars combined with the expense of repairing them properly means that the life expectancy of a 2011 car is probably a lot less than it was for a 1981 car.

Look at the number of perfectly decent looking 52, 53 plate cars sitting in scrappies without a mark on them. Less than 10 years old yet because they're unfixable outside the expensive main dealer service bay, they're simply scrapped.

Yes indeed I do agree.

Just a shame that newer cars go to the scrappies because of expensive electrical probs yet older 80's cars went to the scrappies because of rust.

Early cars and later cars being scrapped earlier than expected but for different reasons

Regards

[Jetmech]

Well!
Modern cars are generally well built, better than any pre 90's car IMO. But there are several issues. Waste, in an age when recycling is an accepted norm the car industry has gone in the opposite direction. You used to be able to reseal the brake & clutch cylinders, not any more. You used to be able to visit a breakers yard and find perfectly good second hand parts to keep your car running, now if you can find a breakers the chances are, especially with Volvo, that the part won't work because of computer programing issues.
But worst of all is the complete lack of technical information for private individuals. In the end maintaining a car comes down to spanners, with very few special tool needed, but the lack of legally available servicing & repair information is frankly dangerous.

[Andy Northface]

I remember reading in a car mag a few years ago that the manufacturers were pushing to use shear bolts on engines so there was NO or very little D.I.Y maintainence. Even oil changes would be frowned on!

[princepugh]

Totally hear what folks are talking about with modern cars in terms of fault finding, main dealer lock-in etc. and I should know - owning a 2001 V70 T5 has meant I've had to do a lot of background reading to understand these cars and keep the mechanics honest!

Having said that, my memories of the sort of cars my Dad used to drive around in (and these were new company cars) are not favourable: rotted exhaust within a year virtually guaranteed; front valance and sills rusting within no time unless undersealed; terrible suspension; poor handling; loads of body roll; ****-poor safety; terrible winter starting; bare and basic interiors; stinking exhaust emissions (no CAT yes Lead); and sooner rather than later, total rot boxes. OK, these were not Volvos but probably representative of many of the mainstream manufacturers of the late 70s early 80s.

On the safety front - take a look at some of the early NCAP test crash footage, then compare to more modern vehicles then think about where you'd rather be.

Agree though - modern cars are an expensive PITA in so many other ways!

[andy_d]

I remember reading in a car mag a few years ago that the manufacturers were pushing to use shear bolts on engines so there was NO or very little D.I.Y maintainence. Even oil changes would be frowned on!

and a Certain german car maker has seen to oil changes,,,
there is no sump drain plug on some of theres,,so you have to suck the oil out the dipstick tube..... what a crock that is.

for wossis chops pointing out that Certain cars in the 80s rusted faster than the warranty,, may i present to you Modern day FIAT, ford and certain french things that are described as cars,,

bro in law's father bought a brand spankin new fiat "stilo" , its not yet got to its 1st mot, but has had to have new exhaust bits under warranty, cos of rust...
bro in law sold his ,also brand new bought, stilo sub 3 years old, and despite him getting 40% off retail he took a right bath when he sold it,,during the 2 n a bit years he owned it it was back at fiat to have new clutch, new brakes (calipers) and various other Big works. and being a poxy 1.4 petrol engine, you can hardly say it was due to excessive power, or being driven hard, (he babys his cars, and doesnt put his foot down at all ever,,).

mr next door has a ford mundano estate, its only just 6 years old, he's got rusty tail gate , on the 2nd set of calipers/disks has had £1000's on/in the tractor engine (and it Still sounds like a bag of spanners in a washing machine) 3rd exhaust, and that one has been main dealer serviced from day one, either On milage or just before.
next door the other side, he has an audi a3 two door tractor, 2years newer than my volvo,, he's got more rust speckles forming than i do, and moans that the service bills are never below a grand for it @ audi,, and refuses to comment on how much his misses bwm 3 tractor costs,,,but they use the audi more despite having 3 kids and the bmw being a 4 door,,,

[rogerthechorister]

Not a lot wrong with Morris Minors and the big brothers the Wolsely 1500 and Riley 1.5 - or the ZA or ZB Magnettes.

My Minor would do about 100, there were many with B series engines that would do a lot more and at least two found their way onto the track with Daimler 2.5 litre V8s and some are around today with Rover 3.5s.

I love my 7 and 9 series Volvos but they do have too many electronic gizmos that can and do go wrong, and I'd really like to try a 2 series with B23 and a Shorrock supercharger sucking through a giant SU - running 5 star leaded petrol and Mobil SHC oil for the smell!

[andy72]

I prefer brand new cars still under warranty. had them for the last few years (personal lease and company car) and they in a different league reliebilty wise.

My 2000 C70 always needs something maintaining on it, whether it be handbrake shoes falling apart, sticking calipers, ariel that wont go down fully. Nothing i cant fix myself but still a pain.

I dont have the luxury of a new car anymore though, current main car is a 5yrd old Audi A3, which last week decided to empty its entire coolant out o fthe raditor. £250 later and all fixed. Still got to get the fault codes checked for the EML thats on. (think its lambda sensor as it goe soff on a long run)

[Anadinolin]

and a Certain german car maker has seen to oil changes,,,
there is no sump drain plug on some of theres,,so you have to suck the oil out the dipstick tube..... what a crock that is.

for wossis chops pointing out that Certain cars in the 80s rusted faster than the warranty,, may i present to you Modern day FIAT, ford and certain french things that are described as cars,,

bro in law's father bought a brand spankin new fiat "stilo" , its not yet got to its 1st mot, but has had to have new exhaust bits under warranty, cos of rust...
bro in law sold his ,also brand new bought, stilo sub 3 years old, and despite him getting 40% off retail he took a right bath when he sold it,,during the 2 n a bit years he owned it it was back at fiat to have new clutch, new brakes (calipers) and various other Big works. and being a poxy 1.4 petrol engine, you can hardly say it was due to excessive power, or being driven hard, (he babys his cars, and doesnt put his foot down at all ever,,).

mr next door has a ford mundano estate, its only just 6 years old, he's got rusty tail gate , on the 2nd set of calipers/disks has had £1000's on/in the tractor engine (and it Still sounds like a bag of spanners in a washing machine) 3rd exhaust, and that one has been main dealer serviced from day one, either On milage or just before.
next door the other side, he has an audi a3 two door tractor, 2years newer than my volvo,, he's got more rust speckles forming than i do, and moans that the service bills are never below a grand for it @ audi,, and refuses to comment on how much his misses bwm 3 tractor costs,,,but they use the audi more despite having 3 kids and the bmw being a 4 door,,,

completely agree here - iv been on the arse end of fiat, not only are the cars crap the service group dont wanna know! stay away from glyn hopkin and desira - crooks!

my brand new delivery mileage 2006 1.9 weasel sporting grande punto in red needed:

new immobilizer - kept imobilizing me in strange places
new drivers door lock - drivers door would not open so i had to get in through pass door
3 new batteries - a drain of 3mah from somewhere, fiat could not fix this
2 new radios - cauught fire both times
2 new fuse boxes - all the fuses blew at once on both boxes
1 new rear caliper - it had snapped off and churned itself up in the alloy
1 new alloy - see previous
1 new handbrake cable - see previous
1 new alarm module - alarm kept going off..even when unlocked
1 new ECU - kept elecronically limiting me to 50mph (limp home mode) and engone would not stop, even with no ignition
8, yes you read it 8 new front offside wheel bearings -these kept going alloys where too heavy for the car apparantly...the fudge?
6 new glow plugs - would not start when new ECu was in...it fried its own glow plugs
18 traction control resets - yes traction control limiting acceleration, screwed up the clutch
3 new software upgrades - to prevent the software glitches, it didnt
1 new bluetooth unit - stopped working
2 new dashboards (because radios caught fire)
1 new clutch - see previous
1 new gearbox -which FIAT where not going to pay for under their 3rd year warranty i had to shell out for a new engine plus gearbox eqating to over £2k - i didnt pay and wrote to watchdog and my finance company stating: not fit for purpose because...

my final gripe!! that POS foam tin instead of a wheel!!! they wouldnt supply me with a spare "because the car was not made to have a spare" - **** it i'll carry it in the boot!! nob end!

i ended up buying a ford fiesta mk4 and got that running for cheaper untill my finance company got their act together and gave me a list of replacement cars to get - my current vovlo in 2009

[weble]

That ^^ is shocking! Although i have heard similar storys! A chap at work has a new shape punto and has had 2 sets of brake pads in 4000 miles.

We brought our "old" (1996) Civic 2 n half years ago. It had 128,000 miles on it, it now has 148,000 miles on it. We drive it hard, it's had

2 x Tyres, wear and tear
Backbox £31 from GT exhausts and a 5 min job
Brake pads (wear and tear) £30 which i also fitted my self in 20 min.
2 oil changes which i've also done my self. (3rd this weekend)

Although thinking back to the older cars, what kind of milage did they do? Pretty rare for a car of the 70's to see over 100,000 miles. Ya can buy 3 year old cars with that on now and many see over 300,000 miles. With all the progress, i think it's all relative and we aint really got anywhere lol

[chelle_belle]

My mate has an 04 punto its got 50k on the clock, its now needing its 3rd gearbox, on its 3rd exhaust, also his tick-over is all over the place.
Next time your on the motorway have a look whats broken down in the hard sholder (newer cars 01 to 11 plates) does make me smile knowing my daily runner 850 is 15 year old.:thumbs_up:

[XC60MY12]

progress?? no not for the owner/driver , fine for the brain dead morons out there who come out with "luddite" comments , or havent a Clue other than "fuel go here"
for the makers, it has to be better to make a car that Has to be serviced at stupid costs and at Their dealers only...

That your humble opinion then? I may be a "brain dead moron" but I do know where capital letters go :)

[fenton_jd]

Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Volvo

If it ain't one of the above, I wont be buying it.

[andy_d]

That your humble opinion then? I may be a "brain dead moron" but I do know where capital letters go :)

and i know where your type can go,, straight onto ignore for being a fwit :D ,,

[andy72]

If a manufacturer came to you and offered you a free brand new car in exchange for your 15 years old volvo... would you take it?



PS... if you havent owned your 15yr old volvos from new, how do you know it didnt spend most of its first few years in the dealers? I know when the C70 first came out in 98, my company had 2 as directors cars and also 6 of the S40's. They all had theire fair share of time in the dealers for warranty work. I remember once incidnet where the brakes failed while the mechanic was driving it in to the workshop to find out why the headlights bulbs went too frequently. That was a fun telephone call.

[XC60MY12]

and i know where your type can go,, straight onto ignore for being a fwit :D ,,

Good. I make it a rule never to enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Moosejaw]

My mate has an 04 punto its got 50k on the clock, its now needing its 3rd gearbox, on its 3rd exhaust..

It's funny, Fiat's name often crops up when crap cars are being talked about, along with most things French...

I had both Mk1 & Mk2 versions of the Punto, did about 40k miles in them over 5 or 6 years and IIRC they got a new battery each in addition to normal (cheap) servicing. I've had loads of Fiats & Renaults, including racking up 60k miles over 3 years in 2 Clios as a driving instructor, and they've all been perfectly reliable.

It's VWs, Audis and a Rover I've had the most trouble with over the years, and sorry to say, I'll never buy a 'modern' fwd Volvo again after owning a C70.

[Angie]

Not a lot wrong with Morris Minors and the big brothers the Wolsely 1500 and Riley 1.5 - or the ZA or ZB Magnettes.

My Minor would do about 100, there were many with B series engines that would do a lot more and at least two found their way onto the track with Daimler 2.5 litre V8s and some are around today with Rover 3.5s.

I love my 7 and 9 series Volvos but they do have too many electronic gizmos that can and do go wrong, and I'd really like to try a 2 series with B23 and a Shorrock supercharger sucking through a giant SU - running 5 star leaded petrol and Mobil SHC oil for the smell!

After 30 years and around half a million miles in a Morris Traveller I do have to agree. For the last twenty-three years it had a 1,300cc engine and five-speed gearbox together with quite a lot of other up-grades, notably more comfortable seats, the Moggie ones are horrible! In all of those miles I've had to pay out for two major restorations, but even allowing for that my motoring costs per mile have been a fraction of what they would have been had I regularly bought new. A good, modified Minor is safe, as or more comfortable than many more modern small cars, and as useable on modern roads as any other car, very light and easy to handle, and dirt cheap to run. Their downfall, as far as I'm concerned, is that they keep going even when neglected, so there's the danger that maintenance gets overlooked resulting in avoidable repairs.

Moggie has now gone to an enthusiast who is going to give it it's third restoration so that it will probably be good for a decade or two yet. Environmentally this is much the best way to go, as evidenced by a prestigious environmental award given to a Morris specialist a few years ago.

Moggie's replacement, a nineteen year old Torslanda, seems very modern indeed!

[lance1a]

Older cars are my bread and butter. One of my customers recently sold their two new cars (well...a 56 plate Mini R53 and a vauxhall 07 reg VXR) which they serviced with me (I'm BMW Mini trained) and bought one of the loan cars they used, a 1998 BMW E36. Later they bought (against my advice) my 436000 mile 1992 BMW E36 320i coupe. No hassles to date, and more and more people I know are asking me for older cars to replace modern unreliable ones. My fave is 1980's/90's. I think every manufacturer started to lose the plot in 1996 for a while...a long while.

[Moosejaw]

My fave is 1980's/90's. I think every manufacturer started to lose the plot in 1996 for a while...a long while.

Agreed.

I reckon the absolute pinnacle of automotive design was reached in about 1992, and things started to go downhill again after that.

By them we had reliable fuel injection, most family cars came with a decent level of useful equipment, safety and handling were pretty good across the board, reliability was as good as it needed to be and cars rusted slowly enough that the body, engine and electrics all gave up at about the same time, unlike today where the norm is for something to be scrapped with barely a speck of rust on it, and an engine that were it not for some ancillary fault would easily do another 100k miles.

Apart from the dubious improvements in secondary safety which has been used up by the fact that people now drive their tanks like d!ckheads, I can't think of any real improvements we've had to cars in the last 20 years.
All the improved technology which could have given us much more fuel efficient cars has been nullified by the fact that the average supermini now weighs the same as a mid 80s BMW 5 series and the better reliability offered by modern computerised electronics is offset by the difficulty and cost of fixing them.

Look at a Peugeot 308 against a 306 and tell me the new car is an improvement.

[weble]

Gotta agree aswell. I've always been of the thought that cars and their reliability peaked in the mid 90's! They were "just right".

[Daim]

I'd say: you can't draw any kind of conclusion yet, as the modern cars aren't old.

We've had a lot of old cars so far. My C30 is the newest car my family has ever bought (or actually I am the first person to buy near to new). So it means all our other cars were old.

The 2002 S80 is a lemon... It basically says weekly "repair me". That will be going soon.
The 2006 Transit is reliable. A work horse. Always starts. I'd say, if it was buried under 100 tonnes of earth, it would still start.
My former car, a 1991 965 GLE, would call weekly "help, I'm broken!".
My dad's former 1990 745 GL would rarely start first turn of the key.
My brother's old Golf II (1989) was a rust bucket - and the Golf II was well rust treated!).
My aunt's Fiat Panda (1989 1.1 or 1.0l) has had something like 7 or 8 head gaskets in it's life sofar (the "Fire" engine shows it's name).
My dad's old VW T4 (2.5l 4 cylinder non TDI) rattled and creaked at all times. Rarely would it run smooth from begin.
etc.

Most cars I have in memory, were regular "bangers" which still cost good cash!

My C30 is - and my parents say so - the most reliable car we've had so far. It is now 5 years old and has always started. Of course here and there the odd wear and tear part, but otherwise no issues with quality and reliablity.

I can't draw a conclusion yet, simply because modern cars haven't had the chance to prove their reliablity and quality yet. Of course there are some lemons in the bunch, mainly from Germany named VW or Audi, but still...

[Moosejaw]

I'd say: you can't draw any kind of conclusion yet, as the modern cars aren't old.

Most modern cars aren't going to get old, that's the problem.

For all the advances and expense, the average age of a car in a scrapyard (based on nothing more scientific than empirical research I admit) is no more than 10-15 years, or in other words, no more than it was 20 years ago.
Whereas 20 years ago the tenth owner of an old banger could keep it going by a bit of weekend spannering and the occasional application of Cataloy, that option simply isn't open to people anymore with cars that need a £500 component electronically programmed into the ECU by a main dealer. That's fine when you're maybe the second owner and the car's still worth £10k, but if you're owner number 6 and the car is 10 years old then you're going to think that sort of 'improvement' is pants.

We're in a worse position now that we were 10 years ago and buying secondhand cars is going to get even riskier.

[Andy Northface]

Did any of you see the episode of Top Gear where they showed all of the parked up cars waiting to be scrapped under the scrappage scheme? Even Clarkson said it was a crying shame.Some really nice cars were being scrapped.:broken_heart:

[princepugh]

... buying secondhand cars is going to get even riskier.

And thats the scariest part really isnt it? I'm no mechanic but I've put effort into learning about and maintaining my 2001 V70 T5 so even though its got 170k miles up I'm just not wanting to take a newer risk on board...

[volvorocks]

Lets bring money and wealth into the equation.

Not forgetting that some of us are TRUE classic older car lovers and will always have a fondness in our hearts for oldies , myself included - would the case of having an abundance of cash not alter our views somewhat?

Some have older banger cars simply for financial reasons.

I personally feel that this can be false economy.

Why drive a 1k "99" s40 T4 that keeps breaking down and needing expensive work when a new Volvo with similar performance is in reach for as little as 16k or 17k?

16k and 1k are poles apart you may say..........Ok they are although think that your 1k car may need 2k spending on it over 3 years and be worth nothing at the end of 3 years.You have spent 3k plus say fuel at 25mpg @ £6.40 a gallon over 36000miles=circa 9k with a total spend excluding insurance of 12k.
End result after 3 years - scrap car and come out with a hundred quid.
Total spend £11-900

Get a new V50 eco diesel for 17k over the same period and spend £500 on servicing and breakdown cover under the £300 Volvo deal.Insurance may be a tad cheaper although lets say it is the same.Drive the same 36000 miles at 50mpg lets say and you will pay 4.5k on fuel.Lets say you pay for brakes and tyres to the tune of £500. Total spend will be excluding insurance only £22500.

Ok what is your 3 year old Volvo eco worth - well looked after in great condition with a full Volvo history 10.5k maybe 9.5k? say under half of RRP (not what you paid remember).
Total spend £12,000 to £13000

Why drive an aging 3.0 litre or turbo 2.0 litre bag of sand that costs an arm and a leg to run and maintain and keeps breaking down when a new similar if not better equivalent can be obtained for the same as or less - unless you have a love of fixing cars and its your passion.

The example here does not have to be a Volvo BTW

Comments welcome

Regards

[GMad]

I prefer older cars, the type you can fix on the side of the road or in your own garage.
Although I do drive a modern, gizmo laden car too!
Circumstances dictate the modern car for work use, leaving the older car for pleasurable sunny days:thumbs_up:

[stephend]

"Old" doesn't necessarily equate to "banger". All of the cars I've run were bought secondhand, because that's what I could afford, but none has cost me an arm and a leg to run. Servicing at an indie has cost me a lot less than what I suspect servicing a new car at a dealer would have cost. And yes, I've had to have the odd repair done, but again nothing too eye-watering. Maybe I've just been lucky in my car purchases, but I haven't had the old car equals money-pit experience myself.

[Moosejaw]

Why drive a 1k "99" s40 T4 that keeps breaking down and needing expensive work when a new Volvo with similar performance is in reach for as little as 16k or 17k?

16k and 1k are poles apart you may say..........Ok they are although think that your 1k car may need 2k spending on it over 3 years and be worth nothing at the end of 3 years.You have spent 3k plus say fuel at 25mpg @ £6.40 a gallon over 36000miles=circa 9k with a total spend excluding insurance of 12k.
End result after 3 years - scrap car and come out with a hundred quid.
Total spend £11-900

Get a new V50 eco diesel for 17k over the same period and spend £500 on servicing and breakdown cover under the £300 Volvo deal.Insurance may be a tad cheaper although lets say it is the same.Drive the same 36000 miles at 50mpg lets say and you will pay 4.5k on fuel.Lets say you pay for brakes and tyres to the tune of £500. Total spend will be excluding insurance only £22500.

Ok what is your 3 year old Volvo eco worth - well looked after in great condition with a full Volvo history 10.5k maybe 9.5k? say under half of RRP (not what you paid remember).
Total spend £12,000 to £13000


I think there are quite a few flaws in that argument, sorry.

Firstly the main one would be that not everyone has the option of spending £17k on a new car. Also where would you get the £17k from? If you buy the car on HP you'll pay £22k for your £17k car.
I think repairs and servicing would be a lot more than £500 over 3 years and 36k miles on a new car too.

The assumption that a 10 year old car would need £2k worth of service and repairs over 3 years is very pessimistic, as is the assumption that it would be worth nothing at the end of the period. I often manage to buy a car, run it for a few months and sell it for as much as I paid for it, having spent maybe £100 on it.

I doubt very much a £17k Volvo would be worth £10-11k in 3 years time either, have a look on Parkers or Auto Trader and you'll see 58 plates at dealers from £6k upwards. Depreciation is the single biggest expense on a new car, and Volvos depreciate like glaciers in a heatwave. Maybe if you bought a Mini Cooper.....

I agree that sometimes a new car seems a good option but as a financial proposition for the private buyer it's a pretty poor choice.

[stephend]

Maybe if you bought a Mini Cooper.....


I for one wouldn't, having driven one!

The fact I couldn't get it into reverse, because I couldn't press the clutch down to the floor, because my toes were catching on the dashboard, wasn't a good start. That and the group 17 insurance...

:D

[volvorocks]

I think there are quite a few flaws in that argument, sorry.

Firstly the main one would be that not everyone has the option of spending £17k on a new car. Also where would you get the £17k from? If you buy the car on HP you'll pay £22k for your £17k car.
I think repairs and servicing would be a lot more than £500 over 3 years and 36k miles on a new car too.

The assumption that a 10 year old car would need £2k worth of service and repairs over 3 years is very pessimistic, as is the assumption that it would be worth nothing at the end of the period. I often manage to buy a car, run it for a few months and sell it for as much as I paid for it, having spent maybe £100 on it.

I doubt very much a £17k Volvo would be worth £10-11k in 3 years time either, have a look on Parkers or Auto Trader and you'll see 58 plates at dealers from £6k upwards. Depreciation is the single biggest expense on a new car, and Volvos depreciate like glaciers in a heatwave. Maybe if you bought a Mini Cooper.....

I agree that sometimes a new car seems a good option but as a financial proposition for the private buyer it's a pretty poor choice.

Hi Moosejaw

Thank you for your input.

Yes indeed there may be flaws and it may not work for everyone and yes you need the 17k in cash and if on finance charges would add to the bill..!!

Yes 2k on repairs for a seconhand car may be a tad high although may also be a tad low - suppose it depends how lucky you are with the secondhand purchase.

The 17k scenario is based on what you may pay for the new car not RRP.
So lets say it really was 21k and the car retained 40% ish it would be worth circa the 9k after say 3 years.The new car not necessarily needs to be a Volvo.There are lots of 0% deals cashback deals Vat deals on various makes. You can now buy a new top range XC90 for just 35k!
Servicing and repairs at £500 over 36k can indeed be realistic with the fixed price service deals available or even free servicing for 3 years. In the case of Hyundai you get 5 yr warranty 5 yr health checks 5 yrs AA breakdown 3yrs servicing and of course £20 a year road tax on the smaller car. So if you have free servicing £500 is fine for brakes and tyres etc and remember no MOTs and generally no AA cover needed either on new.


You are correct though that each persons circumstances are different and what suits one may not suit another. A new small car may not be suitable if you have a V70 estate for example.

However comparing an old S40 with a new S40 its the fuel consumption on the new S40 that enables such big savings over say a 2.0 litre old S40 coupled with the £300 Volvo service deal 3 yr warranty and £600 road tax saving over 3 years (probably with a little cheaper insurance as well) even taking into account depreciation

Regards

[Daim]

Hi Moosejaw

Thank you for your input.

Yes indeed there may be flaws and it may not work for everyone and yes you need the 17k in cash and if on finance charges would add to the bill..!!

Yes 2k on repairs for a seconhand car may be a tad high although may also be a tad low - suppose it depends how lucky you are with the secondhand purchase.

The 17k scenario is based on what you may pay for the new car not RRP.
So lets say it really was 21k and the car retained 40% ish it would be worth circa the 9k after say 3 years.The new car not necessarily needs to be a Volvo.There are lots of 0% deals cashback deals Vat deals on various makes. You can now buy a new top range XC90 for just 35k!
Servicing and repairs at £500 over 36k can indeed be realistic with the fixed price service deals available or even free servicing for 3 years. In the case of Hyundai you get 5 yr warranty 5 yr health checks 5 yrs AA breakdown 3yrs servicing and of course £20 a year road tax on the smaller car. So if you have free servicing £500 is fine for brakes and tyres etc and remember no MOTs and generally no AA cover needed either on new.


You are correct though that each persons circumstances are different and what suits one may not suit another. A new small car may not be suitable if you have a V70 estate for example.

However comparing an old S40 with a new S40 its the fuel consumption on the new S40 that enables such big savings over say a 2.0 litre old S40 coupled with the £300 Volvo service deal 3 yr warranty and £600 road tax saving over 3 years (probably with a little cheaper insurance as well) even taking into account depreciation

Regards

My last car (Volvo 960) costed me with in 12 months of ownership around €3400. Engine packed up (fantastic), gearbox decided to at the same time when trying to fit (even better!) and then the rear axle started howling... All expensive and in self change still cheaper... Of, the aircon packed up, the screen cracked and the rear brake calipers seized.

My C30 has cost me so far about €0 (yes, €0!) when it comes to important repairs needed to keep the car moving. I've had it three years and even THEN, when I add the costs of other repairs, I am at €700 (air con pipe ripped, top strut bearings at the front).

With certain brands you get a 3 year "all inclusive" price, i.e. with Ford and drive so long with out any costs except tax, insurance and fuel.

The calculation can easily be right... And you have to invest to get something out in the end. Where would we be nowadays, if nobody was to invest? Nobody would be mobile. Nobody would own a house. We would be somewhat where like the Amish in the States!

[Moosejaw]

You can now buy a new top range XC90 for just 35k!
Go look at how much a 3 year old one costs then come back and tell me how good an idea that would be for a private individual taking out a loan/HP etc. I can think of several better ways to p!ss £20k up against a wall in 3 years.

Fair enough, everyone's situation is different and everyone takes a different view on how much of their disposable income should go on a car. I could buy a new car if I wanted one, but I just couldn't live with the idea that I'm pouring money down the drain. [/tight Scotsman]

I accept however that there are plenty of people for whom a car is old and "going to start breaking down soon" when it needs its first MOT.
It's horses for courses I guess and I have bought new cars in the past, but you'd have a hard time persuading me that buying a new car is a sound economical decision these days.

[weble]

A lot of the new car snobs think people only drive old cars because that's all they can afford. There's a lot of people who can buy brand new, but choose not too. I for one cant see the point in spending £10,000+ on a brand new car when i find 10,15 even 20 year old cars just as, if not MORE reliable.

As for the math's, This is pretty much how my 4 years went with my Sierra
Car, spares or repairs rescued from the crusher £50 with half a tank of diesel!
First MOT bill £30 plus test = £70
2nd MOT steering gator £10 plus test = £50
next MOT other gator £10 plus test = £50
most recent MOT straight pass = £40 for fee

In that time
Rad hose £25
Spring broke, would have been about £40 for a spring, i decided full suspension overhaul £300
Brakes were low, again for what the car owed me full brake overhaul was done, come to about £120.

Tyres, they were legal, but budgets and im funny about that so £170 for a set of Yokos.

I spent loads messing about with it (Nicer stereo, nicer interior etc), but it wasnt needed.

I think i got my moneys worth. All that while it was cheap insurance as a limited mile "Classic"

[volvorocks]

Go look at how much a 3 year old one costs then come back and tell me how good an idea that would be for a private individual taking out a loan/HP etc. I can think of several better ways to p!ss £20k up against a wall in 3 years.

Fair enough, everyone's situation is different and everyone takes a different view on how much of their disposable income should go on a car. I could buy a new car if I wanted one, but I just couldn't live with the idea that I'm pouring money down the drain. [/tight Scotsman]

I accept however that there are plenty of people for whom a car is old and "going to start breaking down soon" when it needs its first MOT.
It's horses for courses I guess and I have bought new cars in the past, but you'd have a hard time persuading me that buying a new car is a sound economical decision these days.

Hi

Yes I do agree and its all down to personal feelings what one wishes to do.

I agree its not perhaps a good idea to borrow money to buy a 35k car. Some people do it some pay cash although then you get no interest having spent your savings!!

Yes horses for course although my post is suggesting not that people have no money rather simply a comparison of new v old.

Ive calculated running costs for 1 car to total circa 20k over 3 years based on its 37k RRP (actual 33k). Whilst I wish it was less I am happy (ish) with that and as you say others may not be!

Regards

[volvorocks]

A lot of the new car snobs think people only drive old cars because that's all they can afford. There's a lot of people who can buy brand new, but choose not too. I for one cant see the point in spending £10,000+ on a brand new car when i find 10,15 even 20 year old cars just as, if not MORE reliable.

As for the math's, This is pretty much how my 4 years went with my Sierra
Car, spares or repairs rescued from the crusher £50 with half a tank of diesel!
First MOT bill £30 plus test = £70
2nd MOT steering gator £10 plus test = £50
next MOT other gator £10 plus test = £50
most recent MOT straight pass = £40 for fee

In that time
Rad hose £25
Spring broke, would have been about £40 for a spring, i decided full suspension overhaul £300
Brakes were low, again for what the car owed me full brake overhaul was done, come to about £120.

Tyres, they were legal, but budgets and im funny about that so £170 for a set of Yokos.

I spent loads messing about with it (Nicer stereo, nicer interior etc), but it wasnt needed.

I think i got my moneys worth. All that while it was cheap insurance as a limited mile "Classic"

Hi Weble

Yes I do in part agree.

Some people drive older cars as this is all they can afford. Some people drive older cars even when they can probably afford a fleet of 35k cars. Its down to choice!

Some people drive new cars and they actually cannot afford them. They may drive new simply for "keeping up with the Jones"..!!

When I bought my first new car 25 years ago - the only reason I got a new one was because I couldnt afford a secondhand one!!!!... ie new car available with no deposit and monthly payments were more affordable than lashing out 2k or 3k seconhand as I didnt have 2 or 3k..!!

I had a Sierra too and must say it was fab...bought secondhand for 300 quid as my new car kept breaking down!!

I wouldnt however relish the thought of driving a Sierra and then theres the crash safety etc......

thanks for your post

Regards

[weble]

yeah i have to admit a big part of me replacing it with a Volvo is the safety aspect! I'm happy enough with my own driving, it's the small few other road users that scare me!

[t5_monkey]

Lets bring money and wealth into the equation.

Not forgetting that some of us are TRUE classic older car lovers and will always have a fondness in our hearts for oldies , myself included - would the case of having an abundance of cash not alter our views somewhat?

Some have older banger cars simply for financial reasons.

I personally feel that this can be false economy.

Why drive a 1k "99" s40 T4 that keeps breaking down and needing expensive work when a new Volvo with similar performance is in reach for as little as 16k or 17k?

16k and 1k are poles apart you may say..........Ok they are although think that your 1k car may need 2k spending on it over 3 years and be worth nothing at the end of 3 years.You have spent 3k plus say fuel at 25mpg @ £6.40 a gallon over 36000miles=circa 9k with a total spend excluding insurance of 12k.
End result after 3 years - scrap car and come out with a hundred quid.
Total spend £11-900

Get a new V50 eco diesel for 17k over the same period and spend £500 on servicing and breakdown cover under the £300 Volvo deal.Insurance may be a tad cheaper although lets say it is the same.Drive the same 36000 miles at 50mpg lets say and you will pay 4.5k on fuel.Lets say you pay for brakes and tyres to the tune of £500. Total spend will be excluding insurance only £22500.

Ok what is your 3 year old Volvo eco worth - well looked after in great condition with a full Volvo history 10.5k maybe 9.5k? say under half of RRP (not what you paid remember).
Total spend £12,000 to £13000

Why drive an aging 3.0 litre or turbo 2.0 litre bag of sand that costs an arm and a leg to run and maintain and keeps breaking down when a new similar if not better equivalent can be obtained for the same as or less - unless you have a love of fixing cars and its your passion.

The example here does not have to be a Volvo BTW

Comments welcome

Regards

One small point....

... a T4 is WAY better as a drivers & performance car than a stock V50 eco!!

Got mine at 3 years, it's only needed minor maintenence nothing major in 30000 miles and 4 years... any car will last well if it's properly maintained.

Most expensive thing on a car is ALWAYS depreciation.

[volvorocks]

One small point....

... a T4 is WAY better as a drivers & performance car than a stock V50 eco!!

Got mine at 3 years, it's only needed minor maintenence nothing major in 30000 miles and 4 years... any car will last well if it's properly maintained.

Most expensive thing on a car is ALWAYS depreciation.

Yes tend to agree that T4 drives better.

See my next post comparing an old Volvo V40 estate with a Skoda estate in which I think the Skoda drives better...just an example mind

[volvorocks]

Skoda 119mph 0-60 11.4
New Skoda diesel estate zero miles £15000 with no vat and 0%
Total paid £15000
3 years insurance £1200
3 years service £800
3 years breakdown cover £0
3 years MOT £0
3 years road tax total £40
Fuel over 36000 miles at 50mpg at £6-40 a gallon =£4608
Bits and Bobs eg tyres brakes £500
Total paid £22148

Sell car for £8000 after 3 years and it has cost you £14148
Sell car for £7000 after 3 years and it has cost you £15148
Sell car for £6000 after 3 years and it has cost you £16148
(being fair here with a low and a higher resale value)

.................................................. .................................................. ....

Volvo 1.8 petrol 119mph 0-60 10.9?
Volvo V40 petrol estate 80k miles£2500
Total paid £2500
3 years insurance £1200
3 Years service £800
3 years breakdown cover £300
3 years MOT £150
3 years road tax total approx £660
Fuel over 36000 miles at 25mpg at £6-40 a gallon = £9216
Bits and bobs eg tyres brakes £500
Extra repairs say clutch exhaust electric window motor alternator starter cam belt £1500
Total paid £16826

Sell car after 3 years with 116k on clock £1500 and it has cost you £15326
If the car has no repairs (which is unlikely deduct £1500 so total cost will be £13826)

£13826 and £14148 to me are similar figures and I do believe a 3 year old Skoda estate is fair at £7995 and the V40 estate will be worth £1500 maybe even less?). If more than likely the older Volvo needs the £1500 repairs then its total cost is £15326 as oppose to £14148 £15148 or worst scenario £16148 of the Skoda - so whichever way its looked at the figures are more or less the same and out of the 2 I would prefer the Skoda. Others will more than likely disagree

I do believe that in this example costs are pretty similar.

Food for thought?

Used a Skoda simply as an example.

regards

[Pilgrim]

my "old" car
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b133/alphagrafix/dub.jpg
built in 67, no road tax, classic insurance, 23 mpg, takes 30 minutes to get warm and clear the screen in winter, road holding of a myopic alcoholic african elephant but one of the coolest vehicles ever.

my "new" car.
http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=39413&d=1316896474
Everything the "dub" isn't.

[Moosejaw]

I do believe that in this example costs are pretty similar.

The flaw in that argument is that you're assuming the new car is going to do twice the mpg the old one does. Not necessarily a given.
Also you still seem to be ignoring the huge initial outlay on a new car, or the interest payments if a loan is taken out.

Whatever, we seem to be getting a bit bogged down in economics here and while some people care about these things, I don't.
If your figures are anywhere near correct they show that running a car of any kind is expensive, and if I'm going to be paying £thousands a year on one, the last thing I want for my money is some sh!tty Diseasel tightwad-wagon. :D

[volvorocks]

The flaw in that argument is that you're assuming the new car is going to do twice the mpg the old one does. Not necessarily a given.
Also you still seem to be ignoring the huge initial outlay on a new car, or the interest payments if a loan is taken out.

Whatever, we seem to be getting a bit bogged down in economics here and while some people care about these things, I don't.
If your figures are anywhere near correct they show that running a car of any kind is expensive, and if I'm going to be paying £thousands a year on one, the last thing I want for my money is some sh!tty Diseasel tightwad-wagon. :D

hi

Appreciate your thoughts.

There is no huge initial outlay if you cheap finance it and as i found some years ago I could only afford a new car as it meant nowt down and monthly payments whereas a seconhand car demanded a "huge initial outlay" with the possibility of dear repairs.

Agree that a new car may not do double the mpg of an old one.

Yet comparing a V40 petrol 1.8/2.0 against an eco Skoda this is indeed the case. Volvo does 25mpg (I have one as a backup car - it does 25mpg). Skoda 50mpg (my pal has one)

Sorry if Ive bogged you down.Not intentional.Just pointing out to peeps that a new car is not always the dearest option.

Regards

[stephend]

My old Volvos get looked after by a friendly indie in a nearby village. When I arrived to pick one of them up after a service, not so long ago, the guy was in the middle of an MoT. We got chatting, as usual, and he was telling me about one of his customers begrudging spending £300 to get her old Peugeot through its MoT, and threatening to scrap it and buy a brand-new replacement. He pointed out that she was grumbling about £300 for another year's motoring, but happy to find £15 grand for a new motor. Apparently there was a long pause.. then "hmm... I see what you mean..."
:)

[Chrali]

Lets bring money and wealth into the equation.

Not forgetting that some of us are TRUE classic older car lovers and will always have a fondness in our hearts for oldies , myself included - would the case of having an abundance of cash not alter our views somewhat?

Some have older banger cars simply for financial reasons.

I personally feel that this can be false economy.

Why drive a 1k "99" s40 T4 that keeps breaking down and needing expensive work when a new Volvo with similar performance is in reach for as little as 16k or 17k?

16k and 1k are poles apart you may say..........Ok they are although think that your 1k car may need 2k spending on it over 3 years and be worth nothing at the end of 3 years.You have spent 3k plus say fuel at 25mpg @ £6.40 a gallon over 36000miles=circa 9k with a total spend excluding insurance of 12k.
End result after 3 years - scrap car and come out with a hundred quid.
Total spend £11-900

Get a new V50 eco diesel for 17k over the same period and spend £500 on servicing and breakdown cover under the £300 Volvo deal.Insurance may be a tad cheaper although lets say it is the same.Drive the same 36000 miles at 50mpg lets say and you will pay 4.5k on fuel.Lets say you pay for brakes and tyres to the tune of £500. Total spend will be excluding insurance only £22500.

Ok what is your 3 year old Volvo eco worth - well looked after in great condition with a full Volvo history 10.5k maybe 9.5k? say under half of RRP (not what you paid remember).
Total spend £12,000 to £13000

Why drive an aging 3.0 litre or turbo 2.0 litre bag of sand that costs an arm and a leg to run and maintain and keeps breaking down when a new similar if not better equivalent can be obtained for the same as or less - unless you have a love of fixing cars and its your passion.

The example here does not have to be a Volvo BTW

Comments welcome

Regards

For me its because when you buy the cheap car, you know you can either fix, or scrap it. What do you do when you've got an expensive car on finance for 4 years and that goes deeply wrong? You point doesn't make allowances for that fact that the new cars go wrong to.

My tuppence.

Thing is I'm toying with getting rid of my 940, because its not want I want long term, thought it was but its not. Even here lots of 700/900 get scrapped, so why would manufactures bother making long lasting cars when we don't really want them? But they go too far, with over complex electronics, primarily for reduced production costs and cost to the consumer. Its all very well saying I'll stay with the older cars, but what then, never get another car , ever....? Most of us will get later cars at some point. Its inevitable.

[Daim]

For me its because when you buy the cheap car, you know you can either fix, or scrap it. What do you do when you've got an expensive car on finance for 4 years and that goes deeply wrong? You point doesn't make allowances for that fact that the new cars go wrong to.

My tuppence.

Thing is I'm toying with getting rid of my 940, because its not want I want long term, thought it was but its not. Even here lots of 700/900 get scrapped, so why would manufactures bother making long lasting cars when we don't really want them? But they go too far, with over complex electronics, primarily for reduced production costs and cost to the consumer. Its all very well saying I'll stay with the older cars, but what then, never get another car , ever....? Most of us will get later cars at some point. Its inevitable.

Okay, lets do it this way:

Buy car new or buy car old.

New means, you decide what engine and fittings and even colour it has. Buying used means you're limited.

Most car manufacturers offer 3 or more years of garantee/warranty. Kia even 7 years... If the car goes wrong in the warranty/garantee time, you take it to your dealership, they repair it, you get it back. No cash flow...

If your used car has an issue, you take it to the dealership, get robbed, and leave a lot of cash on the counter and drive off worrying "what should I do next time?".

Then comes the 3rd year of ownership. The new car goes for an MOT. The old car was a year before hand. As it being older, you had to invest into parts. The new car sails through...

So, with the new car you can not only save some cash with repairs BUT you also know how the car was driven from factory onwards and therefore know it was treated well... A well treated engine will have less issues and you know the state it will be in...

[Moosejaw]

You're making an awful lot of assumptions there...

Most car manufacturers offer 3 or more years of garantee/warranty. Kia even 7 years... If the car goes wrong in the warranty/garantee time, you take it to your dealership, they repair it, you get it back. No cash flow...

In theory yes, but you still have to pay for things like brakes, and other 'consumable items' and at main dealer rates too, which is another issue. To keep up the warranty*, you need to be happy with paying £300 for a glorified oil change and £700 for a 'major' service.
*OK according to EU legislation legally you don't, but most dealers, like insurance companies will crawl through fire to avoid paying out on warranty work if they think they can weasel out of it.

If your used car has an issue, you take it to the dealership, get robbed, and leave a lot of cash on the counter and drive off worrying "what should I do next time?".
If my used car has an issue I take it to my local spanner merchant and get it fixed. He charged me less for a full cambelt service including brake pads and discs, spark plugs and all the other service items than my mate paid for a 12k mile service on his Saab 9-3, where they charged him £17 per half litre of oil and nearly £100 an hour labour.....

I've had new cars, I know what getting them serviced costs.

Then comes the 3rd year of ownership. The new car goes for an MOT. The old car was a year before hand. As it being older, you had to invest into parts. The new car sails through...


Again, you're assuming a 'new' 3 year old car will pass an MOT and an older one will fail.
Ask an MOT tester if this is the case and see what he says.

We could argue about this endlessly. Some people will never accept that you can get just as good a motoring experience for a fraction of the price by running an older car, and some just wouldn't or can't afford to even consider buying new.

[t5_monkey]

Skoda 119mph 0-60 11.4
New Skoda diesel estate zero miles £15000 with no vat and 0%
Total paid £15000
3 years insurance £1200
3 years service £800
3 years breakdown cover £0
3 years MOT £0
3 years road tax total £40
Fuel over 36000 miles at 50mpg at £6-40 a gallon =£4608
Bits and Bobs eg tyres brakes £500
Total paid £22148

Sell car for £8000 after 3 years and it has cost you £14148
Sell car for £7000 after 3 years and it has cost you £15148
Sell car for £6000 after 3 years and it has cost you £16148
(being fair here with a low and a higher resale value)

.................................................. .................................................. ....

Volvo 1.8 petrol 119mph 0-60 10.9?
Volvo V40 petrol estate 80k miles£2500
Total paid £2500
3 years insurance £1200
3 Years service £800
3 years breakdown cover £300
3 years MOT £150
3 years road tax total approx £660
Fuel over 36000 miles at 25mpg at £6-40 a gallon = £9216
Bits and bobs eg tyres brakes £500
Extra repairs say clutch exhaust electric window motor alternator starter cam belt £1500
Total paid £16826

Sell car after 3 years with 116k on clock £1500 and it has cost you £15326
If the car has no repairs (which is unlikely deduct £1500 so total cost will be £13826)

£13826 and £14148 to me are similar figures and I do believe a 3 year old Skoda estate is fair at £7995 and the V40 estate will be worth £1500 maybe even less?). If more than likely the older Volvo needs the £1500 repairs then its total cost is £15326 as oppose to £14148 £15148 or worst scenario £16148 of the Skoda - so whichever way its looked at the figures are more or less the same and out of the 2 I would prefer the Skoda. Others will more than likely disagree

I do believe that in this example costs are pretty similar.

Food for thought?

Used a Skoda simply as an example.

regards

All of that is based on DOUBLE the fuel economy in the new car.

If economy is similar you'd save about 5k on the old car, even more with less mileage.

Horses for courses - but no way I could afford a car as good as mine If I bought new.

When I costed it out - a lease on a 1.2 clio worked out to cost the same over 5 years as owning my T5... and I know what I'd rather drive around in the meantime.

[AcidicDavey]

Modern cars are more comfortable, safer, quicker, more economical etc but so boring!!

Older cars, lets say pre2000. They're much more characterful as some of you have already mentioned, and frankly that is so important to me. Next time you see a new Corsa or similar go past just listen to it, modern cars even sound like they hate themselves!

The newest car I'd probably consider would be a 2003 S60 R but really want a 205 GTi!!

[volvorocks]

All of that is based on DOUBLE the fuel economy in the new car.

If economy is similar you'd save about 5k on the old car, even more with less mileage.

Horses for courses - but no way I could afford a car as good as mine If I bought new.

When I costed it out - a lease on a 1.2 clio worked out to cost the same over 5 years as owning my T5... and I know what I'd rather drive around in the meantime.

Hi T5

Yes I do agree with your comments and yes indeed it is a case of horses for courses and I myself personally would more than likely prefer your T5 over a Clio for the same price.

Comparing an old V40 standard petrol with say the Skoda D Id prefer the Skoda.

I am talking about buying as oppose to leasing here though and yes it is down to personal choice.

Regards

[volvorocks]

We could argue about this endlessly. Some people will never accept that you can get just as good a motoring experience for a fraction of the price by running an older car, and some just wouldn't or can't afford to even consider buying new.

Hi Moosejaw

Yes your points are indeed very valid.

I view all the posts as possible opinion based suggestions open to discussion as oppose to an argument:)

What suits one may not suit another and we cannot instruct people to buy either new or old , simply suggest.The final decision is ultimately their own.

What I hope my suggestion has pointed out, is, that it is possible to afford a new car when all matters are taken into consideration.

Best regards

[andy72]

Having both old and new cars im on the side of the fence that is new.

But just for info re the fuel disbelivers of the skoda. I had a 58 plate passat bluemotion as a company car last year. On a steady run i got 68MPG!!! thats a 2.0 diesel family car, not a small eco hatchback. As ive expereinced it, i fully beleive the fabia can easily acheive 50mpg if not more. The passat did 55 around town.

However, a route to new car ownership people may not realise or tried is personal lease. basically its a long term hire and on initial look it appears you throw away money on someone elses car. Partly true but heres where it pays.

The finance company work out the depreication of the car over 3 years. You pay the depreication. At the end they have been paid the cost of depreication and still have the car to sell on at auction. Add in the fact that most will buy it at much lower than retail (i know nissan let some of their cars go for 40% of RRP!).

The finance company wins, but so do you. As you only pay the depreiction, and not the cost of the car you can usually afford a much higher spec car than normal. eg. how about a 7 series BMW for £350 a month? or VW Tiguan 2.0TDI Bluemotion Tech SE ONLY £227.88 or Mazda MX-5 1.8i SE Convertible ONLY £149.99 or Citroen C3 1.4 VTR+ Hatch ONLY £105.99. These are Brand new cars, delivery mileage and most lease cars come with road tax for the entire term. Some have maintaince plans included but how many times would you service a brand new car in 3 years? as for repairs... its all warranty. In short, you insure it, put juic ein it and then pay the monthly payment. It also doesnt affect credit scores as its a lease, not a purchase and they can just take it back if you default.

just examples ive been emailed recently. I had a brand new Zafira personal lease, top spec which i couldnt have gone into the dealer and bought

[Angie]

The finance company wins, but so do you. As you only pay the depreiction, and not the cost of the car you can usually afford a much higher spec car than normal. eg. how about a 7 series BMW for £350 a month? or VW Tiguan 2.0TDI Bluemotion Tech SE ONLY £227.88 or Mazda MX-5 1.8i SE Convertible ONLY £149.99 or Citroen C3 1.4 VTR+ Hatch ONLY £105.99. These are Brand new cars, delivery mileage and most lease cars come with road tax for the entire term. Some have maintaince plans included but how many times would you service a brand new car in 3 years? as for repairs... its all warranty. In short, you insure it, put juic ein it and then pay the monthly payment. It also doesnt affect credit scores as its a lease, not a purchase and they can just take it back if you default.

just examples ive been emailed recently. I had a brand new Zafira personal lease, top spec which i couldnt have gone into the dealer and bought

Of course this is a discussion that could run and run, and it depends on what one wants from a car, annual mileage and so on. What I see though is for two month's payments on the BMW we bought our 240 Tors, paid for MoT, had a full service including cambelt and fan belts, new clutch, new handbrake linings and a few other bits and pieces. We've now done over 12,000 miles, so even allowing for relatively high fuel consumption (though not as bad as we were led to expect, around 32 mpg on main roads) that looks like quite a good deal. Of course with a much higher annual mileage we would probably have needed new tyres and maybe a few other bits and pieces, but it still looks fairly economical to me. It's also, very important to us, much better for the environment. I don't know what the other models quoted are like, wouldn't recognse one if I saw one, but even on the lowest figure we're still doing quite well I think, only the cost of about seven month's instalments. We have been in an almost brand new BMW, and quite independantly, talking about it afterwards we said that on several counts we'd never swap it for the Volvo.

Yes of course we could be landed with a huge expense at any time, but if the worst came to the worst we'd get something back for scrap and put it towards another quality older car. And it's nice to drive a car with a bit of style and personality, two things singularly lacking in almost every modern car, it seems.

[andy72]

I think the cost argument has detracted from the OP as it comes downt o what you want to pay. If you want cheap as possible, you can slum it in an older car and pretend your saving yourself hundreds of pounds or you can pay a sum of money each month and get something newer.

The OP questioned whether people prefer the spanners on a sunday morning approach to older cars vs the ecu controlled modern cars that virtually require dealer/professional repair.

I think if you are a 'tinkerer' youre going to prefer older cars. Wheras if you are a lazy git like me, the less likey to break but more costly modern car is the way forward for me.

[volvorocks]

Having both old and new cars im on the side of the fence that is new.

But just for info re the fuel disbelivers of the skoda. I had a 58 plate passat bluemotion as a company car last year. On a steady run i got 68MPG!!! thats a 2.0 diesel family car, not a small eco hatchback. As ive expereinced it, i fully beleive the fabia can easily acheive 50mpg if not more. The passat did 55 around town.

However, a route to new car ownership people may not realise or tried is personal lease. basically its a long term hire and on initial look it appears you throw away money on someone elses car. Partly true but heres where it pays.

The finance company work out the depreication of the car over 3 years. You pay the depreication. At the end they have been paid the cost of depreication and still have the car to sell on at auction. Add in the fact that most will buy it at much lower than retail (i know nissan let some of their cars go for 40% of RRP!).

The finance company wins, but so do you. As you only pay the depreiction, and not the cost of the car you can usually afford a much higher spec car than normal. eg. how about a 7 series BMW for £350 a month? or VW Tiguan 2.0TDI Bluemotion Tech SE ONLY £227.88 or Mazda MX-5 1.8i SE Convertible ONLY £149.99 or Citroen C3 1.4 VTR+ Hatch ONLY £105.99. These are Brand new cars, delivery mileage and most lease cars come with road tax for the entire term. Some have maintaince plans included but how many times would you service a brand new car in 3 years? as for repairs... its all warranty. In short, you insure it, put juic ein it and then pay the monthly payment. It also doesnt affect credit scores as its a lease, not a purchase and they can just take it back if you default.

just examples ive been emailed recently. I had a brand new Zafira personal lease, top spec which i couldnt have gone into the dealer and bought

Yes indeed I also agree with you and lease in so far as pay say £250 per month over 3 years , add in insurance and the odd tyre perhaps , maybe maintenance and we are probably on about £15,000 as a total 3 year cost with nothing at the end.Its this "nothing at the end" that makes people (correctly or incorrectly) think its wasting money

Lease a Skoda Octavia return in year three - 36 months cost £15,000
Buy a Skoda Octavia and sell in year three - 36 months cost £15,000
Buy an oldie and run for 3 years then scrap - 36 months cost £15,000

They all much of a muchness.

Yes perhaps running an old car for tiny mileage may work out a cheaper option?

regards

[Prufrock]

Let's just say I'm planning to keep my 740 running as long as humanly possible. :)

Wev'e had our 1986 745 since it was a year old...Wife's Dad bought it then. I think it deserves to live another 25 years.

We do have a modern Volvo, but if I did not have to cover large(ish) mileages I would not own a modern.

No soul or character, unreliable due to complexity (mainly electronics - e.g canbus and all sorts of other"innovations"), and therefore lacking durability.

In the large majority of cases complexity is the enemy of durability.

740s are the ultimate-possibly-recycleable car (assuming we always have a great network of breakers and specialists to fall back on).

Prufrock.

[volvorocks]

Wev'e had our 1986 745 since it was a year old...Wife's Dad bought it then. I think it deserves to live another 25 years.

We do have a modern Volvo, but if I did not have to cover large(ish) mileages I would not own a modern.

No soul or character, unreliable due to complexity (mainly electronics - e.g canbus and all sorts of other"innovations"), and therefore lacking durability.

In the large majority of cases complexity is the enemy of durability.

740s are the ultimate-possibly-recycleable car (assuming we always have a great network of breakers and specialists to fall back on).

Prufrock.

Hi Prufrock

Tend to agree with some of your views although if the modern Volvo you have for larger miles and travel is unreliable why not do the larger miles in the older Volvo?

Regards

[foggyjames]

Frankly, I think buying a brand new car for any reason other than "I want one" is utter madness. If you "want one" and can afford it...good luck to you. But trying to justify it as making economic sense...! Looking at the numbers, buying one at 3-5 years old makes significantly more sense, and is a more plausible argument against old car ownership. I say that as the owner of 6 "old" cars, one which is 13 years old, and one which is 6.

I think we need to look at the three major expenses (assuming you're not 17 and your insurance cost is obscene)...
1) Depreciation
2) Fuel consumption
3) "Other" running costs (i.e. breakdowns)

1) There aren't very many cars which are worth half of their new price once they're three years old. The comment about ****ing away £20k on a new XC90 in three years is a pretty accurate one. That does make a 3 year old one relatively cheap, mind you...

2) The role which fuel consumption plays in your calculation depends entirely on the mileage you're covering. If it's significant, fuel efficiency really does have to be high up the list. Prior to buying my D5, I calculated that I had put £6k of petrol into my V70R in a year, in order to cover ~30k miles. Yup. Ouch. I knew it really...but didn't want to face facts. That made the eyes water, and made me take action. It's now on its way to someone who will be using it mainly as a weekend toy. The D5 near as makes any difference uses half the fuel for a particular journey...although the R was pretty good for what it was, I thought.

3) "Other running costs" mainly means break-downs, and unscheduled maintenance (because the scheduled maintenance on most cars will be very, very similar regardless of their age). I have certainly never spent huge sums on any of my circa 10 year old cars. Then again, I'm also not in the habit of throwing money away, so I do my research, and don't just walk into the nearest dealer or indy with my pants down.

There's a "golden age" between say 5-15 years (assuming we're talking about a car currently in that age bracket) where cars are not depreciating much, and not costing much to maintain either. For example, my parents bought a 5 year old V40 7 years ago, and aside from routine servicing (i.e. oil changes and a cambelt) it's had...I think just a lambda sensor. So much for scary bills! Having said that, much as I love old cars, there does come a point in their life when using them daily requires serious commitment. However, this is not the 1970s, and these are not British Leyland products, so unless you buy something stupid (i.e. French or Italian) you really don't need to worry until the thing is circa 15 years old.

In fact, the opposite can be true. A typical mid 90s car is missing several very expensive items found on the modern common rail diesel - a dual mass flywheel (£450+?), piezo injectors (£200 each?), and a turbo (£600+) which is working far harder than those found on mid 90s diesels. Don't even get me started on the current crop of 80-100bhp/litre high performance diesels, and how hard they're working!

The conclusion I've come to is that the best value for money will depend on what you want, and your usage...but in no case does it involve a brand new car. If you don't do many miles, you can get a gas guzzler, and there are some amazing deals to be had. A couple of grand will buy you some very serious metal...and quite new, too. If you do more miles, you'll need a diesel for it to make economic sense, but again you can buy something modern enough that it won't cost the earth to maintain. It will undoubtedly be more 'plain' than the petrol equivalent, but that's the price of cheap motoring.

In other words...a brand new Octavia might work out cheaper than a petrol 740...but a cheap V70 D5 or older 850/V70 TDI will spank both of them by a very wide margin - it isn't really depreciating, it doesn't guzzle fuel, and (being realistic) it ain't going to go wrong in a big way...and even if it does, you haven't lost much anyway.

Finally...Daim...as a side-note...you must have been very, very unlucky with that 960. They are virtually bomb-proof...although if I *did* have a 1991 model lunch its engine (and assuming I couldn't swap it myself...which I could), it'd be going straight to the scrap yard.

cheers

James

[stephend]

Presumably it also depends on how long you intend to keep said car.

The most expensive way to run a car, I guess, is to buy a new one every three years. That way, you get hit by the fiercest depreciation on every single one. But people do it! At the other extreme, I know people who buy a banger for £100 and treat it as disposable: if it goes wrong, or fails the MoT, scrap it and buy another one. Strikes me that must be about the cheapest possible way to run a car.

So what about the economics of buying a brand-new car (or maybe a nearly-new) and aiming to run it until it reaches end-of-life?

Which brings me to another question: I wonder what the best-engineered cars being made today are? In other words, in 20 years' time, which car will occupy the niche the 700/900 series (say) does today? There seems to be a strong view on this forum that it's no longer Volvo. I suspect it isn't Mercedes either. Skoda, maybe ... ?

[volvorocks]

Frankly, I think buying a brand new car for any reason other than "I want one" is utter madness. If you "want one" and can afford it...good luck to you. But trying to justify it as making economic sense...! Looking at the numbers, buying one at 3-5 years old makes significantly more sense, and is a more plausible argument against old car ownership. I say that as the owner of 6 "old" cars, one which is 13 years old, and one which is 6.

I think we need to look at the three major expenses (assuming you're not 17 and your insurance cost is obscene)...
1) Depreciation
2) Fuel consumption
3) "Other" running costs (i.e. breakdowns)

1) There aren't very many cars which are worth half of their new price once they're three years old. The comment about ****ing away £20k on a new XC90 in three years is a pretty accurate one. That does make a 3 year old one relatively cheap, mind you...

2) The role which fuel consumption plays in your calculation depends entirely on the mileage you're covering. If it's significant, fuel efficiency really does have to be high up the list. Prior to buying my D5, I calculated that I had put £6k of petrol into my V70R in a year, in order to cover ~30k miles. Yup. Ouch. I knew it really...but didn't want to face facts. That made the eyes water, and made me take action. It's now on its way to someone who will be using it mainly as a weekend toy. The D5 near as makes any difference uses half the fuel for a particular journey...although the R was pretty good for what it was, I thought.

3) "Other running costs" mainly means break-downs, and unscheduled maintenance (because the scheduled maintenance on most cars will be very, very similar regardless of their age). I have certainly never spent huge sums on any of my circa 10 year old cars. Then again, I'm also not in the habit of throwing money away, so I do my research, and don't just walk into the nearest dealer or indy with my pants down.

There's a "golden age" between say 5-15 years (assuming we're talking about a car currently in that age bracket) where cars are not depreciating much, and not costing much to maintain either. For example, my parents bought a 5 year old V40 7 years ago, and aside from routine servicing (i.e. oil changes and a cambelt) it's had...I think just a lambda sensor. So much for scary bills! Having said that, much as I love old cars, there does come a point in their life when using them daily requires serious commitment. However, this is not the 1970s, and these are not British Leyland products, so unless you buy something stupid (i.e. French or Italian) you really don't need to worry until the thing is circa 15 years old.

In fact, the opposite can be true. A typical mid 90s car is missing several very expensive items found on the modern common rail diesel - a dual mass flywheel (£450+?), piezo injectors (£200 each?), and a turbo (£600+) which is working far harder than those found on mid 90s diesels. Don't even get me started on the current crop of 80-100bhp/litre high performance diesels, and how hard they're working!

The conclusion I've come to is that the best value for money will depend on what you want, and your usage...but in no case does it involve a brand new car. If you don't do many miles, you can get a gas guzzler, and there are some amazing deals to be had. A couple of grand will buy you some very serious metal...and quite new, too. If you do more miles, you'll need a diesel for it to make economic sense, but again you can buy something modern enough that it won't cost the earth to maintain. It will undoubtedly be more 'plain' than the petrol equivalent, but that's the price of cheap motoring.

In other words...a brand new Octavia might work out cheaper than a petrol 740...but a cheap V70 D5 or older 850/V70 TDI will spank both of them by a very wide margin - it isn't really depreciating, it doesn't guzzle fuel, and (being realistic) it ain't going to go wrong in a big way...and even if it does, you haven't lost much anyway.

Finally...Daim...as a side-note...you must have been very, very unlucky with that 960. They are virtually bomb-proof...although if I *did* have a 1991 model lunch its engine (and assuming I couldn't swap it myself...which I could), it'd be going straight to the scrap yard.

cheers

James

Hi James

Great post and interesting reading. Thanks for your view.

Yes indeed what you say can be correct and very valid as at the end of the day it boils down to personal preference and circumstance.

I still believe buying new is not madness and my costing is based on 3years and 36000 miles and the figures are very similar and is based on company accounting procedure of vehicle costings over a specified period

Yes its very true that some older cars can indeed be nore reliable than newer ones. I can also vouch for that , although I wont go there...lol

Someone I knew bought a 3 year old mondeo for reasonable money, does about 3k miles a year and apart from tyres has spent nothing on it. It did have some major electrical/ ecu problem which was about a grands worth of a job although Ford met most of that. Still got the car.So all in all they have spent over 6 years probably well under half that they would have had they bought a new car every 3 years. So yes I agree with you on this. Older/secondhand can be cheaper also.

I think what this thread has done is invoke some thought and maybe some older car drivers will convert to new and some newer car drivers may convert to older.I think it just sets out the choices we have that people may have never considered ie hey I didnt realise I could afford a new car - or crikey I didnt realise my new car was costing that much. It may allow us to make alternate decisions.I think all the posts in this thread are valid and correct.

I suppose the OP is more biased to "what would you prefer - old or new" as oppose to costing so on that basis I prefer new cars for their safety and gizmos and comfort and ease of use (when they are working mind..lol) and older cars for their character style uniqueness nostalgia individuality etc.
However I hate getting my hands oily so not happy if the oldie needs attention!!

When I refer to older cars I mean really special older ones such as a 70's cortina or amazon not say a T reg Skoda Felicia - and if we all have wads of cash we can have the best of both worlds

Ps can you point me in the direction a "some serious nearly new metal for 2 grand" or give me an example of the types of vehicle you use as I would certainly buy.

Cheers for your interesting post

Regards

[Daim]

Presumably it also depends on how long you intend to keep said car.

The most expensive way to run a car, I guess, is to buy a new one every three years. That way, you get hit by the fiercest depreciation on every single one. But people do it! At the other extreme, I know people who buy a banger for £100 and treat it as disposable: if it goes wrong, or fails the MoT, scrap it and buy another one. Strikes me that must be about the cheapest possible way to run a car.

So what about the economics of buying a brand-new car (or maybe a nearly-new) and aiming to run it until it reaches end-of-life?

Which brings me to another question: I wonder what the best-engineered cars being made today are? In other words, in 20 years' time, which car will occupy the niche the 700/900 series (say) does today? There seems to be a strong view on this forum that it's no longer Volvo. I suspect it isn't Mercedes either. Skoda, maybe ... ?

The "bold" text is what my parents used to do...

Buy a car for £20 (you see, it was a while ago) with say 8 months MoT and road tax and then see if it will pass an MoT with no work. If no, then scrappy and get a new one... My parents then stopped that, as they noticed that used cars with German TÜV (MoT) cost more than in England... So that was stopped and they FINALLY care for their cars...

[volvorocks]

Presumably it also depends on how long you intend to keep said car.

So what about the economics of buying a brand-new car (or maybe a nearly-new) and aiming to run it until it reaches end-of-life?

Which brings me to another question: I wonder what the best-engineered cars being made today are? In other words, in 20 years' time, which car will occupy the niche the 700/900 series (say) does today? There seems to be a strong view on this forum that it's no longer Volvo. I suspect it isn't Mercedes either. Skoda, maybe ... ?

Good point.

Buy a new car and keep it a long time. Thats another point worth debating!!!!

Best engineered car? - or most reliable? - or best built?

Probably something Japanese or Korean thats pretty basic will still be going strong in many years to come like the Datsuns etc did years ago before they were killed off by rust as I think todays new Volvos whilst comfy and pretty and safe are nowhere near as solidly built with the great longevity they used to have

regards

[stephend]

It's funny how several people (or is it just one person several times?) have picked up on comfort as a plus point of a new car. Well, I've recently been a passenger in a new Mercedes, a new Audi and a new Skoda - and each time, I've returned to the comfort of my Volvos with a huge sigh of relief!

[Daim]

It's funny how several people (or is it just one person several times?) have picked up on comfort as a plus point of a new car. Well, I've recently been a passenger in a new Mercedes, a new Audi and a new Skoda - and each time, I've returned to the comfort of my Volvos with a huge sigh of relief!

It depends on how you define comfort. A modern car weighs more and has therefore a harder suspension to compensate the ride. A Volvo has always been a very comfortable car... The sofa decades (1970-1990) were followed by a few years of ergonomic seats...

My C30 has a harder and firmer ride than my old 960 Volvo did. The S80 I in my drive way has a softer ride than many Mercs of the same size. Even the current S80 and V70 have very comfortable seats and rides... If you want it firmer, you order it firmer.

Problem is, people tend to say their rides are soft, but actually the dampers and springs are well by the sell by dates... If you change used parts against brand new ones, you'll think "holy macaroni is this a hard ride!". Yes, even a 940 can feel like that... Change the dampers and springs to brand new ones. Change the bushes and joints in the suspension and at the same time the end links of the anti roll bar(s) and you'll say it is like driving a modern car! ;)

[stephend]

True - and comfort's a very personal thing anyway. I was thinking in particular about seat comfort and driving position. The newer cars I mentioned had seats so hard that you'd think they had no padding! The Audi also had a very hard ride. The Volvos just seem to suit me nicely. :)

[weble]

It's funny how several people (or is it just one person several times?) have picked up on comfort as a plus point of a new car. Well, I've recently been a passenger in a new Mercedes, a new Audi and a new Skoda - and each time, I've returned to the comfort of my Volvos with a huge sigh of relief!

Know where you're coming from, Recently i was in Ireland, just for the day, hired a car, we booked "Small" but as they were all out of small, and were low on medium and large cars. Because i had full coverage i ended up with an Audi A4 TDI Estate Auto. (I did see the list and it was that, Merc or Volvo S60, i asked for the Volvo but they had non). What a damn awful car! 11 reg, 4000 miles on it. Slow, thirsty (30mpg average and i wasnt driving it like a hire car, afterall i had to pay for the fuel). Autobox was crashy-bangy. As for the car the only good thing was the stereo. Blind spots were HUGE, cramped drivers cabin, i felt really low in the car, like the doors and dash were too high. I couldnt get the seat "right". Those in the back complained they had no room either, person in the middle would have had a large center box to contend with!

You wouldnt think it from such a respected (by some) brand! I can see why Audi drivers drive the way they do A) When they cut you up it's most likely because they cant see you B) I bet they just wanna get there and get out the damn thing ASAP!

[andy72]

i agree with the comfort being subjective and not really related to old or new but rather the factory settings it came with.

My ph2 V70 was the comfiest car i have ever owned. You sank into the leather seats and we cried when we sold it. My C70 is a totally different story and although same seats, they seem much firmer. The suspension is also a hell of lot firmer and i prepare myself if i see a pothole coming that i cant avoid.

the BMW 1 series i had as a company car was about as planted to the tarmac as ive ever had. I just couldnt get it to break loose no matter how hard i tried. It had minimal body role, firm sports seats and yet was extremely comfy to be in with no jarring or banging.

My Audi A3 is between the two. Its basic. Its neither sporty nor comfy, yet it isnt uncomfortable either. Its just 'grey'. But it doesnt offend either way so we get along fine.

[Daim]

True - and comfort's a very personal thing anyway. I was thinking in particular about seat comfort and driving position. The newer cars I mentioned had seats so hard that you'd think they had no padding! The Audi also had a very hard ride. The Volvos just seem to suit me nicely. :)

Indeed... Volvo seats are normally the softest I've sat on - except those in Maybachs and Rolls' ;) If you want soft seats in say a VW or BMW, you HAVE to buy the "comfort seats" with leather etc.

[stephend]

Indeed... Volvo seats are normally the softest I've sat on - except those in Maybachs and Rolls' ;) If you want soft seats in say a VW or BMW, you HAVE to buy the "comfort seats" with leather etc.

As opposed to the "discomfort seats"? lol

Shades of Sir Alec Issigonis being told the Mini seats weren't comfortable, and replying, "we don't want the driver getting too comfortable and falling asleep, dear boy".

This will get me flamed, but for handling / roadholding / ride, my old Mondeo was by far the best thing I've driven, better than my current V40. It was a completely standard 1.8, but smooth and stable as a train.

Daim, I defer to your judgement on Maybach and Rolls, I haven't managed to get within 100 m of either. Come to think of it, I've never actually seen a Maybach. Maybe not imported to UK?

[weble]

I've seen two maybach's. One guy drives around in one locally thinking he's some kind of king. Irony being if you really were "it" you'd be driven in it, not be driving it!

[Moosejaw]

This will get me flamed, but for handling / roadholding / ride, my old Mondeo was by far the best thing I've driven...

Mondeos are VERY good cars. Apart from badge snobbery, there's no reason whatsoever to spend more on a 4 door family saloon.
Another 'old heap' I had recently that was better than most people would give it credit for was a Rover 600. Mondeo sized and definitely biased towards the 'comfort' side of the ride/handling equation, this was a prime example of budget motoring.

Bought for £350, spent £120 on a service, ran it for about 8 months during which nothing went wrong or fell off before selling it for £450. It cost the same in tax and fuel as any similar car would (bear in mind I WILL NOT drive filthy Diseasels, under ANY circumstances) and cost 'some money' to insure. (£264 if you must know). Unlike a 'pride & joy' new car I was happy to park it anywhere and absolutely refused to be bullied by BMWs in it, as one 5 series driver found to his cost one day when he tried to cut in on me and I gouged a nice deep score line right down both his nearside doors.....

This is not untypical of what I mean when I said earlier that running old cars is A LOT cheaper then buying new ones.
£15,000 for 3 years motoring in old cars? You're 'avin a giraffe mate, I haven't spent close to that over the last 5 years. :D


Which brings me to another question: I wonder what the best-engineered cars being made today are? In other words, in 20 years' time, which car will occupy the niche the 700/900 series (say) does today?

This gets more back towards the original debate, I think, and my fear is that the current crop of cars are so dependant on costly electronics to run that in 20 years time there simply won't be any current cars on the roads, save perhaps the odd sole survivor or cherished plaything.
Scrappies are already full of 8 and 9 year old cars, so what chances are there that your 2011 Volvo/Renault/Kia/Ford won't be in a kitchen somewhere doing the dishes long before 2031?

[volvorocks]

my fear is that the current crop of cars are so dependant on costly electronics to run that in 20 years time there simply won't be any current cars on the roads

Scrappies are already full of 8 and 9 year old cars, so what chances are there that your 2011 Volvo won't be in a kitchen somewhere doing the dishes long before 2031?

To be honest our Volvos are heading for the kitchen to do the dishes now already - all under 2 years old many faults although covered by warranty so no cost (thank the lord)

Perhaps something more reliable should have been bought..??..!!

Regards

[volvorocks]

Another thing that worries me greatly with the purchase and running of a secondhand car is its history. First thing is it a crash job repaired badly?

No disrespect to anyone in here absolute , but if you read this forum (and others) there are lots of peeps that say - how do I dismantle this - how do I dismantle that - Do I have to bleed the brakes with a special tool - shall I insert this here or there - do I really have to torque the bolts as I dont want the expense of this special tool at £20-00 - I will try and get away with the cheaper oil - how do I extinguish the dash warning light for XYZ....eeeeeek

Thus a new safe car is henceforth the better bet despite the cost.

I may spend 40 grand on a single motor or 80 grand in total on multi cars for the family but SAFETY and peace of mind have to come first on todays roads. What cost do you value your family?

Would you want Joe Bloggs coming round the bend on that dark country lane in his "self fixed at a cheap cost" car with potential dodgy brakes or a faulty headlight that blinds and causes you to swerve into the hedge? Sure.You agree.

I know quite a lot about mechanics.I know why cars go wrong,I know the fixes.However can I actually fix the cars? More than likely not.Therefore I pay a decent well versed trusted specialist to carry out any work that I understand I am incapable of.

More food for thought for banger buyers?

Regards

[stephend]

More food for thought for banger buyers?


Well, my V40 came with a full Volvo service history, and my 740 came with something like 3 years Volvo history and the rest at my friendly local indie, who'd been looking after it for about 15 years by the time I bought it. Both sail through the MoT every year with minor advisories at most.

So older car doesn't equal probable death-trap if you buy wisely.

Edit: plus see the ongoing debate about proposed changes to the MoT. A new car that isn't maintained could be a damn sight more dangerous by the time it comes up for MoT than an old car that's well maintained and tested annually.

[Prufrock]

Very few cars being made now or since 2000 will be around in 2025, I have two 1986 740s, and both are fine fettle mechanically and cosmetically - does this actually matter in our increasingly consumerist (as in disposable) society.

This has been discussed before on another thread and a modern car's complexity will determine it's lifespan.

And with a modern car's ECU there will often be many different types determined by ViN numbers and frustrating the owner who wishes to purchase a replacement from a breaker (if any manage to survive).
The Volvo 740 (of which I am a great fan, and an owner of two 740s + other cars) is a simple, durable and comfortable car, and ultimately recycleable: with a good supply of new and secondhand parts and enthusiastic and largely resourceful owners.

The UK new car market is driven - and has been for many years - by the company car sector which distorts the car market massively (registrations, dealer labour costs etc), if the company car market did not exist what do you think all those driver's would be in?

With regard to Volvorocks comment about buying new and company accounting...this is all nonsensical as far as the private motorist is concerned buying a car with his or her post tax income. A company can offset finance payments/interest, VAT depreciation and running costs...clearly all dependent on state of the balance sheet.

And most companies, both large and small really fail to get a grip on the real cost of company vehicles: the accountants are poor at delivering value in their roles and fail to understand direct let alone the indirect costs. In most large companies the responsibility falls in several areas, in small ones it's the owner who thinks he or she knows best.

The best a private motorist can do buying new is to hedge depreciation with a finance product called a PCP where the lessor guarantees to buy the car back at a predetermined price at preagreed time with a contracted mileage set at the contract start.

Prufrock.

[volvorocks]

Well, my V40 came with a full Volvo service history, and my 740 came with something like 3 years Volvo history and the rest at my friendly local indie, who'd been looking after it for about 15 years by the time I bought it. Both sail through the MoT every year with minor advisories at most.

So older car doesn't equal probable death-trap if you buy wisely.

Edit: plus see the ongoing debate about proposed changes to the MoT. A new car that isn't maintained could be a damn sight more dangerous by the time it comes up for MoT than an old car that's well maintained and tested annually.

Stephend

I fully concur with your thoughts and opinions.
If you know the history excellent.No worries


However the word is IF

Not that many people buy cars knowing the full history unless they buy off pals or relatives.

Many years ago I was involved in a bump where I was rear ended and sided at the same time. (Pushed into a major road due to being rear ended)

The car was repaired properly I hasten to add and looked as "good as new"
I got rid immediately.

However despite being repaired properly the car was still the same as "a cardboard box that had been crushed and re jigged" so to speak...ie never again to be as strong as the manufacturer intended.

The car ended up at a main dealer after being properly repaired and a potential purchaser contacted me to enquire its history.

I told it as it was including the fact that the car had indeed been repaired properly.Very properly. (if thats correct English..lol)

They did not buy.

The dealer contacted me saying I was out of order, about which I was annoyed as obviously the purchaser had expressed their reasons for not buying and probably because my name was on the V5.

I explained I was indeed fully in order in setting forth the information requested.

I myself personally would not wish to have bought a secondhand car so badly damaged and one that was indeed not listed on MIAFTR.

I appreciate safety. My family does too. Thats why we buy safe new cars.Whatever the cost.

When I broke down recently in my new Volvo (as happens with new cars all the time ...lol)....I just abandoned it with the hazards on and a cone behind and kept well clear.

Nothing else I could do.

Best regards

[Moosejaw]

No disrespect to anyone in here absolute , but if you read this forum (and others) there are lots of peeps that say - how do I dismantle this - how do I dismantle that etc etc....eeeeeek

Thus a new safe car is henceforth the better bet despite the cost.

I may spend 40 grand on a single motor or 80 grand in total on multi cars for the family but SAFETY and peace of mind have to come first on todays roads. What cost do you value your family?


Do new cars not need servicing then?
And without wishing to sound rude, do you actually read what others are saying before you post a reply? It's already been pointed out that by using a trusted local garage for repair work a 10 year old car can be kept running perfectly safely and 'correctly' for what basic servicing of a new car costs at a main stealer.

My local guy might not have the plate glass windows or the yucca plants in reception, and if I want a coffee while I'm there I have to make it myself but at £40 an hour for three guys with a total of 80 years experience between them I'm prepared to put up with such inconveniences.
Which tool does what job, what do I do if.......I don't give a rat's @ss, that's what I pay the man his money for.

Also you mention safety, well it's true that new cars have better passive safety than older ones (IE when you've crashed they protect you better) but I'd argue the case when it came to active safety, the ability to avoid an accident in the first place. I've driven new cars (Vauxhall Corsa, I'm thinking of you here) where an entire truck can be hidden from view in the A pillar as you approach a roundabout. Just as well the doors are full of safety beams and airbags, isn't it?.....
And I'd suggest that driving such obviously 'safe' cars has had quite a deleterious effect on a lot of people's driving. I'm not advocating a big spike in the steering wheel but if new cars weren't sold with quite such emphasis on how many NCAP safety stars they have and how many airbags will cushion your impact, then people might take driving a bit more seriously.
Bear in mind there are still 44 tonne HGVs driven by Polish drug addicts out there, and when one of them hits you at 50mph, it won't matter whether you're in a 1966 Mini or an S Class, it'll fold up like a ball of silver paper.

It's pretty obvious that you're well into the "New cars are best for me" way of thinking, and that's fair enough. All I ask is one thing, that you look after your new cars so when the rest of us who buy 'bangers' are looking for their next 'new' 10 year old motor, there are still some left. :D

[volvorocks]

The best a private motorist can do buying new is to hedge depreciation with a finance product called a PCP where the lessor guarantees to buy the car back at a predetermined price at preagreed time with a contracted mileage set at the contract start.

Prufrock.

I disagree

Many many many many many many many problems with PCP. They are never as good in reality as they look on paper.

You find when they "agree to buy back" there are many many costs added (rightly or wrongly)
PCP=Problems Costly Problems...!!!!

Regards

[Prufrock]

I have a detailed understanding of PCP (Personal Contract Purchase). However, and you may disagree, but these finance plans (including personal leases and personal contract hire) are the only way a private motorist can hope to avoid the lion's share of depreciation ("rightly or wrongly"makes your comment superfluous - it is a CONTRACT).

There is no other way if he, or she, wishes to have a new car.

New car dealers write the majority of retail business on PCP, otherwise the private motorist would find a new car purchase even more expensive than they actually are - PCP depresses the capital cost of a new car by a sizeable sum.

You may be too young* to remember what buying a car on finance was like before the removal of the control orders.

Perhaps as you disagree you could tell us the best a private motorist can do to offset the depreciation on a NEW car.

I would like to hear that answer.

Prufrock.

*or maybe not.

[volvo always]

We have only ever had one new car a toyota corolla 1.4d4d hatchback.

The things I liked was it had climate control and abs and 8 airbags.

It drove nice and was nippy and looked nice.

Fuel economy 50mpg+ and I generally zipped away from junctions.

Only needed front tyres when sold.
Sold before replaced and 2 services. It was very reliable which you would expect.

The things I didn't like.

Price 21,500 euro.

the seats were uncomfortable on trips over 2 hours.

water dripped when opening the doors and drip onto the seats. Had seat covers so didn't turn the seats white.

Never really had any attatchment to it. I did name him but that was it.

Never thought the glovebox was well shaped to fit the opening.

Very thin metal.

When we sold 2.5 years later only got 8,000 for it. It was immaculate and had only done 45,000km and was serviced twice and was faultless.

Bought a 1989 240glt etate afterwards and have owned it about 2 to 2.5 years. Paid £350 for it with 18 volvo service stamps and 9 months mot.

It has been a truly excellent used car that actually has character and has been every bit as reliable as the corolla. It's our only car and I use it most days. Now has over 179,000miles.
I have only spent out 500 euro on service items in my ownership and enjoy driving it.
I plan too keep it as long as possible.


I have no idea what car I would replace it with? Probably a volvo 940 2litre turbo saloon, with AC and ABS.

I just think modern cars are too complicated and too costly when things go wrong. I would think our corolla would give good service for 10-12 years but some component would go wrong and cost more than the car is worth.

If I had to buy a newer car it would be 1-2 years old and then keep it long term until it wasn't financially sensible to repair.

Recently drove an Alfa romeo gulietta diesel. It was very nice looking and a good spec and went very well but I still prefered our sold corolla. The corolla wasn't as flash but seemed better quality and more functional. The Alfa was £22,000 to buy in the trim spec we rented.

I loved getting back into my 240 as a chap had reversed into the Alfa and caused £1,800 of damage. Big 4 inch deep dent in wing.

James:thumbs_up:

[volvorocks]

Moosejaw

Hi

You seem to have misunderstood my posts or have simply misread them

I highlight your quotes in black.


Moosejaw “And without wishing to sound rude, do you actually read what others are saying before you post a reply? It's already been pointed out that by using a trusted local garage for repair work a 10 year old car can be kept running perfectly safely and 'correctly' for what basic servicing of a new car costs at a main stealer”

Yes indeed I do read ingest ponder and think about before replying. I tend to put my mouth (or my pen or my mouse ) into action after my brain..!!
Yes indeed using a local trusted garage is indeed a good idea , although , with respect , if you read my posts this is what I say. Using a local trusted garage is not much use if the car the car they are looking after, your car ,has history that about which you are not aware…eg crash damage…fixes by amateurs



Moosejaw Vauxhall Corsa, I'm thinking of you here
???????????????????????????????......meaning..??


Moosejaw I'd suggest that driving such obviously 'safe' cars has had quite a deleterious effect on a lot of people's driving.
I agree that driving a safe car may give people a false sense of security who thus drive outside their capabilities.. This is one reason I drive a safe car for when I come across such people.

Moosejaw Bear in mind there are still 44 tonne HGVs driven by Polish drug addicts out there, and when one of them hits you at 50mph, it won't matter whether you're in a 1966 Mini or an S Class, it'll fold up like a ball of silver paper.
You re-inforce and indirectly agree my view on lorry drivers and restrictions that should be placed upon them .See here
(http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?p=992549#post992549)
XC60 and XC90 do stand up to this better than most

Moosejaw It's pretty obvious that you're well into the "New cars are best for me" way of thinking, and that's fair enough. All I ask is one thing, that you look after your new cars so when the rest of us who buy 'bangers' are looking for their next 'new' 10 year old motor, there are still some left
After 10 years my new cars will most probably be knacked due to various owners and various self fixes by amatuers looking to save a few bob as I get rid at 3yr (sort of re-inforces what Im saying really doesnt it)However buy a 3 year old car off me you get the full history no expense spared along with probably a 3 hour discussion about where its been whats happened what went wrong how it was fixed why it was fixed my opinion on the fix…blah…blah….blah…blah….lol..in simple terms a fab 3 year old car.

Regards

[volvorocks]

Hi Volvo Always

Great to hear about your volvo.

Those old tanks are built great although do you miss any of the niceties from the Corrolla?

Regards

[volvorocks]

I've driven new cars (Vauxhall Corsa, I'm thinking of you here) where an entire truck can be hidden from view in the A pillar as you approach a roundabout. Just as well the doors are full of safety beams and airbags, isn't it?.....

I doubt that an entire 40ft truck would be hidden from view at a roundabout by a Vauxhall Corsa A pillar..?

Although the beams in a Corsa wouldnt be much cop against an HGV as you admit in your full post, would they?

I may be wrong though...any other people on here agree that an HGV is obscurred by a Vauxhall Corsa A pillar?

?

[Chrali]

True - and comfort's a very personal thing anyway. I was thinking in particular about seat comfort and driving position. The newer cars I mentioned had seats so hard that you'd think they had no padding! The Audi also had a very hard ride. The Volvos just seem to suit me nicely. :)

You're not kidding when I was getting around by taxi when I was on crutches every car felt like it had rock suspension and gravel in the tyres .. prius, insight, vw passat and skoda. I even asked them if they pumped the tyres up xtra high.

[foggyjames]

After 10 years my new cars will most probably be knacked due to various owners and various self fixes by amatuers looking to save a few bob
Oh sir, you're a terrible cynic. :D Plenty of very honest, well maintained cars out there for very little money. You've just got to be a bit sensible when you buy one. Personally, I like to be very sensible whenever I buy anything which costs more than £50, as my money is hard-earned.

As I said, I've got nothing against people buying new cars if they particularly want to (or, to put it another way, like to burn money in exchange for the pleasant feeling of having a new car), but for goodness sake don't try to justify it as being in any way necessary.

The 2005 V70 D5 I bought back in May had covered 200k miles when I picked it up, and it drives beautifully. I decided to get a high mileage one because I know they can take it, and I refuse to lose thousands of pounds a year in depreciation because too many of the car buying public have bad memories of 70s British tat. There's a folder full of dealer service history, and it cost near as makes any difference 1/10th of what a new one would cost. Everything works as it should (except the Sat Nav, which needs a DVD, and 10k miles later it needs a clutch master cylinder, which is about £110...but it hasn't failed in a terminal way). It goes well, it stops in a dead straight line and hard enough to give you bruises, and goes round corners like it should. So where exactly would the extra £30k be going? And before I'm accused of snobbery, yes, I could afford to buy a brand new V70 D5, but a fool and his money are soon parted...

As for suggestions of good value cars to buy...well, the list is long, and I may not pick the best examples...but here are a few. I'm giving myself a £4k budget, less than a minute with each, and all from dealers on eBay...and only things that are sensible used buys (i.e. they aren't notorious for reliability problems)....

Let's say you don't do many miles, but you want a luxury saloon...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/370522494497
Older ones are well under £1k from a private seller, and are STILL bomb-proof.

A diesel estate, you say? 130bhp, all the toys...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/350491060218
Again, an older B5 Passat (same car, pre-facelift, less power and fewer gadgets) is easily under half the price from a private seller.

Super-efficient diesel shopping trolley?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/320764162032

A mini-MPV?
Seriously, have a word with yourself. They're all beyond horrible.

Finally, just for fun...a highly tunable Japanese neo-supercar...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/220859530950

I've intentionally stayed away from Volvo, but there are competitive offerings in the first two categories, at least.

That brings me onto my final rant...

I may spend 40 grand on a single motor or 80 grand in total on multi cars for the family but SAFETY and peace of mind have to come first on todays roads. What cost do you value your family?
...well...I know what you're getting at...I think...but where does that leave those who don't happen to have £80k tucked away in their back pockets? Times are hard, and for many people it's a real struggle. I'm lucky enough not to feel the pinch in a major way, but I am still being very careful with how I spend my money...hence buying the high-mileage D5 when I could have bought an E320 CDI (estate), for example. One of my colleagues had a £1k bill come in on her (fairly modern) car, followed shortly by a DMF failure (another £5-600)...and she's now been getting buses, trains and (when she can) lifts to work for a couple of months while she saves up. Our employer (like many) hasn't given a pay rise in three years. Business is (very) good, but the "market sets our price"...in other words, apart from the privileged few, we're all in the **** together. The privileged few happen, often, also to be those who set the wages. I'm very, very grateful that in our case, the MD is not flash...otherwise it would really sting. A friend in a similar situation had a pay freeze announced in the same week the Gaffer's new Bentley was delivered. Ouch.

In other words...it might pay to consider what it's like "in the real world"...including probably for many reading this thread. As I said earlier, I could afford a new V70, but I certainly couldn't justify the expense...and playing the "but think of the safety of your family" card is emotive bullcrap, and if you're really honest with yourself...you should know it too. We're on a Volvo forum...our "big leap forward" happened in the 70s, not the mid 90s (Renault, et al...). I don't know if you've seen this clip, but this is an early 80s 760 impacting the rear of a mk2 Cavalier / Opel Ascona: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQPca-aTlL0
Yes more modern cars are safer still, but we're talking about margins.

I have no problem with people buying new cars...but I would like them to be honest about why: because they can afford it, and because they want to. There really is absolutely no other justification for it that I can think of. I think the only thing which would change that would be if hydrogen fuel cell cars suddenly appeared at sensible prices...a huge step-change in technology like that. Hybrids need not apply...

(I should add that all this should be taken to be light hearted and good humoured! :D )

cheers

James

[Chrali]

I have no problem with people buying new cars...but I would like them to be honest about why: because they can afford it, and because they want to. There really is absolutely no other justification for it that I can think of. I

Gets the the bone of any car purchase really - new or used :)

[Andy Northface]

I thought of my family when buying my 850,built like a brick outhouse and made from proper steel.I have spent £600 on getting my car right ( including servicing by myself ) and now it drives very nicely.My sister in law has a VW Eos.She has spent nearly a grand on tyres and servicing last year.Her car is 3 years old and has already had an O2 sensor and a wheel bearing replaced,luckily under warranty.

PS I could never afford a new car,but I would have one tomorrow if I was going to keep it a long,long time.

[Prufrock]

Gets the the bone of any car purchase really - new or used :)

My point exactly...affordability is a strange thing, yes you need to be able to afford the monthly repayments, hence my previous comment about the removal of the Control Orders which opened the doors on credit - prior to this if you wanted finance on a car it was one third of the price as a deposit and two years to pay.

Now we have five year finance, no deposits and PCPs; new cars have never been more affordable - look at the demographic reach of the prestige brands and car ownership generally (in the private sector), cars used to be a symbol of"status", now they are all commodities.

Buy a three to five year old with good provenance and have it cared for by a competent specialist and it'll last you a long time with minimal costs (including minimal depreciation). Depreciation is only really an issue when you buy and sell regularly.

That's the rub of course.

Our 1986 745 (159k), owned since 1987 (bought then by Wife's Father), will still be going strong in years to come, be interesting how our 2004 V70 (75k) compares as it get's older. Costs to date on our 2000 S40 have been minimal; bought from a family member with less than 50k on with a full Volvo history.

The 740, while lacking gadgets, which for many people these days seems to define luxury, is of a higher quality than both. I have a old timer friend who's had new Volvo's every 2/3 years since the 1980s (740s, 940s, 850s, V70s) he now has the latest V70 and he's clear about quality...the older one's were better.

Prufrock.

[volvorocks]

Oh sir, you're a terrible cynic. :D Plenty of very honest, well maintained cars out there for very little money. You've just got to be a bit sensible when you buy one. Personally, I like to be very sensible whenever I buy anything which costs more than £50, as my money is hard-earned.

As I said, I've got nothing against people buying new cars if they particularly want to (or, to put it another way, like to burn money in exchange for the pleasant feeling of having a new car), but for goodness sake don't try to justify it as being in any way necessary.

The 2005 V70 D5 I bought back in May had covered 200k miles when I picked it up, and it drives beautifully. I decided to get a high mileage one because I know they can take it, and I refuse to lose thousands of pounds a year in depreciation because too many of the car buying public have bad memories of 70s British tat. There's a folder full of dealer service history, and it cost near as makes any difference 1/10th of what a new one would cost. Everything works as it should (except the Sat Nav, which needs a DVD, and 10k miles later it needs a clutch master cylinder, which is about £110...but it hasn't failed in a terminal way). It goes well, it stops in a dead straight line and hard enough to give you bruises, and goes round corners like it should. So where exactly would the extra £30k be going? And before I'm accused of snobbery, yes, I could afford to buy a brand new V70 D5, but a fool and his money are soon parted...

As for suggestions of good value cars to buy...well, the list is long, and I may not pick the best examples...but here are a few. I'm giving myself a £4k budget, less than a minute with each, and all from dealers on eBay...and only things that are sensible used buys (i.e. they aren't notorious for reliability problems)....

Let's say you don't do many miles, but you want a luxury saloon...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/370522494497
Older ones are well under £1k from a private seller, and are STILL bomb-proof.

A diesel estate, you say? 130bhp, all the toys...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/350491060218
Again, an older B5 Passat (same car, pre-facelift, less power and fewer gadgets) is easily under half the price from a private seller.

Super-efficient diesel shopping trolley?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/320764162032

A mini-MPV?
Seriously, have a word with yourself. They're all beyond horrible.

Finally, just for fun...a highly tunable Japanese neo-supercar...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/220859530950

I've intentionally stayed away from Volvo, but there are competitive offerings in the first two categories, at least.

That brings me onto my final rant...


...well...I know what you're getting at...I think...but where does that leave those who don't happen to have £80k tucked away in their back pockets? Times are hard, and for many people it's a real struggle. I'm lucky enough not to feel the pinch in a major way, but I am still being very careful with how I spend my money...hence buying the high-mileage D5 when I could have bought an E320 CDI (estate), for example. One of my colleagues had a £1k bill come in on her (fairly modern) car, followed shortly by a DMF failure (another £5-600)...and she's now been getting buses, trains and (when she can) lifts to work for a couple of months while she saves up. Our employer (like many) hasn't given a pay rise in three years. Business is (very) good, but the "market sets our price"...in other words, apart from the privileged few, we're all in the **** together. The privileged few happen, often, also to be those who set the wages. I'm very, very grateful that in our case, the MD is not flash...otherwise it would really sting. A friend in a similar situation had a pay freeze announced in the same week the Gaffer's new Bentley was delivered. Ouch.

In other words...it might pay to consider what it's like "in the real world"...including probably for many reading this thread. As I said earlier, I could afford a new V70, but I certainly couldn't justify the expense...and playing the "but think of the safety of your family" card is emotive bullcrap, and if you're really honest with yourself...you should know it too. We're on a Volvo forum...our "big leap forward" happened in the 70s, not the mid 90s (Renault, et al...). I don't know if you've seen this clip, but this is an early 80s 760 impacting the rear of a mk2 Cavalier / Opel Ascona: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQPca-aTlL0
Yes more modern cars are safer still, but we're talking about margins.

I have no problem with people buying new cars...but I would like them to be honest about why: because they can afford it, and because they want to. There really is absolutely no other justification for it that I can think of. I think the only thing which would change that would be if hydrogen fuel cell cars suddenly appeared at sensible prices...a huge step-change in technology like that. Hybrids need not apply...

(I should add that all this should be taken to be light hearted and good humoured! :D )

cheers

James

Hi James

I am quoting your post as in essence I do agree and you make very valid points indeed

Yes people buy new cars as they want to and they can afford them easily - although some may feel that they cannot.

All I wanted to do was point out that depending upon ones use of a car it is perfectly feasible and possible to run new for the price of old - as per my example of 15k Skoda costing 15k over 3 years and 2.5k Volvo costing similar based on a perfectly probable situation.

All I was hoping to do was shed light on things not start a war..lol


Ok if one has a £300 car that needs minimal repairs and disposes of it after a year and 2000 miles then yes this will always be a cheaper option.

My example was for like for like usage

Whilst certain things may come across as sounding cynical they are indeed based on experience and in my experience certain people with certain older cars tend not to maintain them properly.It seems that enthusiasts such as those in here may be an exception.

I have nothing against people with new cars or old cars or those with differring opinions!! We all have various views and they are all valid.

The 80k multi new car example is also indeed valid. Whether one has 80k or not is irrelevant if one of those cars saves the life of a loved one. I am sure that most in here would spend 280k that they do not have if a family life is saved.It wasnt intended to be portrayed as an assumption that people have 80k sitting idly around!!!!..LOL

I am not suggesting that we all have endless amounts of cash sitting around waiting to be pumped into new depreciating cars simply pointing out that a new car could be in reach for those that would like one and that believes they may be unable to afford one.

Best regards

[volvorocks]

I have a detailed understanding of PCP (Personal Contract Purchase). However, and you may disagree, but these finance plans (including personal leases and personal contract hire) are the only way a private motorist can hope to avoid the lion's share of depreciation ("rightly or wrongly"makes your comment superfluous - it is a CONTRACT).

There is no other way if he, or she, wishes to have a new car.

New car dealers write the majority of retail business on PCP, otherwise the private motorist would find a new car purchase even more expensive than they actually are - PCP depresses the capital cost of a new car by a sizeable sum.

You may be too young* to remember what buying a car on finance was like before the removal of the control orders.

Perhaps as you disagree you could tell us the best a private motorist can do to offset the depreciation on a NEW car.

I would like to hear that answer.

Prufrock.

*or maybe not.

Prufrock

Why is there no other way?

Of course it is not possible to offset fully depreciation

An advantage that PCP or similar may have over a standard loan is the monthly outlay may be lower as the monthly payment is calculated taking into consideration the value remaining in the vehicle at the end of the term.Put simply you are not paying interest on the full amount as the balloon is in essence an amount that is "held in abeyance" and if its paid off at the end is sort of interest free.

Take a standard bank loan calculated at 11.9% for 15k for say a Fiat..(I know...nobody should buy a Fiat...lol)

Borrow 15k at 11.9% over 41 months and pay circa £430-00 per month with a total outlay of £17630.

Take a Fiat on PCP or similar and pay £2719 deposit then 41 payments of £289 with a final payment of £3600 with total outlay of £18,168

Pretty similar to me as I am sure you will agree.(although PCP or similar plan is slightly more expensive)

Value of Fiat at end.....7k...6k....5k...4k....no idea.....although its irrelevant as it will be the same for both examples.

Regards

[volvorocks]

Perhaps as you disagree you could tell us the best a private motorist can do to offset the depreciation on a NEW car.

I do not disagree about depreciation per se. I agree

I disagree that PCP can get round the issue. No plan can.

[Prufrock]

I think you are losing yourself in your own argument.

Firstly, I said the best (meaning the best compromise) a new car buyer can make is by using a PCP as a hedge against depreciation.

Secondly your understanding of PCP is flawed: the balloon is incorrect terminology for a start, the correct term is Guaranteed Minimum Value or GMV. Some lessors market under different terms but a balloon is a leasing term and is therefore not appropriate in this case - in leases the lessee is taking the risk on the balloon, in a PCP the lessor is taking that risk.

Thirdly, interest is charged on both the capital sum less the deposit and the"revolving"element, meaning the GMV; this is why when you compare a PCP with traditional finance the APRs look high...but it is the payment that should drive the decision (in favour of the PCP). It is NOT"interest free"as you suggest - banks don't lend money without charges.

Fourthly, the GMV or agreed value is not designed to be paid by the lessee, the principle being he or she returns the car at the contract end and takes another car - and although the PCP is written on regulated paper (i.e that convered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974) it is not per se an ownership product.

PCP were always origianlly intended for people who wanted to change their cars often (i.e every two years).

The first successful PCP in the UK was Ford's Options programme, but it was not the first.

Nor did I imply that PCP could get around the issue of depreciation, but it's the best compromise if you wish to have a new car.

Now let's hear your answer to my question - or have you lost sight of that?

Prufrock.

[volvorocks]

Prufrock

The clue is in my use of the word similar as in "PCP or similar":wink_smile:

Ok it may not be classed a balloon, indeed it may be GMV, although I do not profess to be an expert in PCP or contract hire or lease purchase etc etc etc . I am simply saying that at the end of the day the amount one pays over a set term is broadly similar whichever terminology the payment method is wrapped up in and one cannot escape depreciation whichever way the matter is approached

Regards

[volvorocks]

It is NOT"interest free"as you suggest - banks don't lend money without charges

The clue is in my use of the word "sort of"..!!

Ps..my bank lends money interest free..!!

[volvorocks]

Prufrock

I have taken on some reading to educate myself further about PCP as here (http://www.carfinance.co.uk/pcp.html):wink_smile:

Balloon MGFV... same thing really under a different word.

[Prufrock]

Volvorocks.

When I was working in Dearborn, USA, in the 1980s my colleagues in joking mood when I ballsed up (and I was only young and foolish), would say,"take your head out of your a**e".

I suggest you put your head in yours as this will prevent you speaking out of it any further on this subject.

Yours sincerely, Prufrock.

[volvorocks]

Volvorocks.

When I was working in Dearborn, USA, in the 1980s my colleagues in joking mood when I ballsed up (and I was only young and foolish), would say,"take your head out of your a**e".

I suggest you put your head in yours as this will prevent you speaking out of it any further on this subject.

Yours sincerely, Prufrock.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Unfortunately I am not able to bend so far..

You see Prufrock I consider that sometimes there is no right answer and no wrong answer,in fact all answers thoughts and opinions are correct although when another considers their answer to be the correct one they get annoyed when the other person will not agree and they then resort to insults jokingly or otherwise.

You will see if you read my posts I agree and disagree on certain ideas and thoughts.This is called a discussion as everyone is different and should be respected for being so.

You imply I have ballsed up. Thats fine if you feel that way.

Quite simply when one purchases anything , however they pay , they should look at overall cost.Quite simple.

If I needed a bank loan and that worked out dearer than PCP I would opt for PCP and vice versa. Pretty simple really and all without having to bother about the technical terminolgy.

We only need to turn and look at the economy after the Bankers had their way with their complex plans for proof.

Have a great day.

Regards

[XC60MY12]

I have no problem with people buying new cars...but I would like them to be honest about why: because they can afford it, and because they want to. There really is absolutely no other justification for it that I can think of.

I bought a new XC60 this year. Had a Qashqai, bought new, for 4 years previously. Don't feel the need to justify it, it's personal choice. Having said that, I would add the fact that I like to specify exactly what I want to the reasons above. Also prefer to have seats no-one else has f@rted into, apart from the dealer etc :)

This does not make me better (or worse) than anyone else. If you want an older car, fine if it's right for you. Personally I owned a number of second hand Hyundais and I still have a 1.1 Getz that I bought new for my driving school 7 years ago. I don't think I'm privileged or smug and, if anyone else does, I can't worry.

Unfortunately this thread contains too many generalisations and prejudices and so generates more heat than light. Get a life. No-one's right or wrong. It's personal choice :lightbulb:

[Prufrock]

As opposed to the "discomfort seats"? lol

Daim, I defer to your judgement on Maybach and Rolls, I haven't managed to get within 100 m of either. Come to think of it, I've never actually seen a Maybach. Maybe not imported to UK?

Hi Stephend,

you've never seen a Maybach, here's is a picture of my Maybach 57 (SWB). I did not have the car long, could not see the point in all that extra money over and above an S Class.

Not the prettiest or the nicest drive.

Prufrock.

[Prufrock]

[QUOTE=volvorocks;994017]:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Unfortunately I am not able to bend so far..

You see Prufrock I consider that sometimes there is no right answer and no wrong answer,in fact all answers thoughts and opinions are correct although when another considers their answer to be the correct one they get annoyed when the other person will not agree and they then resort to insults jokingly or otherwise.

You will see if you read my posts I agree and disagree on certain ideas and thoughts.This is called a discussion as everyone is different and should be respected for being so.

You imply I have ballsed up. Thats fine if you feel that way.

Pretty simple really and all without having to bother about the technical terminolgy.

Volvorocks.

You have interesting views, but firstly I am not annoyed.

However, and what nonsense,"all answers and opinions are correct". If I said the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it that would be correct would it?

If I was insulting anything it was your opinion not you personally - this reveals your immaturity.

As for terminology, if you aren't correct in your communication then communication fails.

I love discussions...especially the ones where I might learn something.

With regard to the ballsup, there was no implication; a ballsup could only exist if you were competent.

Prufrock.

[volvorocks]

I bought a new XC60 this year. Had a Qashqai, bought new, for 4 years previously. Don't feel the need to justify it, it's personal choice. Having said that, I would add the fact that I like to specify exactly what I want to the reasons above. Also prefer to have seats no-one else has f@rted into, apart from the dealer etc :)

This does not make me better (or worse) than anyone else. If you want an older car, fine if it's right for you. Personally I owned a number of second hand Hyundais and I still have a 1.1 Getz that I bought new for my driving school 7 years ago. I don't think I'm privileged or smug and, if anyone else does, I can't worry.

Unfortunately this thread contains too many generalisations and prejudices and so generates more heat than light. Get a life. No-one's right or wrong. It's personal choice :lightbulb:

Hi XC60Fan

I think what you write above is exactly what I am saying.

I think people in here get cross when another has a differring view and then find they can only resort to insults and or aggression when they are unable to get their point of view across.

BTW the Getz is a good car....I bet its never broken down

Regards

[volvorocks]

Hi Stephend,

you've never seen a Maybach, here's is a picture of my Maybach 57 (SWB). I did not have the car long, could not see the point in all that extra money over and above an S Class.

Not the prettiest or the nicest drive.

Prufrock.

I bet you suffered a huge amount of depreciation on your Maybach57? Bet your glad you didnt go for the 62?

[volvorocks]

My response in blue.


[QUOTE=volvorocks;994017]:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Unfortunately I am not able to bend so far..

You see Prufrock I consider that sometimes there is no right answer and no wrong answer,in fact all answers thoughts and opinions are correct although when another considers their answer to be the correct one they get annoyed when the other person will not agree and they then resort to insults jokingly or otherwise.

You will see if you read my posts I agree and disagree on certain ideas and thoughts.This is called a discussion as everyone is different and should be respected for being so.

You imply I have ballsed up. Thats fine if you feel that way.

Pretty simple really and all without having to bother about the technical terminolgy.

Volvorocks.

You have interesting views, but firstly I am not annoyed. You appear annoyed by virtue of your comments , although this is just my opinion and I may be wrong.

However, and what nonsense,"all answers and opinions are correct". If I said the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it that would be correct would it? I dont know.May be a fact may be an opinion,I wouldnt know not having been up in a spaceship to check just recently. I am of the opinion though that the earth is not flat although this is based on what I have been told by others.

If I was insulting anything it was your opinion not you personally - this reveals your immaturity. I am not sure it is possible to "insult an opinion" although you can disagree with one.Your post certainly does appear a direct insult.To refresh - It is below in red
Originally Posted by Prufrock
When I was working in Dearborn, USA, in the 1980s my colleagues in joking mood when I ballsed up (and I was only young and foolish), would say,"take your head out of your a**e".I suggest you put your head in yours as this will prevent you speaking out of it any further on this subject.

Yours sincerely, Prufrock.
I would suggest comments as in red above indicate immaturity.Just an opinion mind.

As for terminology, if you aren't correct in your communication then communication fails.Communication alters not neccessarily fails


I love discussions...especially the ones where I might learn something.

With regard to the ballsup, there was no implication; a ballsup could only exist if you were competent.Really?
Prufrock.

ps love your Maybach..!

[XC60MY12]

Hi XC60FanBTW the Getz is a good car....I bet its never broken down

Regards

New clutch at 48k. My daughter had borrowed it to go down to the borders for a course. We had a phone call asking for help (guess who didn't have Recovery!) Quick dash down the M74 on white charger (Qashqai). Took the Getz to a local indie who took one look followed by a sharp intake of breath. I nursed it back home with wife & daughter following. All the springs in the clutch were gone, repairer said he'd never seen anything like it. Sure it was coincidence and nothing to do with daughter's driving. Now only used for shopping, station and other short runs. I intend to run it into the ground to offset the depreciation :)

[volvorocks]

New clutch at 48k. My daughter had borrowed it to go down to the borders for a course. We had a phone call asking for help (guess who didn't have Recovery!) Quick dash down the M74 on white charger (Qashqai). Took the Getz to a local indie who took one look followed by a sharp intake of breath. I nursed it back home with wife & daughter following. All the springs in the clutch were gone, repairer said he'd never seen anything like it. Sure it was coincidence and nothing to do with daughter's driving. Now only used for shopping, station and other short runs. I intend to run it into the ground to offset the depreciation :)

Unusual for a clutch to go on a Hyundai at that mileage.Was it not under warranty?

How long do you intend to keep the XC for?

[foggyjames]

I hope no-one thinks I'm getting at them, or feels that I'm criticising them as an individual for doing things that might not make economic sense. Four years ago, I bought a car very cheaply...then spent 20x the purchase price on having a professional carry out rust repairs and a repaint...a cost which is probably circa double its market value. Was that a sensible thing to do, economically? Of course not...but I could afford it, and I wanted to do it, so I did. I'd not try to argue that it was a financially sound thing to do, though!

Anyway, I think we've said it all. I certainly didn't want anyone to feel got-at! :)

cheers

James

[XC60MY12]

Unusual for a clutch to go on a Hyundai at that mileage.Was it not under warranty?

How long do you intend to keep the XC for?

No, the Getz was about a year over. Not sure the clutch would have been covered anyway, particularly as it had been a driving school car.

I plan to keep the XC60 until it pegs out or I do. Either way I'm hoping for many years together. Mind you if there are some amazing advances in engine/fuel technology things could change. God always smiles when people make plans :)

[isleaiw]

I love this thread - probably because it just summarises some of the arguments I often have with myself (and my better half). I have bought new - from a 1992 Micra that I bought new with the intention of running into the ground, or a couple of Jeeps bought new because I could, or a Golf GTi bought new when I opted out of the company car scheme because the four year old 306 GTi I'd first bought proved something less than reliable, to the S40 1.8 bought new in 1998 because the 850 estate I had bought as the family car was proving too big to use as a second car when a change of jobs changed circumstances and no one would give decent money for the estate except the VOlvo dealer we bought it from who gave us a great deal against the S40.... I have also bought nearly new to save depreciation. And I have bought at 6 years old and 4 years old thinking I could save even more that way!

I am now running an S60 bought at 3 years old and 30k miles 2 years ago. The problem is that when you do in excess of 35k miles a year in a car and you need it to work daily, there is no good compromise. PCP - forget it at that mileage, the GMFV is rubbish so the payments are high. Buy old - OK, but the chances of problems are higher and therefore the potential for no work (and therefore no pay!) is higher! I went for something in the middle - the 2 years have been pretty reasonable (just an annoying alarm issue!) but it will have depreciated 6k! Maybe I should spend 1k and swap every 4 months instead? Or buy 2 and have a spare for when the first breaks down....

Or just get a job near home (or a house near work...)???

Ian

[volvorocks]

I love this thread - probably because it just summarises some of the arguments I often have with myself (and my better half). I have bought new - from a 1992 Micra that I bought new with the intention of running into the ground, or a couple of Jeeps bought new because I could, or a Golf GTi bought new when I opted out of the company car scheme because the four year old 306 GTi I'd first bought proved something less than reliable, to the S40 1.8 bought new in 1998 because the 850 estate I had bought as the family car was proving too big to use as a second car when a change of jobs changed circumstances and no one would give decent money for the estate except the VOlvo dealer we bought it from who gave us a great deal against the S40.... I have also bought nearly new to save depreciation. And I have bought at 6 years old and 4 years old thinking I could save even more that way!

I am now running an S60 bought at 3 years old and 30k miles 2 years ago. The problem is that when you do in excess of 35k miles a year in a car and you need it to work daily, there is no good compromise. PCP - forget it at that mileage, the GMFV is rubbish so the payments are high. Buy old - OK, but the chances of problems are higher and therefore the potential for no work (and therefore no pay!) is higher! I went for something in the middle - the 2 years have been pretty reasonable (just an annoying alarm issue!) but it will have depreciated 6k! Maybe I should spend 1k and swap every 4 months instead? Or buy 2 and have a spare for when the first breaks down....

Or just get a job near home (or a house near work...)???

Ian

I tend to agree. Done the same thing myself.

[volvorocks]

I hope no-one thinks I'm getting at them, or feels that I'm criticising them as an individual for doing things that might not make economic sense. Four years ago, I bought a car very cheaply...then spent 20x the purchase price on having a professional carry out rust repairs and a repaint...a cost which is probably circa double its market value. Was that a sensible thing to do, economically? Of course not...but I could afford it, and I wanted to do it, so I did. I'd not try to argue that it was a financially sound thing to do, though!

Anyway, I think we've said it all. I certainly didn't want anyone to feel got-at! :)

cheers

James

Hi James (and all)

Ive quoted your post as I liked the opening sentence. It made me think.

I think your posts are very good and thought inducing and make for enjoyable reading ,and I for one do not take on board or suspect any form of criticism.

I was hoping mine were thought inducing too although maybe some people misunderstood and thought perhaps I was inferring “my way or the highway”!! Maybe they were thinking I was saying “get an new car” or you are not worthy when simply I was pointing out that it is possible ( if one wants ) to get a new car for the same price overall as an older car. If one is spending loads on repairs that same cash can be applied to new( if one wants that is) Granted everyones situation is different and for a very low mileage per year person an old secondhand car does the trick. Its just when someone starts on the personal insults and aggressive verbage because they may be frustrated at anothers opinion or view due to their own inherent inability (or seeming inability) to communicate , that’s when things become less than pleasant.

Ive been pondering today as I find each and everyones views and opinions in these forums very interesting and certainly “food for thought” - hence why I say there is no right or wrong answer (taken literally unfortunately by one member!).

We were brought up in a moderately strict household in a rather nice house where one had to earn privileges as oppose to expect them or take them for granted. Mealtime was at set hours and grace was said prior and thanks given afterwards. I myself hasten to add I am not a religious person BTW! We went to private schools had a private education and by private I mean at times home tuition by a private tutor. Holidays were taken in Britain as it was the “right thing to do” Family life whilst by no means perfect was indeed more or less good and enjoyable.. We did things as a family. Simple enjoyable things like camping and playing board games. We talked. We respected each other.

However, and it’s a big however ,everything was “make do”. We were taught the value of money. Everything was bought secondhand and old from all the kids clothes to cars to chairs to tellies to carpets to fridges ( and probably if food could be bought secondhand that would have been too..lol). Nothing purchased could be too expensive it had to be value for money. If it could be patched up it was or made to last longer if it could. There had to be “mileage” in the product. If it was too expensive or deemed too expensive it wasn’t purchased despite the pleasure one may gain from such purchase. Holidays whilst thoroughly enjoyable were simple and cheap. They were value for money. As kids we yearned to travel to foreign climates. Food whilst served in large portions ( which we all had to eat by the way - no waste!!) was not exactly steak or lamb or anything fancy apart from the Sunday dinner which was an occasion whereupon we had to dress for such occasion. Our parents went without in order “ to provide for their children” .

Why…?????…Why did they go without - it was not necessary. They could afford to treat themselves. We would all have benefited. The " we went without to provide for you" (my brothers and sisters) was often repeated and was not good to hear as one tends to be induced into a "guilt trip" - to take on blame.

They could have bought better things simply because they could afford it. So why didn’t they? Why did they “go without” .

I believe it’s a mindset. I believe it’s a train of thought. I believe its fallout from the 2 great World Wars. Quite simply people pre and post war had different thought processes.. I do not like the phrase “Great World Wars BTW as war is never “great”

I myself personally never went without as a child as neither did my siblings, , there was always food on the table , clothes to wear , holidays to go on , and a great house to live in. Why do our parents have to go without when it is not necessary?

My mindset and thought process as a result is now slightly different. Our children are seen and heard. Their views are taken into consideration and have influence and bearing on family life - and whilst we as parents may not always agree with them,their views are respected nonetheless.Everyone is an individual and should be respected as such.

Have the best you can afford. You are worth it. Your family is worth it. What you buy to “entertain” yourself will probably provide joy for the rest of the family. If its old - enjoy - if its new - enjoy. Whatever “floats ones boat” They hopefully will enjoy it as you do. Spend 80% of what you earn. Spend 80% of your savings although always spend wisely. Never a borrower nor a lender be (if possible of course). If , for example , we go out for a nice evening meal and it happens to be £200 - so be it. If you can afford it - why not? Treat yourself once in a while. Give to charity and to those less fortunate than oneself and you will receive back tenfold. Treat your family too. Enjoy what you have .Live for the moment although always think of the future.

You see people I have been there done that. Ive had the old, Ive had the new, Ive had the borrowed although perhaps not the blue…lol .Ive had the old cars. Ive done the breaking down. I have the new cars too (and done the breaking down as well..lol). What suits one may not suit another. We all have choices and we are all individuals.

I fully understand almost everything you peeps have suggested in here ,Ive lived it , and whilst in part I may disagree or appear to disagree I fully respect your views just the same.

This is just my view thoughts and feelings and some may disagree with my views thoughts and opinions which is fine. However my feelings are personal to me and cannot be disputed.


Am I happy in 2011..? Yes I am most of the time although not always.

Thanks to all for your input.

Its great to read .

Regards


Hi James (and all)

Ive quoted your post as it’s the last and I liked the opening sentence. It made me think.

I think your posts are very good and thought inducing and make for enjoyable reading ,and I for one do not take on board or suspect any form of criticism.

I was hoping mine were thought inducing too although maybe some people misunderstood and thought perhaps I was inferring “my way or the highway”!! Maybe they were thinking I was saying “get an new car” or you are not worthy when simply I was pointing out that it is possible ( if one wants ) to get a new car for the same price overall as an older car. If one is spending loads on repairs that same cash can be applied to new( if one wants that is) Granted everyones situation is different and for a very low mileage per year person an old secondhand car does the trick. Its just when someone starts on the personal insults and aggressive verbage because they may be frustrated at anothers opinion or view due to their own inherent inability (or seeming inability) to communicate , that’s when things become less than pleasant.

Ive been pondering today as I find each and everyones views and opinions in these forums very interesting and certainly “food for thought” - hence why I say there is no right or wrong answer (taken literally unfortunately by one member!).

We were brought up in a moderately strict household in a rather nice house where one had to earn privileges as oppose to expect them or take them for granted. Mealtime was at set hours and grace was said prior and thanks given afterwards. I myself hasten to add I am not a religious person BTW! We went to private schools had a private education and by private I mean at times home tuition by a private tutor. Holidays were taken in Britain as it was the “right thing to do” Family life whilst no means perfect was indeed good and enjoyable.. We did things as a family. Simple enjoyable things like camping and playing board games. We talked. We respected each other.

However and it’s a big however everything was “make do”. We were taught the value of money. Everything was bought secondhand and old from all the kids clothes to cars to chairs to tellies to carpets to fridges ( and probably if food could be bought secondhand that would have been too..lol). Nothing purchased could be too expensive it had to be value for money. If it could be patched up it was or made to last longer if it could. There had to be “mileage” in the product. If it was too expensive or deemed too expensive it wasn’t purchased despite the pleasure one may gain from such purchase. Holidays whilst thoroughly enjoyable were simple and cheap. They were value for money. As kids we yearned to travel to foreign climates. Food whilst served in large portions ( which we all had to eat by the way - no waste!!) was not exactly steak or lamb or anything fancy apart from the Sunday dinner which was an occasion whereupon we had to dress for such occasion. Our parents went without in order “ to provide for their children” .

Why…?????…Why did they go without - it was not necessary. They could afford to treat themselves. We would all have benefited.

They could have bought better things simply because they could afford it. So why didn’t they? Why did they “go without” .

I believe it’s a mindset. I believe it’s a train of thought. I believe its fallout from the 2 great World Wars. Quite simply people pre and post war had different thought processes.. I do not like the phrase “Great World Wars BTW as war is never “great”

I myself personally never went without as a child as neither did my siblings, , there was always food on the table , clothes to wear , holidays to go on , and a great house to live in. Why do our parents have to go without when it is not necessary?

My mindset and thought process as a result is slightly different.

Have the best you can afford. You are worth it. Your family is worth it. What you buy to “entertain” yourself will probably provide joy for the rest of the family. If its old - enjoy - if its new - enjoy. Whatever “floats ones boat” They hopefully will enjoy it as you do. Spend 80% of what you earn. Spend 80% of your savings although always spend wisely. Never a borrower nor a lender be (if possible of course). If , for example , we go out for a nice evening meal and it happens to be £200 - so be it. If you can afford it - why not? Treat yourself once in a while. Give to charity and to those less fortunate than oneself and you will receive back tenfold. Treat your family too. Enjoy what you have .Live for the moment although always think of the future.

You see people I have been there done that. Ive had the old, Ive had the new, Ive had the borrowed although perhaps not the blue…lol .Ive had the old cars. Ive done the breaking down. I have the new cars too (and done the breaking down as well..lol). What suits one may not suit another. We all have choices and we are all individuals.

I fully understand almost everything you peeps have suggested in here ,Ive lived it , and whilst in part I may disagree or appear to disagree I fully respect your views just the same.

This is just my view thoughts and feelings and some may disagree with my views and thoughts which is fine. However my feelings are personal to me and cannot be disputed.

Am I happy in 2011..? Yes I am most of the time although not always.

Thanks to all for your input.

Its great to read .

Regards

[foggyjames]

Buy old - OK, but the chances of problems are higher and therefore the potential for no work (and therefore no pay!) is higher!
Well that's the thing...buy used wisely, and I don't think that's necessarily true. Especially if you buy new foolishly. Taking an overall average of all makes and models, I agree, but there are cars which buck the trend, and will give you serious mile-munching for very little money. A friend did 100k a year in a P2 V70 T5 (with a fuel card!) for a couple of years and just did routine maintenance. I did 28k in my V70R in a year (and was on track to have an even more trouble-free second year until I bought the D5) and it didn't let me down once. The closest it got was when the air mass meter failed. Luckily I know you can limp it home (and "limp" in an R is still fairly rapid) in that situation if you unplug the AMM...and at home I had a spare AMM I'd previously bought for £20.

If you have the luxury of space, having a back-up car is an option. My colleague who had the turbo blow spent nearly a grand having a garage fix it because he needed it fixing on the spot so he could get to work. If he had been able to spare it for a week, I could have ordered a rebuild kit (£70?) and done the job for him for £100 or so. The £700 saving would pay for a something cheap and cheerful to have on stand-by. I've occasionally thought of buying something smaller and more economical (Audi A2, etc?), and having a 940 both for back-up and for load hauling. Trouble is, I load-haul more often than not!

Of course this is all well and good if you're mechanically minded (and suitably motivated)!

volvorocks - your posts absolutely have been thought provoking. It's very true that people can be blind to just how much fuel they're throwing at inefficient cars. Some of my friends rant about this, but I don't think they gather just how much of a saving is to be made if you cover nearly 30k a year, opposed to 5-8k, say. If I only did 10k, I'd either be keeping my phase 1 V70R, or I'd have a phase 2...or maybe even an S80 V8.

cheers

James

[stephend]

@Volvorocks

Thanks for your long post, I can see a bit more clearly where you're coming from, and recognise some of the influences and your reactions.

A non-car example. There's a piece of equipment I use at work, and it has never worked properly. I've spent time and money trying to get it fixed, so far to no avail. I recently got the money to replace it with a brand-new unit, and in principle I can simply get quotes from three manufacturers, choose which I want and place the order. But... the equipment consists of some hardware and some electronics, and my hunch is it's the electronics. So part of me wants to try to check that that's true, and if so, just buy new electronics. Reasons: (a) why replace a perfectly good item, if it is perfectly good, and (b) I could spend the money saved on something else. But doing it this way means time and effort doing the diagnostics, and I might get it wrong - so it might be more cost-effective in terms of my time and productivity just to cut my losses with the old unit and buy all new. Then somebody else can play with the old unit if they want to... I'm currently trying to make my mind up how to proceed with this. And the reason for all of this indecision is, at base, an upbringing in which the throw-away culture was deprecated.

[lillia]

Ultimately, whether one buys a brand new car or a second-hand one (or "old" car as some people say) depends on a combination of personal preferences and circumstances. I like new cars, as to a certain extent much of the worry of maintenance is non-existent. However, as we have seen, that is not always the case. Older cars lend themselves more readily to owner-undertaken repairs and in my opinion, that is a good thing. The maintenance costs associated with newer cars that have an overload of electronics are more easily borne if a company is paying, rather than an individual.

From a cost perspective, I would say that it is better to buy a "new" car when it is three years old (with low-ish mileage) and perhaps sell it after three to four years. Unless of course you totally fall in love with it and want to keep it for longer. :thumbs_up:

My first car was three years old, but still had the new plastic on the back seats as the previous owner had not used the car much more than 16000 miles or so. It was very reliable and even though it only had a 1600cc engine, was really fast and responsive. I was in my first job fresh out of university and despite earning a very good salary thought it was unwise to get myself further into debt (had student loans) by buying a brand new car. All my other friends (well, the ones whose parents had not bought them spanking new cars as graduation presents) took out hefty loans buying brand new cars. Three of them wrote these off within months. Two spent many weeks in and out of garages getting various problems on their brand new cars fixed/checked. Courtesy cars were not a common phenomenon in those days.

Most of my subsequent cars have been leased company cars, in which case I have pretty much driven them from brand new. Until now, the best ones were a Volvo S60R, a VW Passat (believe it or not!), a VW Polo and an Audi A4. In that order. The worst ones were the new Volvo S40 (both normal and flexifuel versions) and a VW Bora (yikes). But before I bought my current car, my absolute favourite was the S60R. Come to think of it, I liked most S60s that I drove, the sportier the better. I've also driven several Fords, Toyotas, Hondas, a Nissan, a couple of Vauxhalls, a Peugeot and a Renault among others.

But my current car (02-reg) is my absolute favourite of them all. It's also the oldest car I have ever owned, as in bought with my own money. And the choice was down to personal preference and to me, common sense. I was initially just looking for something to use while I was in the UK (did not want to give Hertz any more money), but I did not want a car that was too common, and did not want one that would put me in debt. Affordable for me meant being able to buy it in cash. Most of all, I wanted a car that did not have a generic appearance. This was what put me off many of the newer models - it was hard to tell certain makes apart! Furthermore, I found many of the newer cars to be distinctly unattractive. The new BMWs and a fair number of Audis remain among the ugliest cars I have ever set eyes on. Not for love nor money was I ever going to buy one of those. :)

Having ruled out many possibilities, I was actually on the lookout for an S60 when I stumbled across this S80. Had always felt that S80s were a bit too big and unwieldy-looking. This was before I came across the T6. I walked around the car once, opened the driver's door and knew I was going to buy it even before I had taken it for a test drive. It's also the first automatic car that I have ever owned - I have driven automatics before, but have always sworn that I would never spend my own money on one. The test drive took care of that. By the way, I am not too keen on the shape/look of the new S80s either.

The funny thing is that although this car cost far less than many Fords, etc. of the same age, I am far better received by some people because of the make and model of the car - the snob factor, I guess. And people think I am wealthier than I am.

So far, expenditures have included normal service and a timing belt and recent breather box replacement which are standard for a car of this age, plus new tyres, mainly for my own peace of mind. In fact, looking over the receipt from the last service and comparing this to the Volvo service checklist, I realise that they did such a comprehensive job that apart from the oil and filter change, the only thing that may possibly need to be done at the next service is to change the brake fluid. I get fairly decent fuel consumption and the car is very comfortable over the long distances I cover. I recently offloaded the newer S60 (LHD) that I used in Scandinavia and the S80 has now become my main means of transport, both here and there.

I drove a brand new Ford Focus TDCi (manual) to and from Oxford last week and while the mileage was very good and the car was ok (much better than I expected), I could not wait to get back into my "old" Volvo. My sister was disappointed that I decided not to get the Ford (she has a petrol one, she also thinks the Volvo is too big), but the brief break just showed me how much I appreciated my old car. I intend to keep it for a while yet (the fellow who washed the car the other day and cleaned the interior thought it was new). This one will be a very hard act to follow!

[john h]

This is a very interesting thread with fascinating range of views.

To add my own perspective, I have run brand new, newish, old and very old cars!

I've now settled on the concept of running a retro-car as my daily driver. This suits me best and I avoid the costs of:
- Depreciation
- Expensive insurance
- Sealed/computerised components which can't be fixed

My old Merc was cheap (in comparison with buying a newish car) but in terms of build quality it's an expensive car.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn150/john164RS/Mercedes%20500SEL/015-2.jpg

In general, I'm not one for gadgets, but it has the three luxuries that I do value; ABS, power steering and air conditioning. (It has some silly things that I could do without, like electric seats, but I put up with that).

It does 15-20 mpg on LPG for which I'm currently paying 65.9p per litre, so my fuel costs are on a par with a small/medium modern petrol car.

Classic insurance is very cheap.

Mercedes-Benz can still supply almost any part for the car, although their prices are high. It's nice to have the back-up of manufacturer parts availability, but thankfully good used or aftermarket parts are readily available.

When I bought the car, it needed considerable recommissioning and catch-up maintenance, but that done it has been very reliable and never let me down.

It's not as fast or sporty as a modern exec car, but it's super comfortable and very happy to cruise at 120 mph on the Autobahn and I don't really need to go faster than that.

No airbags of course, but the strength of the car and it's well designed interior mean that I feel very safe in it.

On the downside, it is 25 years old, and there is always a few small jobs needed. But I don't mind this, because improving the car is a satisfying hobby and it increases my emotional connection with the car. (For people who aren't in a position to work on the car themselves, this would add to costs of course).

Most importantly for me, cars are far more than just a means of transport. I like a car to be a combination of transport, hobby and pet! The old Merc has a really strong character and - my vital test of a car - it makes me smile every time I drive it. The nice reactions it gets from other road users just adds to the pleasure.

Each to their own of course, but to anybody who fancies the retro car idea, I thoroughly recommend it. However, it's absolutely essential to buy on quality, not price, and to choose very very carefully to ensure that you get a good car.

John

[Prufrock]

The W126 is one of the all time great cars, and without a doubt still cuts a stylish dash today.

My family have owned Mercedes cars since the 1930s and we've had several W126s. The last, a 1990 300SE was inherited by me from an Uncle who bought it new - why did I sell that car?

I wholeheartedly agree with your ethos as it mirrors mine to an extent, I run two classic Mercedes during the summer months and two classic Volvos all year(and during the winter).

As you've said -

Low or even nil depreciation
Low classic insurance(with agreed value)
Style(very few moderns have style)

Modern cars are white goods; consumables.

Your post is refreshing, the thread had become boorish and tedious(sorry y'all).

I for one am shutting up on this one.

Prufrock.

[volvo always]

Hi Volvo Always

Great to hear about your volvo.

Those old tanks are built great although do you miss any of the niceties from the Corrolla?

Regards

Not much. The main thing I liked is the 50mpg plus of the diesel compared to the 30mpg of my 240. :thumbs_up:

It was an excellent car but I didn't have any emotional sentiment to it. The car before the corolla was a 1986 volvo 740 GLE estate, which was my very own bought first car.

James:thumbs_up:

[Moosejaw]

To return to the OPs original question...

Do you favour the stress free modern methods of fault finding, or do you prefer to get it onto Axel stands and have a good snoop around. Has your opinion of the modern car been changed recently, or vice versa for older cars?

I read On the What Car? website it's now possible to buy a new car without all the computerised gadgetry and built in obsolescence again...

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/lada-niva-review/259380

OK, so a lot of people would throw up their hands in horror, and I'm suggesting this more out of mischief than anything else but a seriously useful off-roader that will last a lifetime given basic maintenance might well appeal to some people.

[Prufrock]

BITD these were imported by Motor Vehicle Imports (MVI, an Inchcape subsidiary) and completely rebuilt in a factory in Bridlington before being delivered to the UK dealer network.

MVI also brought in the Tata Loadbeta pickup from India - same treatment in the Bridlington factory - early 1990s.

Thought you'd like to know that.

Prufrock.

[Diymanic]

well this thread gave me some reading lol.
as my name suggests im a hands on messer.
i buy old cars keep them till i can't fix'em.
my last few....
Audi A6 Avant 19tdi cost 1750 in 2005 with 165,000 miles on clock, 2011 still got it now done 250,000 miles.
done oil and filters myself every 10k had new discs and pads(padsX2) 1set of new tyres, and i put HID lights in to the projection headlamps it already had.
This car still has the Audi exhaust on!
Whats broken, 1 rear door lock loosing air pressure, fixed using a kids balloon.
Ho and the mpg ave,52.
Renault traffic van 9 seat minibus, paid 1000 pounds for it in 2000 scrapped it in 2010 (got 150 scrap)
did 60000 miles in it put on a set of tyres and pads, and a secondhand perheat unit for 30 quid
currently v70tdi paid 500 for it and had timing done 100 quid decided to keep it for at least 3 years so put new pads and discs alround (including hanbrake) then a set of tyres so its cost me 900 in total (or three months payment for a new car!)
Current mpg 44 from v70tdi
ps don't think a volvo v70 se estate is "slumming" it too much lol
euro box for me nah.
my attitude is that all cars will cost you money.....a good one costs you less!
leasing and private hp etc... their having a laugh....at your expence...big time.